You are the one asserting Mark is as bad as Pike. It is encumbent upon you to show proof.
It’s encumbent on me to show that Mark lacks technical knowledge??? I hope you’re not a corporate recruiter.
I can’t “prove” that Mark is not an expert on human spaceflight, anymore than I can prove he is not Mr. Mxyzptlk. All I can do is point out the lack of evidence for such things.
Mark is far more supportive of Commercial Space than Pike for starters.
Being “supportive of commercial space” (whatever that means) is not evidence of any knowledge. Mark could say he likes cars. That would not he’s an expert on auto mechanics.
Actually, it was you that remided me of that. Mark wasn’t even a party to this discussion at all and you had to go and pull hm in so you could make a cheap shot at his expense. Comparing him to ath soulless minion of orthodoxy Pike is just a little over the top.
Part of being an adult is just knowing when to not stir the shit-pot.
Whatever, Mike. Despite your literary histrionics, the fact remains that that neither Pike nor Whittington have demonstrated any technical understanding of the subject. They are “experts” only because they proclaim themselves to be, frequently and loudly.
That you hate John and like Mark is quite irrelevant. They both turn in the same quality of work.
You need to look up the definition of “objectivity.”
Ed is wide of the mark. Pike is kind of a has been. I’m just getting into my prime. In any case, Ed should look in the mirror when he complains of an overabundance of space policy ranters.
I’m not feeling it. It just doesn’t feel like the kind of bottom-up, sustainable program that will really help make humanity multiplanetary. Seems like, at best, another Apollo. Selling flags & footprints to the second-tier space powers.
Strange as it seems, NASA could turn out to be a customer for a lunar polar ice expedition, but there is a hundred thousand miles of bureaucracy between here and the destination.
[Golden Spike] aims to send paying passengers to the moon and back at an estimated price of $1.4 billion or more for two.
Of course we wish them well. They are targeting nations that want to be part of the lunar club without doing the work themselves at a lower cost than they could do themselves.
Of the 12 that have gone, how many have slept on the moon? It would be good for our species to increase that number.
How does this compare to other plans? Mars One plans to send four for $6b but that’s a one way trip compared to a round trip. So I’d say the cost for both plans are in line. Getting to orbit really is halfway to anywhere. But one gets you a new colony while the other doesn’t directly do that.
A colony requires many thing (not all just tech.) but mainly it requires enough people and a means of independence. I think that requires at least four dozen people (and the ability to birth more) so if this were a colony plan its cost for 48 would be… $34B.
Is Golden Spike too ambitious? In my opinion, they are not nearly ambitious enough. For $34b, I’d give you a good start on settlements throughout the solar system. The one on mars would be self sufficient the soonest, but with an annual budget of $1.7b (5% of $34b) I could fully supply 5 to 10 colonies from mercury to the asteroid belt.
Golden Spike isn’t interested in settlement. They’re a bunch of ex-NASA guys and politicians (Gingrich, Richardson). Government types. They’re just selling flags and footprints to the also-ran nations who can’t muster up the technical competence to do it themselves.
If Golden Spike has offered one word about ISRU, water mining, habitat building, or anything like that, I have not heard about it. And it could be great science too, seeing how crops might grow on lunar soil. But nope, no interest.
I agree. That is why I also think the prime nation they are targeting with this is the U.S.A. as a backdoor way to push for a lunar COTS.
But for any sustainable lunar architecture you need to start with the robots first, to prepare a site, process the fuel needed to refuel the lander (ISRU) and have a habitat ready so you may minimize the human lander.
Actually if you are smart the lander that delivers the robots and humans are one and the same with only different detachable modules placed on them, one to carry rovers, one for supplies and one for humans. Then you get to build up a track record landing the rovers and supplies before a human ever rides one.
You are assuming they actually slept during sleep periods. Regardless, it is shameful that after fifty years, only 12 have done so. I want to hear dreams dammit.
> That is why I also think the prime nation they are targeting with this is the U.S.A. as a backdoor way to push for a lunar COTS.
I don’t see it that way. At least not in the way that I’m defining COTS. You have to deliver enough equipment to the lunar surface to mine ice. Their lander is just too small. Still, even they just got NASA to purchase a number of manned science missions to the lunar surface, it might create interest in what else those astronauts could do besides picking up yet more rocks. That might be fine for the national prestige of other countries, but for the United States, I’m thinking that they would only purchase manned flights if it was part of establishing a permanent base.
So, who is this “John Pike,” that we should pay attention to what he says?
John Pike is to space policy what Mark Whittington is to space policy.
Space policy suffers from a surplus of people who proclaim themselves to be “experts” without having any understanding of the technology whatsoever.
Judging by all the articles they are getting their 15 minutes of fame
Ed,I know you and Mark don’t get along but that’s just dirty. You owe him an apology for a low blow like that!
Mark is far more knowledgeable than Pike!
Really?
Evidence?
Everyone ought to be careful here because you’ll be measuring this quantity by how many brain cells die per minute.
You are the one asserting Mark is as bad as Pike. It is encumbent upon you to show proof.
Mark is far more supportive of Commercial Space than Pike for starters. Pike is completely hostile.
You are the one asserting Mark is as bad as Pike. It is encumbent upon you to show proof.
It’s encumbent on me to show that Mark lacks technical knowledge??? I hope you’re not a corporate recruiter.
I can’t “prove” that Mark is not an expert on human spaceflight, anymore than I can prove he is not Mr. Mxyzptlk. All I can do is point out the lack of evidence for such things.
Mark is far more supportive of Commercial Space than Pike for starters.
Being “supportive of commercial space” (whatever that means) is not evidence of any knowledge. Mark could say he likes cars. That would not he’s an expert on auto mechanics.
Like Ahab and Kahn, you hatred overrides your objectivity.
Is that all you have, Mike? You believe Mark is an expert on spaceflight because he reminds you of a 19th Century novel?
Actually, it was you that remided me of that. Mark wasn’t even a party to this discussion at all and you had to go and pull hm in so you could make a cheap shot at his expense. Comparing him to ath soulless minion of orthodoxy Pike is just a little over the top.
Part of being an adult is just knowing when to not stir the shit-pot.
Whatever, Mike. Despite your literary histrionics, the fact remains that that neither Pike nor Whittington have demonstrated any technical understanding of the subject. They are “experts” only because they proclaim themselves to be, frequently and loudly.
That you hate John and like Mark is quite irrelevant. They both turn in the same quality of work.
You need to look up the definition of “objectivity.”
“You need to look up the definition of “objectivity.”
….and you ‘Irony’….
What an odd thing to say. But which novel? “War and Peace?” Or maybe “From the Earth to the Moon?” Or maybe something by Poe?
No, Mark, Captain Ahab was not from any of those books.
It appears your knowledge of literature is as solid as your study of space.
Ed is wide of the mark. Pike is kind of a has been. I’m just getting into my prime. In any case, Ed should look in the mirror when he complains of an overabundance of space policy ranters.
I’m not feeling it. It just doesn’t feel like the kind of bottom-up, sustainable program that will really help make humanity multiplanetary. Seems like, at best, another Apollo. Selling flags & footprints to the second-tier space powers.
Strange as it seems, NASA could turn out to be a customer for a lunar polar ice expedition, but there is a hundred thousand miles of bureaucracy between here and the destination.
Sooooo, how about that new Star Trek movie teaser, hanh? Hanh?
Sorry. Just trying to lighten the mood.
Golden Spike has a nice logo. I’d like it on a T shirt. Also a Blue Origin one.
[Golden Spike] aims to send paying passengers to the moon and back at an estimated price of $1.4 billion or more for two.
Of course we wish them well. They are targeting nations that want to be part of the lunar club without doing the work themselves at a lower cost than they could do themselves.
Of the 12 that have gone, how many have slept on the moon? It would be good for our species to increase that number.
How does this compare to other plans? Mars One plans to send four for $6b but that’s a one way trip compared to a round trip. So I’d say the cost for both plans are in line. Getting to orbit really is halfway to anywhere. But one gets you a new colony while the other doesn’t directly do that.
A colony requires many thing (not all just tech.) but mainly it requires enough people and a means of independence. I think that requires at least four dozen people (and the ability to birth more) so if this were a colony plan its cost for 48 would be… $34B.
Is Golden Spike too ambitious? In my opinion, they are not nearly ambitious enough. For $34b, I’d give you a good start on settlements throughout the solar system. The one on mars would be self sufficient the soonest, but with an annual budget of $1.7b (5% of $34b) I could fully supply 5 to 10 colonies from mercury to the asteroid belt.
Golden Spike isn’t interested in settlement. They’re a bunch of ex-NASA guys and politicians (Gingrich, Richardson). Government types. They’re just selling flags and footprints to the also-ran nations who can’t muster up the technical competence to do it themselves.
If Golden Spike has offered one word about ISRU, water mining, habitat building, or anything like that, I have not heard about it. And it could be great science too, seeing how crops might grow on lunar soil. But nope, no interest.
Brock,
I agree. That is why I also think the prime nation they are targeting with this is the U.S.A. as a backdoor way to push for a lunar COTS.
But for any sustainable lunar architecture you need to start with the robots first, to prepare a site, process the fuel needed to refuel the lander (ISRU) and have a habitat ready so you may minimize the human lander.
Actually if you are smart the lander that delivers the robots and humans are one and the same with only different detachable modules placed on them, one to carry rovers, one for supplies and one for humans. Then you get to build up a track record landing the rovers and supplies before a human ever rides one.
“If Golden Spike has offered one word about ISRU, water mining, habitat building, or anything like that, I have not heard about it.”
Golden Spike appears to be setting itself up as a transportation company. These things are what their customers will do, not Golden Spike itself.
Ken,
[[[Of the 12 that have gone, how many have slept on the moon? It would be good for our species to increase that number.]]]
Every one, since each mission had one or more sleep periods
You are assuming they actually slept during sleep periods. Regardless, it is shameful that after fifty years, only 12 have done so. I want to hear dreams dammit.
> That is why I also think the prime nation they are targeting with this is the U.S.A. as a backdoor way to push for a lunar COTS.
I don’t see it that way. At least not in the way that I’m defining COTS. You have to deliver enough equipment to the lunar surface to mine ice. Their lander is just too small. Still, even they just got NASA to purchase a number of manned science missions to the lunar surface, it might create interest in what else those astronauts could do besides picking up yet more rocks. That might be fine for the national prestige of other countries, but for the United States, I’m thinking that they would only purchase manned flights if it was part of establishing a permanent base.