Spaceships that think

otherguy, Tulsa, OK — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:30:26 GMT

Just what we need is robots. I'll be the first to admit we do need progressive thinking, however, man is eliminating man. One of the automobile industries failures is robots. The working man has been replaced by robots but robots do not buy automobiles. The building of robots shold be more governored (eeeeck, more government) as a possible threat to humanity.

Spaceships that think

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:47:20 GMT

This is what is so critical in the design stage BEFORE you start building hardware like Orion. You need to know WHAT you want to do in order to know how you want to get it there. It may be determined that the exact type of moon base would require a seven-person space ship, not a four. It may be determined that instead of sending the entire reentry vehicle capsule all the way to the moon and back that we should consider some type of bulk cargo transit sled that only goes from low earth orbit to lunar orbit and back. The specialization of hardware breeds efficiency! Usually...

I like the idea in general of a sort of global effort and mini contests! It does sound idealistic but hey... what's wrong with that?

The VERY first question that I think needs to be asked is "Do we really want a moon base as opposed to a large lunar-orbiting space station that can sim. real Earth gravity?" I guess the main question in this is the effects of solar radiation and is it possible to perhaps hide a space station on the side of the moon opposite of the sun?

The next question I'd personally ask is how small of a personal space do people need so as to not lose their mind in such close quarters? The less space we give to people, the more we have to customize it with high quality built-in furnishings and entertainment systems. An enclosed king-sized bunk bed can be very decked out with features and desk space!

Once we establish the size of the personal and shared living areas, we then need to ask what size of a crew we need to do the type of work we want? If it takes 3 people just to maintain the ISS, will we need a dozen people on the moon just for maintenance alone? Once we know the personnel requirements, only then can we say "here is the type of waste disposal units we need, the type of space ship we need," and so on.

The India space effort seems to be off to a good start! I commend them on having their own space program! Weren't they supposed to be working on a air-breathing, single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, too?

Spaceships that think

colin, walnut creek, ca — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:33:41 GMT

Just as Portugal and Spain before, the United States and Russia created the environment wherein space exploration could be reaiized and explored to its fullest. And, like those other countries, the pioneers in space exploration will be superseded by nations on the ascendancy.

Spaceships that think

Larry Hughes Cincinnati, Ohio — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:36:54 GMT

I think Mohanty has some excellent ideas which appear to be more logical than many give her credit for. As I have stated before, exploration of the cosmos is definitely going to have to be a consolidated global effort by the business sectors of the world.This would naturally be a better cost effective program due to spreading the cost over many business interest.The plus side of this is these business partners may well realize a profit in the exploration of space due to new discoveries and minerals found on other planets and moons. I like to call it the exploitation of new worlds for profit. The government agencies are too encumbered with politics as usual and may well hamper our future exploration efforts related to specified time frames.Granted NASA in the past may have given us the Apollo missions, ISS orbiter, the Hubble telescope,and other programs but at prohibitive cost over runs.Actually NASA is quite antequated as far as really being on the cutting edge of new technology and procedures related to space travel.I fail to see the advantage of sending such an over priced and heavy space craft such as we have now to visit the ISS which I feel is a white elephant with very little use at present. Naturally I am in favor of robots in space for most of the work but do realize the quest with human presence is our driven goal. How ever, human presence in space given our present form in evolution is certainly not viable for prolonged periods considering our current form of protection or life substaining systems.Short term stays in space is about all that the human form can sustain given the obsticles we are faced with ( micro gravity,bone mass loss, solar radiation, gamma rays, etc). That is what makes smart ships, robots, and artificial intelligence so much cost effective for now. You do not need oxygen supply,food supply, waste disposal, life support, and safety protection from the elements in space that is harmful to humans. The cost is much less, the pay loads to get the first mentioned objects in space would certainly be much less in weight and size. Certainly a savings in life and expense will also be noted.I would also think these suggestions could get the job done as efficiently as humans for now. Mohanty's suggestion on combined efforts of youth groups and older engineers to consolidate their efforts in creating new science for the technology needed to explore space is a great concept. The one thing I find is the schools in the world ( USA really is falling behind here) must encourage more of the younger generation to pursue science education more vigorously than they do at present. I can recall as a youth, the guidance counselors of my generation tried to lead me any where but into the science fields.I also noted that in my daughters as well as their friends when they were in school. The camp answer the counselors always seemed to state "The science fields were not as rewarding financially as other fields like business administration, arts, or management". I think they might have been wrong.

Spaceships that think

Darnell Clayton, SC — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:59:36 GMT

These are all great ideas but I think the key is to make space relevent to the everyday person who is preoccupied with either war, gas prices or politics. If you just make space a place where "robots and scientists explore" then you will not capture the hearts and minds of young people (as you are competing against MTV, sports, etc.) But if you can say show how space can improve or make peoples lives even more interesting (say, a lunar olympics) then space begins to become relevent to all.

Spaceships that think

Ed Daniels, Golden Colorado — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:34:19 GMT

I think Susmita Mohanty is really on to something. Essentially, a huge proportion of the brainpower on earth is now connected to the internet. We could enlist several or even 1,000 people in controlling just one semiautonomous vehicle on the moon. That "committee" could pour over sensor data and set "policies" for the vehicle. Immediate real-time control wouldnt be possible because of the signal propogation delay and, probably, a committee decision isnt the best way to avoid a pothole. I think there is a lot to this, and, as she points out, it could be tested here on earth.

Spaceships that think

Ray Toronjo, Chonburi Thailand — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:58:14 GMT

Ed Daniels, color me skeptical, but as a veteran of both profit and non-profit operational and 'Technical-Challenge'groups, I'm not at all certain you can get 1000 or even 'several' people to voluntarily agree on a single policy for building a bird house much less a semiautonomous vehicle for the moon. It seems simply to not be in the human makeup to do so. Also equally skeptical of the basic premise, i.e. Mankind will reap great and tangible benefits from a moon base, I've not seen a single cost/benefit analysis that will stand in the light of day. What we have are many PHd and PHd candidates who wish for the thing, far fewer but equally interested corporate groups who wish for the MB and the lucrative contracts that will flow and very darn few people who question the cost of constructing and operating the moon base. Remember that money talks - all the rest walks. The ISS began as a big a dream as does the current MB fad and look where that thing is going. Nope, not for me. We are living on funds borrowed from our children's children and their children - let's get down to earth and get things done here. If we could solve just one large and pressing problem here on earth, such as global warming, growing problems with usable water and overpopulation - then I'd say yeah, let's shoot for the moon. Otherwise, let's clean up the place we live before we go anywhere. There are challenges here aplenty. rt.

Spaceships that think

Davin Hill Zephyrhills Florida — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:16:08 GMT

I see that you do have a point about making sure that there will be a earth 20 years from now. The only thing that I see wrong is the will to strive, explore and researching new things. I am about to start college and I am interested in aerospace engineering. It is depresing to read in the news about all my country's leaders bickering about politics and mudslinging. I want to see a future in space. I want to help design the new space carrier. Other countries' interest in space is growing. Should we halt at landing on the moon? I'm part of the younger generation and I want to see and help with the progress. Global warming can be left up to the politicians. (which will get nowhere.) Should America just be like "Hey guys we have too many problems, you guys go on ahead." We all should get together (countries in the space program) and do something.

Spaceships that think

vern gent — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:04:22 GMT

Why waste the space shuttle...equip it with solar arrays and use half the cargo bays for ion propulsion gas, and outfit the other half closest to the cockpit area for cargo/passengers. Then leave the shuttle in earth orbit to be a tug ship to ferry between earth and moon orbit. Use the Orion capsule to get passengers back and forth to the earth and earth orbit only, use heavy lift cargo only launch vehicles to get everything else up to earth orbit, then develope a pair of moon landers to ferry men and supplies back and forth from moon orbit and moon surface-- with one type of lander light for paasenger transfer only and one as heavy lift designed like heavy lift helicopters for cargo where the cargo containers are strapped to the landers' underbelly. This would be a specialized, flexible yet economic transport system.

Spaceships that think

Thomas, Calgary — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:45:57 GMT

Vern Gent: Your idea has one big flaw. Mass. All that mass of a shuttle would need solar panels and an ion engine from star trek. I don't know how anyone can downplay robotics in being the major tools of space exploration. We see the results again and again. The 'fluke" of the rovers extended lives continues to be major payback and has probably done 3 missions in one already.

Spaceships that think

Frank Glover — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:59:21 GMT

Even more importantly, the low thrust that ion engines provide (even the recent but very efficent Dual Stage Four Grid [DS4G] design from Europe), would mean any such vehicle starting from Low Earth Orbit would have to gradually spiral out to higher orbits like the moon or the Lagrange points...and that means spending very long times in the VanAllen belts, which would be *extremely* not good for living passengers... (and would take weeks to reach their destinations this way, in any case) High-thrust chemical (or nuclear thermal) rockets allow you to fly almost directly across the belts in short times, as Apollo and all deep space probes do. (Most solid-state electronics don't like ionizing radiation either, the faster and lower-powered it is, the less so.) Ion engines are best suited to orbital stationkeeping, and steady acceleration and deceleration during long interplanetary cruise, once escape velocity has ben reached by other means.

Spaceships that think

Chris E. — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:39:09 GMT

The only thing we have in space that's free that can be used instead of propellant would be energy. Weather it is a nuclear reactor or solar power, we must learn how to use energy to get us to where we neeed to go. This could mean the use of railguns or more than likely one of those spinning tether systems that fling cargo. All other options would seem to require fuel to be brought up from either the moon or earth.

Spaceships that think

Ram Vedula — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:26:46 GMT

It is an interesting and very ambitious project.. The idea is very good.. Go mohanty

Spaceships that think

Bharat Patel, Mumbai, Maharashtra — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:29:03 GMT

It will a good project,,,,no a great project. and really India will be a good place for you to start as it is developing in every areas and also it has self sustained space program. India has accomplished a lot in that program like sending 10 satellites with just one rocket and the best example is "The Chandyaan - 1"