Bigelow's bigger vision

Posted: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:24 AM by Alan Boyle

Seven months after launching its first inflatable space module, Bigelow Aerospace says the orbiting Genesis 1 module has proven itself to be surprisingly resilient and reliable. The North Las Vegas-based company has already hinted that the successors to the Genesis could serve as turnkey space stations, hotels or sports complexes in orbit - or even as pumped-up habitats for the moon and Mars. Now Bigelow is promising to be more specific about how it plans to make its space program profitable.

Here's the text of Monday's pre-announcement from the company's founder, real-estate billionaire Robert Bigelow:

"We will be making a very important and exciting announcement at the National Space Symposium on the week of April 9 in Colorado Springs, and we hope you will plan to be in attendance.

"For the first time, we will be presenting our business plans that we have kept to ourselves until now. This information that we plan to announce on April 10 at the Ball Aerospace Exhibit Center should help support the private space movement."

"We look forward to seeing you there."

Bigelow Aerospace

An external camera on the Genesis 1 module shows
the spacecraft and its solar panels with Hawaii below.

The timing is interesting, coming around the time that Bigelow is hoping to have its Genesis 2 test module launched from a Russian missile base. A variety of rocket companies - ranging from aerospace giant Lockheed Martin to upstart SpaceX - have been working with Bigelow to provide the means to get to privately developed orbital destinations. But it's anyone's guess as to how much the April announcement will add to what's already known about Bigelow's big vision.

One thing's for sure: For Bigelow Aerospace to follow through on that vision, it has to demonstrate the success of its inflatable-module design. And based on the latest report from design team leader Jay Ingham, Genesis 1 has provided a great demonstration already. The prognosis is that Genesis 1 could keep going and going in orbit for at least seven years more.

NBC News space analyst James Oberg passed along Ingham's assessment after referring to it in his own report for IEEE Spectrum Online:

"Since Genesis 1 launched on July 12th, 2006, we have been monitoring all of the on-board systems many times a day. After almost seven months of flight, we have been very pleased with the both the initial operational success as well as the continued reliability of virtually all of the onboard systems. We have had minor issues arise from time to time, but most all of them have been able to be resolved with minor software fixes or adjustments.

"We have seen no measurable degradation of the power generating capability of all eight solar arrays.
"Our original orbit of 346 miles altitude has degraded to 340 miles altitude. So, at this point we are predicting that the vehicle will maintain its orbit for well over 10 years before re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
"Our battery has not shown any signs of a loss of capacity, but from our use and recharge cycles we are currently calculating a life span of seven-plus years. This may very well be extended when the rate of use is decreased as we get more vehicles into orbit and our time is split between them.
"Our pressure levels internal to the vehicle have maintained exceptionally well, achieving lower leak rates than those that we have tested on the ground.
"Structurally Genesis 1 is in tip-top shape, from pressure data we can determine that the expandable envelope and pressurized structure remains perfectly intact, and from the numerous exterior photographs we download daily, we cannot detect any degradation of the orbital debris shield, or discoloration due to the elevated UV exposure we see in space.
"Internal to the vehicle we have had some problems with a computer that controlled several of the cameras, but all of the interior lights and fans and all of the other systems internal to the spacecraft remain in perfect working condition.
"This vehicle is passively thermal controlled, so the interior air temperature varies with the quantity of electronics we have operational at any point in time and the amount of sun exposure the vehicle sees. The internal air temperature has varied from [about] 40 degrees F with very minimal electronics in operation when we are in a maximum eclipse cycle, to [about] 90 degrees F with lots of electronics on when we are in the full sunlight portion of our orbit.
"Our avionics and communications to and from the vehicle have operated very well. We communicate with Genesis 1 several times a day (a frequency which is ever growing as we build new ground stations around the world.) There was a very severe radiation event (caused by solar activity) on and about the 14th of December of this year. We did suffer some minor communications problems during and after this period which required us to use our backup systems. This problem was remedied with a reset of our primary system. This was very encouraging to us that we could survive such an event and recover from it gracefully."

As Oberg points out, you can see Genesis 1 for yourself by looking up the coordinates on the Heavens Above Web site and pointing your binoculars at the specified patch of sky. But for an even better view, you can check out the Bigelow Aerospace Web site for Genesis snapshots and video clips from orbit. If the Bigelow team's projections are correct, there should be plenty more of those to come.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Pie in the sky is what this is. Starry eyed escapism is another way to describe it. Look, the reality is, it cost somewhere around fifteen-thousand to twenty-thousand Dollars per pound, to launch anything into low-Earth orbit.

To put it another way. It cost more to launch the Bigelow balloon into orbit, than it would to send the equivalent weight in gold.

The fact is, the cost of space travel is so high, that it will never be within reach of the common person.

So if you are one of those people who dream of travel to the Moon or Mars. You are going to have to keep on reading science fiction stories, or keep watching re-runs of Star Trek. Because it just ain't gonna happen, people.

John, Youngstown,OH (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:54 AM)

Thanks for this report. I hadn't seen so much detail before on how well Genesis I has been performing. Bigelow really seems to have hit a home run with this spacecraft. I hope future vehicles are equally successful.

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:35 PM)

John,

The computers on Apollo missions couldn't keep up with today's graphing calculators, and look at the price differences. I agree that in its current form, space travel is and will be too expensive, but when it hits the "critical mass" necessary to really spur things on, the combination of economies of scale and technological breakthroughs will bring it down so that it won't cost more than an intercontinental flight today (plus inflation, probably). I say (and hope) that if we keep imagining and keep the pressure on the spaceflight companies, we'll see cheap(ish) spaceflight within the next 20 or 30 years. Sign me up!

Dan, Glendale, AZ (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:39 PM)

"Pie in the sky is what this is..."

It cost somewhere around ten thousand dollars a ticket to take a Pan American Clipper flight to Europe in the 1930s.

Shall we conclude that airflight "will never be within the reach of the common person"?

"Prediction is very difficult, particularly about the future." - Niels Bohr.

There's something to be said for falsifiability. I see nothing in the cost argument against manned spaceflight that explains our actual, historical experience with commercial airlines, for example.

The commercial airline industry has never been a particularly profitable or stable business; it's too glamorous.

Many of them have been state-subsidized "flagship" carriers, and more here in the US have gone into bankruptcy, than are still in business, since de-regulation. (Source 1)

And yet, it's become an indispensible linchpin in the global economy. And has managed to lower the price of a transatlantic ticket by a factor of ten.

...and I'm quoting a ticket from *Los Angeles* to Paris. In the 1930s, I'm pretty sure such an air route never existed. (Source 2)

Carp all you want about the admittedly insane unit price to orbit, the fact is there's never been the engineering time spent on lowering this price, that there has been on lowering the cost of commercial air flight.

This "$15K to 20K a pound" figure is not written into the fabric of the universe - no, not even into the Rocket Equation itself.

You might want to think instead about who has an interest in keeping this price so high... that only a government agency could afford it.

Source 1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3679292/

Source 2 (quite interesting air route map!)
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/
ch3en/conc3en/img/Early%20International%20Air%20Routes.pdf

Edwin (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:49 PM)

All I have to say is, "I am proud of you people in Bigelow". Good Job!

KURT, Anaheim ca (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:26 PM)

I hope that Bigelow's business plan is to float off to the asteroid belts, become unmeasurably wealthy, and sail off out of the system to become the Masters of the Universe.

Matt, Burlington MA (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:49 PM)

"Pie in the sky is what this is. Starry eyed escapism is another way to describe it..."

They said the exact same thing about the Wright Brothers. How'd that turn out?

Ron Atkins, Kew Gardens, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:22 PM)

"So if you are one of those people who dream of travel to the Moon or Mars. You are going to have to keep on reading science fiction stories, or keep watching re-runs of Star Trek. Because it just ain't gonna happen, people."

"Anything that humans can imagine is a possibility in reality."
-Physicist Willy Karen

Nate (Sent Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:39 PM)

John, oh, John. Got any idea how much the original Amana "Radar Range" cost back in the early 50's? Got any idea how much an 8086 processor cost back in the early 80's? Got any idea how much it cost to buy a color TV or a stereophonic record player, or a VCR or a digital tape recorder when these products first hit the market? Have you compared these numbers to what these products cost now? If not, please do and then get back to us.

Sheesh, like you never were taught the economics of supply and demand . . . or the capability of motivated minds concentrated on a common goal. Where you been, boy?

Crudely Wrott, Dayton, OH (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:31 AM)

When cost is the only factor in deciding whether or not to use new technology, then progress would cease, and we would no longer be worthy of the classification H. sapiens sapiens. But then, if one were a total Luddite, one would not be using a computer, much less the internet.

I applaud those in the private sector who are trying to beat down the cost of space-related enterprise by pioneering new technology which will lead to lower prices across the board. Private enterprise (like Bigelow) would never even try to participate in a venture which showed no expectations of future profit.

A. Lisa Swuft, Lemoore CA (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:32 AM)

Before a man can walk he must crawl and then find something to hold onto to learn to stand. Before he can run he must be able to walk well and have a place to run to. To see far he must stand in a high place. If he wants to see farther than he can from the highest mountain then he must build. The people who say "It cannot be done" are always, in the end, the ones who stare bitterly at those who return, bearing the fruits and the pride of having indeed done it.

No, it is not cheap now, but considering the fact that we are still at the crawling stage in space, starting to reach for those things to bring us to our feet. Once these trials of different habitats, from Apollo, and Soyuz, to Mir and the International Space Station, and now to Bigelow's fantastic and apparently successful tests, can show us HOW to proceed from here, and once we have a reliable place to stand once we are there in space, then the people that want to get to space will find cheaper solutions to getting there, as indeed folks are doing now. True enough, it is expensive now, but cost and even danger has never stopped people from exploration, and probably never will. Mark my words, Mankind will be able to leave this planet, cheaply, and be able to undertake travel and exploration if he does not destroy himself first. This is the race which people of vision are undertaking, and making breathtaking leaps in the doing of it. Bigelow's successes are proof of that!

Chuck Sweet, Portland Oregon (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:26 AM)

The only problem with space habitats is the radiation. Might not the Bigelow system be expanded (pun) to include an outer shell filled with water to absorb some of the radiation?

Admittedly it's an expensive proposition to haul water into orbit, but humans need it anyway, so if it's to be a long term habitat why not use it for shielding?

Once AC Clarke's space elevator is up and running, the surface to orbit price will tumble.

JC, Riverton, CT (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:40 AM)

It is too bad that the first poster didn't follow the Spacex link. Their stated goal is to be the cheapest launch service available and it is being accomplished largely by redesign and standardization of parts. NASA provides a terrible example of how to get into space cheaply. Private enterprise will likely have the cost down to a level acceptable to (low end) multi-millionaires within a few years. It may take the influence of some additional innovations already on drawing board (air breathing launch stages, pre-launch accelerators, etc) to bring it within reach of the only moderately wealthy. By then the space elevator people will have time to drag the cost down even further. I have lost track of the number of fringe technologies that, after I said 'It will never work', have become mainstream.

Kudos to Bigelow for daring to think big.

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:54 AM)

Most of the response in here is about what I expected. If we could only mass produce rockets they would become 'cheap". Baloney. If space travel became the province of private enterprise it will be much less expensive. Baloney. Also, please stop comparing space travel with aviation. It is not a valid comparison. Can anyone name a truly profitable airline? I think not. Always we hear, that just over the horizon, there is this new wonderful technology about to make an appearance on the world stage. It never seems to happen. Remember Scramjets? Just a few years down the road we were told. Single stage to orbit spacecraft. Cheap access to space. Where have all these ideas gone? To the dustbin of history I believe. Which brings me to another point. Why send humans into space anymore? All of the benefits we get from are space program, weather satellites communications are products of the unmanned space program. What have we learned from nearly forty-six years of manned space flight? The answer I think, is space is no place for humans to be. It is such a unnatural environment for humans, that we can never hope to live there normally. In short, the future of space exploration lies in robots, not space-suits. Yes we need to explore space. However the notion that we will one-day live on other worlds is and will remain a fantasy.

John, Youngstown, OH (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:20 PM)

John-

I had to laugh at your comment, but others have pointed out the economics of the situation. Bear in mind that the design that Bigelow is working with is one that was abandoned by NASA. That's right - we were supposed to have a bunkhouse type module on the ISS, and very rapidly, the inflatable module was developed, but then dropped, no doubt as a 'cost savings'. Just like the original shuttle design, which was much safer then what we've got, because the additional features of the original design were dropped as a cost savings.

The folks who are building this stuff on their own, the Bigelows and the Rutans of this world are going to get us into space much cheaper then these corporate welfare programs like Orion. Look at Lockheed's original design for the CEV, and look at what NASA told them to build. Heck, look at most of the designs that folks came up with for the CEV project, and remember that NASA wanted an 'Apollo on steroids'. Son of a gun, that's what they've got, and I hope the the thing actually flies.

What is referred to as the alt.space crowd thinks they might get to the moon before NASA does, with a film crew to observe the Orion landing...

Stever, St. Paul, Minnesota (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:41 PM)

Heh, John, welcome to the ranks of those throughout the ages that have said "It can and will never be done." only to be proven wrong.

I look forward to spending some time onboard one of Mr. Bigelow's orbiting hotels as a layover on my trip to the moon and then Mars.

NASA and the other major governmental space agencies will never amount to much, they had their shot, in this day and age they're simply too risk averse to do anything even remotely resembling pioneering work.

Just as with the old west and that frontier it will take private individuals determined to blaze that trail to get us out there and once they do the path will be opened for the rest. God willing I sincerly hope for the chance to be one of those trail blazers.

David W, Monroe, LA (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:49 PM)

Poor John! He really stepped in it on that one! His prediction may not be ultimately correct, I hope, but he is right that the cost must come down.

Be it antigravity, a space elevator or three, or a completely reusable single stage to orbit spaceplane, the cost has got to come down just as airline tickets did. The cut will have to be significantly greater in proportion, though.

A thought, Alan, how about sponsoring a re-issue of A.C. Clarke's "Profiles of the Future"? I am sure that we could all use a review of the principles of prediction!

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:03 PM)

Great story! Much more detail than usual from Bigelow. Good job! But they are only pressurizing to 7.5 psi anyway. And just how long of an interval is there between re-inflations? Just because they say its holding air "better than on the ground" does not really mean anything. When they inflate to 15 psi and never, ever reinflate, then you really have something. Spacesuits and the ISS all leak a little bit over the long term. Also, running some kind of test, where you have a hull rupture and then have humans or robots repair it sucessfully, will really be the icing on the cake. The Bigelow architecture, with all the electrical equipment mounted on a central truss and with all the walls exposed for easy repair, is actually an advantage for Bigelow vs. the ISS in this regard. When TRW and GE did their space station architecture studies, they ran with the same approach. I have heard that Bigelow's upcoming announcement will "make everyone sit up and spit out their coffee." I can't wait to find out what Mr. B. has cooking! Bigelow's full scale module has around 20,000 cubic feet of internal volume. That is three to four times the internal volume of a single ISS module. There is nothing preventing Bigelow from manufacturing a module 100 feet in diameter and 600 feet long at some point in the future, using the same facilites he has now. Without a debris shield, it would weigh less than 50,000 pounds, the nominal launch capacity of a single Atlas V. Something that size is a start at what Gerard K. O'Neill was thinking about with his "Island Three" design. http://tinyurl.com/235vt2

Are we witnessing the birth of the "Space Colony" era??

Tony Rusi, seattle, WA (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:19 PM)

.
.

the ISS orbit is at 350 km. altitude and 51.63 degrees inclination:

http://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=25544

while the (33% scale) Bigelow's Genesis-I orbit is at 555 km. altitude and 64.51 degrees inclination:

http://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?
lat=0&lng=0&alt=&loc=&TZ=GMT&satid=29252

then, they runs THOUSANDS miles away ...so, I've just some "marketing suggestions" for Bigelow...

1. build as soon as possible a giant, FULL SIZE, really habitable and SAFE Bigelow module

2. launch the full-size module(preferably) BEFORE the Shuttle retirement in 2010

3. build it only with ISS-compatible docking ports/hatch and all support systems

4. launch it to the SAME inclination of the ISS but at a different altitude (450+ km.)

adopting that suggestions, the Bigelow module will be compatible with the ISS and (in some days/hours of the year) it will be very close to the ISS ...if Bigelow will do that, they may "hope" that (someday) one of the last Shuttles' missions (or one of the first Orion's missions) will reach it (when it will be 50-100 km. near the ISS) and/or (maybe) dock to it and/or (maybe) move/dock the Bigelow module to the ISS

of course, the probability that NASA and ESA will accept to dock (soon) a Genesis module to the ISS is minimal, but, if all Bigelow modules will always fly THOUSANDS miles away from ISS, that will NEVER happen (not even if NASA and ESA will accept to dock it) simply because move it (or move TO it) will be so complex and expensive to become IMPOSSIBLE

a further idea for Bigelow is to build a small inflatable module for the standard Orion (then, not a full capsule+module, that is too complex and expensive) like suggested in my BigelowOrion article here:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/016_BigelowOrion.html

the main problem to solve with a BigelowOrion is the design of the tower-LAS (Launch Abort System) ...however, the LAS can be moved to another position saving great amount of mass (to launch the Orion with smaller rockets) as I suggest here:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

.
.

Gaetano Marano - Italy (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:57 PM)

I'll take the projections of guys (Bigelow, Rutan, Musk) who are actually doing the work over any nay-sayer... anyday. History is full of myopic "experts" who claim this can't be done, that can't be done... and what they dismiss becomes common place. We've heard it over and over again. You'd think they'd learn.

JLR, Great Falls, MT (Sent Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:59 PM)

Some of the comments compared the private space efforts to early commercial aviation, implying eventual success and lower costs, just like the current airlines.

I suspect it will be more like the SST Concorde. Just like Concorde, there is a lot of early enthusiasm, people excited about the wonderful travel opportunities presented. Like Concorde, early efforts seem successful, but costs are underestimated and potential profits exaggerated. The "space tourism" industry may even fly a few passengers, just as Concorde did.

But economic reality will rear its ugly head, and eventually all these private space schemes will go bankrupt. Without huge government subsidies, financial failure will come a lot quicker than it did for Concorde.

CM (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:37 AM)

John, the skeptic, has some valid concerns. Manned spaceflight suffers from not having a proven destination that's worth going to - free-space, the Moon and Mars are all nasty places for humans. But there's resources Out There that make living viable, even if we have to make everything. Real problem is that there's no equivalent of new Homelands - as I said we have to make it all and our industrial technology isn't up to the task.

Sure, we can make stuff that'll work up there BUT it'll COST because the production runs are always tiny. But what if we had on-site industrial facilities that are light enough to take with us? Then colonisation - and real destinations for humans - becomes viable. Current rapid "prototyping" (read manufacturing) machines are the first inkling of what self-contained industrial facilities will be like and that's what'll make the asteroids, the Moon, Mars and just about anywhere else a site for human life - and ultimately a place to buy a ticket to.

Adam (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:21 AM)

When they rolled the first B-29 out of the factory in Seattle, the consensus of opinion of the "Johns" of the world was that it would never get off the ground.

Herc Foster, Naches, WA (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:46 PM)

Aviation is still maturing, really. What it is going through is growing pains. It has taken far too long for the needed advancements to come... but the current technology works, has remarkable capabilities... it just isn't effective enough, therefore future advancements will make the industry more effective.

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, Texas (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:57 PM)

CM wrote:

"I suspect it [ie. space tourism] will be more like the SST Concorde."

The story of the Concorde may not be so clear cut. It turns out that the Concorde made some $80 million dollars in profit in the last six months of it's service, even at discounted fares. (Source 1)

Nevertheless, CM offers constructive criticism. Skepticism is healthy, especially where business plans are concerned; it's too easy to buy into a "pie-in-the-sky" venture by reading into it the certainty implied by the romance of humanity's expansion into space.

The argument, however, is not so much what it would take to "bail out" an failing spaceflight initiative (Concorde, after all, was a showpiece project for Britain and France... much as the Shuttle is for the U.S.) as about the net benefit from founding new industries, based on affordable access to space.

Say the prospect of exporting gigawatts of electricity to the world, from solar-power satellites. (We're going to need some kind of major juice to supply all these mega-cities we're building over the planet, after all...)

The development of the aviation industry in this country is a great example of how public funds can return a tremendous net benefit to the country.

Google the "National Advisory Council on Aeronautics" sometime. This federal agency jump-started our aviation industry by doing tremendous amounts of basic research and putting this into the public domain.

It's informative to contrast this philosophy to the one underlying the manned spaceflight monopoly exercised by NACA's direct descendant - NASA....

While it won't make solar power satellites immediately, or bring in a few billion tons of strategic metals from an M-class asteroid, a series of self-sufficent industries could form the foundation for some private or even public initiative, which could do those things.

To sum up, while it is prudent to be skeptical about specific projects, we cannot ignore the very real potential of space industrialization, and to the macroeconomic net benefit it could bring to the United States and to the world.

Source one:
http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2003/0411.htm

Edwin, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:52 PM)

For CM: Concordes flew rather more than 'a few' passengers in the design's lifetime. And always remember, it failed economically, not technologically. And even then because increases in fuel costs *after* it was designed, and the unwillingness of users and their countries to allow overland routes due to sonic boom issues, not very many units were produced.

Spacecraft are not yet at the point where the cost of propellant *is* the driving cost, espically in NASA's case where the proverbial 'standing army' is needed for each shuttle mission. When we see the actual handful of support staff and equipment per ship of the sort in the DC-X program (as noted at the time, just as many would have been required to operate it, if it had been orbit-capable), as rapid a turnaround for another flight ('mission' will ultimately tend to be a less appropriate description), and a flight rate approaching that of commercial aircraft, we'll see costs come down dramatically.

Meanwhile, here's what we've seen last year in commercial space (including the established old guard). These folks seem quite convinced there's an economical place for humans in space, and are putting their money on the line...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ast/media/DevCon2007.pdf (.pdf file)

Frank Glover (Sent Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:34 PM)

Within two generations, I'd expect thousands of people will have their primary employment in space. There are too many manufacturing applications that will benefit from a low gravity environment for it not be be exploited. It will probably start with workers doing 3 - 6 month tours and expand from there as the inherent problems with extended habitation off-planet are addressed.

Following the workers, will be the service businesses. Where are there 1000 workers and no Starbucks or McDonalds?

This isn't "pie in the sky", this is good long-range business planning. Bigelow Aerospace is likely to be the leading provider of extra-terrestrial working/living environments. I'm off to see if they're publicly traded.

Tom Inglis (Sent Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:22 AM)

This I must admit, is just too much fun. It's like bringing a pin to a balloon party. But really folks, get your heads out of the clouds. Branson, Rutan,Bigelow, these people are wealthy hobbyists. Nothing more.

Manned, or human crewed space travel will always be a venture that cost a king's ransom.It is a matter of physics, not free market economics. The amount of energy needed to just orbit the Earth, is almost beyond belief. True NASA makes it look easy. But that is because they are so good at what they do. There is no way to do this on the cheap. You Nasa bashers need to re-think your position.

If there was a cheap way into space they would have found it.

I am not anti-technology, or some kind of Luddite. However, when looking toward the future we must confront the reality of this world. There are limits to what we can do. Like it or not this is how the real world is.

So if you still want to travel to Mars or the Moon, let me suggest you visit one of Nasa's many web-sites. The pictures coming back from are many space probes are beautiful. You see, I have no need to go to Mars in person. I have been there in a vitural sense. We all have. There is no need to spend a Trillion Dollars to send a handful of people there. We have been there for many years now with robots. There is simply nothing there that warrants a personal visit.

John, Youngstown OH (Sent Friday, February 23, 2007 12:30 AM)

John of Youngstown -- I, too, have walked the sands of Mars, have clambered up the lava flows on Luna, and swung round on Saturn's rings. I've seen the Pillars of Creation and looked into God's Eye. But the Virtual Image is not real, and I really want to go and touch the red sands with my own hands, feel the lunar crags under my feet, and with my own eyes, see the face of God.

Des Emery, The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada (Sent Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:37 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=54866

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG