The Great PJ Media Space Debate
PJ Media is pleased to offer this virtual debate between two nationally recognized space policy experts. The question up for discussion:
Does the Obama space policy provide an adequate path forward for the U.S. space program, and if not, what is needed to provide America with a space program that is really going somewhere?
The debaters are both frequent contributors to PJM.
Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism, and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings. He is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Dr. Robert Zubrin, a fellow with the Center for Security Policy, is an astronautical engineer and author of Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil. He is also the author of The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Simberg is in the lead-off position. He writes:
The New Space Policy is the Right Way Forward
Space policy has been in turmoil for more than a year, with the announcement of President Obama’s new space policy last February, in which Constellation, the flawed and unaffordable plan to redo Apollo, was canceled and replaced with plans to turn over spaceflight to low earth orbit (LEO) to commercial providers and refocus NASA on technologies to go beyond earth orbit (BEO).
It was the beginning of the end of an era that lasted far too long — an anomalous, half-century era for America, of government-centric human spaceflight with five- and ten-year plans, that was born in the panic and urgency of the Cold War. It had to end because it was both unaffordable in the new fiscal environment, and utterly ineffective in terms of actually sending people out to explore space in any significant way. It survived largely because of vestiges of national pride, and primarily because of the jobs it generated in the districts and states of the few politicians who cared much about it.
The new policy is not perfect. It was foolish of the president to dismiss the moon as somewhere we’d already been, but it doesn’t really matter where he wants to go, because if the policy is implemented, by the time we are in a position to go anywhere, he will be out of office and in no position to influence the destination. And the continued support for a NASA-developed heavy-lift Shuttle-derived rocket, driven by the need to maintain some of the jobs lost in the ending of the Shuttle program, will waste billions that could be expended more fruitfully on the in-space infrastructure needed to move anywhere BEO.
Fortunately, it’s unlikely to continue, both because Congress has neither authorized nor appropriated sufficient funds with which to do it, and because there will be a growing awareness that it is unnecessary. The recent announcement of a new vehicle being developed by Space Exploration Technologies, with almost half the capability of the Saturn V, at a cost per pound previously only dreamed of (a thousand dollars), and flying out of Florida within three years, will put a stake in its heart, and none too soon.
If NASA can get the funding it needs for the critical technologies of orbital assembly, automated docking, propellant transfer and storage, and, farther down the road, utilization of extraterrestrial resources whether from the moon or near-earth bodies, they will go much further toward opening up the solar system, and sooner than Constellation or NASA-developed rockets in general would have.
Back before it was derailed by Apollo and the need to win a propaganda battle in the Cold War, NASA had been the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), which had provided so much critical technology for the aviation industry from the twenties through the fifties, extended to space. If one reads its charter, to this day, human spaceflight is not mentioned. Now that we’ve finally ended that long detour and delay, it can get back to what it should be doing best — helping develop a vibrant commercial spaceflight industry that will allow its owners and customers to explore and develop space, with government help. This will include not just launch systems, but orbital transfer systems, and the infrastructure to support them and make them affordable, just as the Interstate Highway System helped generate the gas stations and motel industry in this country.
Once this infrastructure is in place, the entire solar system will be open to us in a sustainable way, for people to seek their own dreams, and not just those of government bureaucrats. Years ago, I had a signature on Usenet: “It is not NASA’s job to send a man to Mars. It is NASA’s job to enable the National Geographic Society to send a man to Mars.” That remains truer than ever, and the new policy is a huge step, finally, in that direction.
* * * * * * *
Dr. Zubrin responds:
The New Space Policy is a Pathway to Nowhere
It has been a year since President Barack Obama announced his new space policy. Since that time, NASA has spent something on the order of ten billion dollars on human spaceflight in order to accomplish nothing. This is not surprising. There were no plans to accomplish anything. Nor, if the plan remains in place, will anything be accomplished by 2020, after the expenditure of a further 100 billion dollars. The plan requires zero accomplishment, it aims for zero accomplishment, and it will deliver zero accomplishment.
If we want to again have a human spaceflight program that does accomplish great things, we need to look back to the time when we did, and see how NASA operated then. That was the Apollo era. The Apollo program worked because NASA had a definite goal — a real goal worthy of the space program of a nation constituting the pioneering vanguard of human progress, with a deadline attached to it requiring concrete action in the here and now.
Because it had a real goal with a real deadline, NASA was forced to come up with a real plan to accomplish it, requiring the building of real vehicles, enabled by the development of those real technologies really required to enable them. (I apologize for the repeated use of the word “real.” However it’s really important in this context.) Operating in this way — with goals defining plans defining vehicles, defining technology development — NASA reached the Moon within 8 years of program start.
Not only that, during the 13 year period from Kennedy’s speech to the final Apollo/Skylab mission, it successfully developed nearly the entire assortment of technologies needed to open the solar system to humanity, including hydrogen-oxygen rocket engines, multi-staged heavy lift launch vehicles, in-space life support, spacesuits, space navigation and communication technology, rendezvous technology, soft Lunar landing systems, reentry and landing systems, Lunar rovers, RTGs, space nuclear reactors, nuclear rocket engines, robotic space probes — the works.
It also flew, in addition to the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab human spaceflight programs, some 40 robotic space probes including the Ranger, Mariner, Surveyor, and Pioneer series, and did nearly all the development required for the Viking and Voyager missions as well.
All this was accomplished on an average NASA budget over the 1961-1973 period of $19 billion per year in 2010 dollars, essentially the same funding level as NASA has today, and has had for the past two decades. Yet while NASA’s robotic space exploration program — which has remained mission driven — has continued to accomplish great things, its human space flight program has neither gone anywhere, nor developed any important new technologies enabling it to go anywhere, for several decades.
It is clear that a mission-driven space program should be more optimal for actually accomplishing missions, but why should it be so much better at technology development than one that allegedly purports to be technology-driven? The reason is, that in the absence of a defining plan which identifies the required technologies, the “technology-driven” plan actually becomes a constituency-driven plan, with various communities lobbying NASA HQ or Congress for funding their own pet projects. These are not necessarily relevant, don’t fit together, and thus merely constitute a random set of time and money wasters that don’t enable us to go anywhere.
Several good examples of such pork projects are provided by Rand Simberg in his piece, where he says that the new policy will enable us to develop the “critical technologies of orbital assembly, automated docking, and propellant transfer and storage.” In fact, none of these technologies were needed to go to the moon in the 1960s, and none are needed to send astronauts to the moon or Mars today. In fact, the project of building an orbital propellant depot is not merely a huge time and money waster, such a program is harmful to any prospects for a lunar base because it will create a constituency which will want to require a lunar base program to make use of its services, which will drive it to a very suboptimal mission architecture.
The only reason why this project has been put on NASA’s plate is because it was the pet idea of one of the members of the Augustine commission, a politicized panel created by the Obama administration for the purpose of justifying its decision to wreck the Bush space initiatives.
Another example of the defective nature of Obama’s constituency-driven approach to random technology development is the decision of the administration to make a fetish of the so-called VASIMR plasma electric thruster, which has been championed by its inventor, Franklin Chang Diaz, a former crewmate of the current NASA administrator. In fact, VASIMR, while probably workable, offers no compelling advantages over ion electric thrusters which already exist, and neither offer any utility for human Mars missions without the development of large space nuclear power reactors to drive them. These, however, are not part of the plan, because nobody who wants them currently has a political inside track.
And even if we had multi-megawatt space nuclear power reactors (so that the VASIMR would not just be an electric rocket without a socket to plug in to), there is no evidence that nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) offers any clear advantage for accomplishing human Mars missions over the chemical rockets we already have. Indeed, using chemical rockets we can get a crew to Mars in 6 months. If realistic numbers are used for reactor and thruster weights, a one-way NEP trip would take at least two years.
Under the Obama policy, it’s not whether your technology is useful, it’s who you know.
To put the human space program into park (with the taxi meter running at a rate of $10 billion per year) while we waste decades and fortunes on such a scatterbrained assortment of makework/wastetime pet pork programs is insanity.
If we are going to have a space program that actually accomplishes great things, we need to have a great goal, and a schedule that compels action to achieve that goal in the real world of the here and now. The goal should be humans to Mars. The schedule for its achievement should be ten years. If we embrace that goal and accept that challenge we will then be driven to choose, develop, build, and operate systems and technologies that actually make sense, and which will get us to Mars before this decade is out. If we do not take such an approach, then another decade will pass, and a hundred billion more will be spent, and we will be no closer to sending humans to Mars in 2020 than we are today.
In the beginning, there was the Word.
The debate continues on the next page.
1. No mention of China? If you want peace you should prepare for the weaponising of space.
2. Forget men send robots.
3. Unless we achieve our socialist agrarian utopia, the resources of the moon will be needed. Once a robotic base is built, the unit costs will be relatively low. It is a lot easier to deliver from the Moon to Earth of course.
But, but what about Muslim outreach?
The exploration of space is a great thing, both the manned and the unmanned efforts. However, these are orthogonal interests. We have to commit longer term budgets and efforts over sustained periods. Such efforts will cost significantly more if funding efforts are unstable.
We need a coherent and stable policy like the Apollo missions had. It does not need to be as big. It does not need to be as lofty as Apollo. However, we can’t tolerate projects with incompatible goals, wildly varying management, and funding changes.
The problem with the space station is that it soaked up ridiculous money, didn’t have specific goals, and basically became an aerospace welfare project.
Have we developed vehicles that can be launched toward higher orbits? Have we developed a fueling station that can be used for Lunar or Martian missions? Have we attempted to visit the Lagrange points?
These are all reasonable goals for manned missions. We haven’t touched any of them. No wonder manned space exploration is such a big yawn.
1. The Obama administration’s “space program” consists of spending $19b/yr to let Holdren rail about global warming, and use NASA data to “prove” it- after he has suitably “massaged” the data, of course. And oh yes, to make Muslims proud of their “contribution” to space exploration- which mainly consisted of launching a few blackpowder rockets at Louis IX of France’s Crusaders during the Seventh Crusade in 1248. Rockets based on Chinese technology the Muslims got by their usual methods, i.e., they stole it. (Ref; Jean, Sire de Joinville, “Histoire de Roy Saint Louis”, 1268.)
This is roughly equivalent to modern math teaching methods that are less concerned with teaching children that 2 + 2 = 4 than teaching them how to “feel good about numbers”.
2. Mr. Simberg’s theory that once The One is out of office, he will no longer have an influence on our space policy shows a total lack of understanding of history. Eisenhower created NASA in 1958 out of the various military programs (Army, Navy and Air Force) as a purely “civilian” agency. JFK was the one who committed NASA to the Apollo Program, thereby short-circuiting Dr. von Braun’s long-term plan (See “Collier’s Committee”, “Across the Space Frontier”, etc.) in favor of a “hundred-yard dash” to Luna. And the decision of the Johnson Administration to develop the Space Shuttle, plus the decision of the Congress (led by William Proxmire) to “proxmire” the Shuttle’s original manned, winged flyback booster in favor of the external tank/SRB combination, plus the Air Force’s decision in favor of the heat-resistant tiles as heat shielding (for military reasons having nothing to do with cost, efficiency, or anything else), are why we are down two shuttles and two crews.
Decisions made decades ago continue to affect our space program to this day. To say that Obama’s decisions will no longer matter after he is off to the links and Doha permanently smacks of fantasy.
3. The idea of an orbital refueling point was first conceived by Arthur C. Clarke in the 1940s. Dr. von Braun considered it as well, in his original Mars exploration project proposal in 1949. Both later changed their minds, on the grounds that (A) for refueling in orbit, just sending up a second rocket loaded with propellants as cargo and executing the equivalent of a mid-air refueling from a KC-135 was cheaper and more efficient, and (B) if you really, really want a secure, safe, and really, REALLY high-capacity “fuel dump” in orbit around the Earth, the perfect place to put it is already up there.
It’s called “the Moon”.
And you can put in underground tanks there, of a type we already use on Earth, that our engineers already know how to build, and which can be as big as you like without having to worry about whether or not the superstructure will hang together. Yes, you have to lift out of a gravity well to refuel there, but at 1/6 G adding 1.3 mi/sec worth of propellants to the load takes care of the changeover. If you’re feeling really tight-fisted about reaction mass, you can always refuel your manned deep-space probe in lunar orbit; it’s like doing it in LEO, except lofting a cargo ship-load of propellants from Luna to low lunar orbit takes a lot less Delta-V.
Oh yes, and as a bonus, the discovery of water ice on the Moon means that if you want to burn liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (LOX and LH2 in rocket engineer’s parlance), you can always set up a cracking plant on the Moon and refine and process the local H2O to get it. Meaning that the operation is more or less self-sustaining without much resupply from Earth.
I have to give the “win” in this debate marginally to Dr. Zubrin. But I don’t think either debater really grasps the full disastrous impact of the present administration’s space policies. Nor do they grasp the fact that the disaster in the making is quite deliberate in planning and execution. Simply put, Mr. Obama, like most leftists, does not like manned spaceflight. Period. It takes money away from “vote-buying”, for one thing, and is high technology, for another- two things which leftists abhor on what passes for their “principles”.
Unlike most of his ilk, however, Mr. Obama happens to be in a position to throw a very large monkey wrench into same. Or more than one, and all with a stroke of a pen.
And is doing so with glee. Over and over again.
clear ether
eon
Rand Simberg’s response to Robert Zubrin, in defense of propellant depots, is: “To say that we will open up space without them is like saying that we should have had no gas stations on the interstate highway system, and should instead have had everyone drive across the country in a gasoline tanker truck, or with expendable drop tanks.”
Last I checked, Lewis & Clarke didn’t have the benefit of gas stations. Analogous statements could be made about Magellen, Columbus, et. al. Jefferson didn’t build a highway system – that was Eisenhower’s job. When it comes to space, we’re in the age of exploration.
I’m all for commercial interests vying for satellite launch and space tourist business. But NASA should be exploring. Robots aside (and they do have a role), that means sending men and women BOE. Mars seems like the reasonable next step.
Last I checked, Lewis & Clarke didn’t have the benefit of gas stations. Analogous statements could be made about Magellen, Columbus, et. al. Jefferson didn’t build a highway system – that was Eisenhower’s job. When it comes to space, we’re in the age of exploration.
Lewis and Clark didn’t start out on their epic expedition carrying all of the food and water they’d need for the entire trip. They took advantage of local resources along the way. In space, that’s a bit harder. Yes, there are resources on the moon and Mars that can be effectively harvested and put to good use. However, it’s irrational to assume that you must launch one really big rocket (because that’s the way Apollo did it!) carrying everything you need for the trip when there are much smarter and more cost effective ways to do it. Propellant depots is one of those ways.
No-one is saying there is a need to take everything in one large rocket. The claim is that, whatever we take, it is more efficient to launch a large rocket to get it there than to launch several small ones.
As far as resources available in space, In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) is probably the one single enabling technology that makes trips to Mars possible. The multiplication factors are huge when you need to take with you all the propellant needed for the return trip. Likewise, the multiplicative improvement achieved by generating the return propellant at your destination before sending people there is also huge.
Somehow ISRU hasn’t appeared on any of the “let’s just see what kinds of technology develop on their own” list. Which is exactly the point.
Am I happy NASA is losing it’s ability to inspire us with the ability to reach space? NO! However, I have always wished for the day private enterprise could participate and compete to do the things space enthusiasts dream about.
My dream of how space would be explored is based upon two books I have read. The first was the biography of the Wright brothers. On there own, they built the first airplane to successfully maintain powered flight. As they did so, the government had funded Sam Langley to the tune of $50,000. History records the Wrights succeeded with a budget of less than $5,000. ( Not in the book, but of note, was the developement of technologies still used in aeronautics today ) I read this in junior high before man had stepped on the moon.
The second book was Cities In Flight by James Blish. It remains one of my favorite books. I also think it would make a tremendous movie. One of the many points in the book was the unwillingness of government to allow space travel, let alone promote it. It makes a statements about gigantic projects ( not a good idea ) and the deterioration of society among other things. The book reinforced my developing beliefs as a young man, that ultimately the government is not inclined or suited for mankind to reach for the stars.
So yes I am mournfull of the diminishment of NASA. Yet I find hope that so many visionaries with funding are doing the things necessary for mankind to fullfill our destiny as a species of space travelers.
Ultimately mankind will continue to progress, or we will collapse into a less technological civilization. Freedom has always been a central part of space travel for me. Governments by nature will always be intrusive. The larger they become, the more intrusive. The ability to reach for the stars is the counter balance to a world of big government. America is great not because of it’s abundant resources. It is great because those who settled this country had a vision of freedom.
Look at the changes in technology from 1869-1969. As many will point out, there is still an amazing accleration of technology ongoing. I strongly suspect that the evolution in space travel will overnight become revolutionary as the core technolgies of space travel are uncovered. Mr. Blish’s book has a great story to tell regarding that.
NASA accomplished great things during the Apollo Program. Now, like the rest of our government NASA is a bloated bureaucracy primarily focused on its own survival. Driven as it is by politics and annual budgets, it will never again accomplish great things.
SpaceX on the other hand has accomplished quite a lot in a very short time, and Elon Musk recently stated that the company has a long term goal of flying humans to Mars. Dr. Zubrin’s book “The Case for Mars” is inspiring as are the two books mentioned by DVG93.
While there are certainly compelling national interests in having a strong space program, our politicians and the majority of voters who elect them aren’t likely to see that. So we should hope that SpaceX and other private ventures are allowed to proceed without government interference. Many may not recognize that we are in a new “space race” with the Chinese. Whoever leads in space in the future will control the future of the planet.
Simberg is correct.
Orbital refuel notwithstanding, being able to construct and manipulate big stuff in space makes solar power sats more affordable. We know how to make these and have known since the 70′s.
What we lack is cheap access to space. Solve the access cost (preferably with reusable hardware) and everything else falls into place. The DC-X project was moving along these lines. What NASA ought to be doing are X projects intended to solve certain problems, where you build the hardware tail #1, learn from it, build tail #2 with these improvements, and so on.
With energy prices being what they are, it seems to me that one laudable interim “real” goal is to make space pay and get solar power sats running cheaply. This would involve the same X project discoveries that refueling etc would be addressing and something we can use directly is the result.
What we lack is a way to manufacture and position in space solar panels that will ever generate more power than was necessary to get them there. Solar panels in space make sense for powering things in space, only because it is difficult to get power to such systems in the first place. 10 KWh on the ground makes sense for providing 1 KWh in space, but don’t expect to get back your full 10 KWh. If you want 10 KWh on the ground, it’s much more efficient to have the power generation be on the ground too, with fluids and plumbing vs. straight photovoltaics.
Why not put windmills in orbit too? That would make about as much sense.
We travel on Earth using private enterprise, but in Space only the Federal government can work?
Ninja, please.
When Americans go to Space, live in Space, work in Space, make money in Space – America is doing great things in Space.
Get this stupid “Federal Government is America” meme out of your heads.
+100
r. simberg:
“to demonstrate that democratic socialism was superior to totalitarian communism”
all collectivist methods are a fail when it comes to innovation
“all collectivist methods are a fail when it comes to innovation”
‘Tis true. On a lighter side, the joke is told about the millions of dollars spent by NASA to develop a pen that writes in zero-g. When faced with the same problem, the Soviets used a pencil.
But the Soviet “science” employed during the space race was actually an exercise in exploitation. Using the German scientists captured after WWII, the Russians put forth a space program but really didn’t do much else than allow the captured Germans to develop their dreams while being treated fairly well as they were valuable to the communist cause. Stalin knew this, as did Khrushchev.
When real innovation was required, the Soviets fell far, far behind. In fact, they still use basically the same rocket that propelled Gagarin into Earth orbit in order to sent capsules into space.
The Buran shuttle was an adaptation of US technology. They are innovative in that they can adapt existing technologies and substitute when costly materials are not available but inspired thinking and creativity are stymied. In fact, in Belenko’s book, “MiG Pilot” when the US got a look at the super secret MiG-25 he flew to Japan, American engineers were amazed at their mastery of miniaturizing the vacuum tube. In the 70′s the Soviets still could not develop solid state circuitry, which they now have, with our help.
Our lead in all things space is probably at an end, though I hope it’s temporary. I am divided between using federal tax dollars and letting the private sector do it. I would feel much better about private sector if the Hambone administration hadn’t put up so many walls to private industry and continuing to try to make us a third-world nation by spending all the money into the toilet intentionally while simultaneously destroying the existing space program to be a platform for junk science and favored research grants to support same.
Who cares? NASA has become nothing more than a welfare program for scientists, engineers and government contractors. Until our deficits are brought under control, we should significantly cut their funding. Putting a man on Mars is noble but won’t be worth the money expended, although it will be a political coup for the country that manages the feat. We need to be realistic and not continue promoting the fantasies of the curious, exploring, dreaming child in all of us.
All one needs to know about structuring space flight programs
was provided in the example given by Heinlein in ‘Stranger’;
A PC civilian bureaucratic scheme which took two years to put a
scientific expedition on Mars, where the crew all died, vs.
a military effort which boosted at 1G all the way, and completed
the mission in a month.
Polywell fusion has, as fallout, a very nice deep-space rocket.
So, as I understand this, the adults started NASA with definable goals (without which one cannot measure the failure of an outcome) and we got to the moon in ten years. Now the man child anti-Bush, er, space organizer in chief, runs NASA to achieve more equitable earth bound relationships under the rubric of Muslim outreach. Looks like a re-run of the Great Society programs in low earth orbit! Maybe we could call it the Great High? Or is that a too mind altering retro ’60s back to the future re-run? Oh, Apollo was unique and will not be repeated because of a circumscribed set of historical one only factors? Yeah, the Great War (WW1) was unique too, thought to be the war to end all wars at the time. How’ did that fantasy work out, chump? Remember WW2?
We should encourage and support commercial space ventures, but Dr Zubrin is right. With no clear mission, this administration is turning NASA into a science & technology version of Housing and Urban Development. Money goes to the politically connected and success is assured because success consists of nothing more than spending the money on random projects. In the process, NASA becomes not a science agency but a contract management shop (this has been going on for a while, but Obama’s “plans” are accelerating the process tremendously).
Who knew Zero’s 0 space plan would = zero. My pet project would be the development of defensive technology to defend us from the other loony- toons that wish to harm “civilized” people.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Zubrin destroyed Mr. Simberg.
There are many technological goals required to go BEO: high Isp propulsion with some Newton’s of thrust is one of those. Ion drives are a nice development, but they fail in many other ways: including that they wear out. VASIMR provides a “first generation” propulsion for real deep space capability.
Yes, it requires Nuclear power to be viable for “real” work BEO; this is one of the technological goals needed, but it has many other roles besides propulsion.
• Lunar base: any habitat on the moon is going to require power, and due to the lunar day, photovoltaic is out.
• Mining and materials processing: if you want to do any mining, or materials processing while you’re hanging around out there, it has to be powered by something. Again nuclear power is the answer: it’s not like we’re going to burn coal or oil there.
• Radiation shielding: if we send people into space for duration, they need to be protected from the radiation. There are 2 ways to shield personnel in space; some volume of material (water is the most likely) or something electrical (electrostatic, or electromagnetic). Which do you think would already be on a manned BEO craft being pushed around with first generation deep space propulsion?
• Earth based military: back here on Earth, besides the obvious need for power to replace the use of oil; there are the new military research weapons that are about to come on line: the Navy has railgun research underway with working prototypes, as well as ship based laser weapons. Lets also add the idea of missile defense, and its use of lasers that have been continually being worked on.
It seems to me, small, safe, easily operated nuclear power plants are a major technological goal, with payoff in many areas. There is potential in the Bussard polywell fusion reactor, but it’s still being researched, and it may not work. Understand, I want it to work, but I’m being practical here and acknowledging that a working fusion power plant has not yet been built.
My money to fill all these needs would be LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor). Thorium is abundant here on Earth, and on the moon. It does not require water to run, has inherent safety features designed in to reactor design, waste produced is much easier to deal with (less of it, much shorter half life).
It also sits nicely into the ISRU desires of many BEO efforts: we can mine it from the moon, use it to power the moon facilities, and supply BEO craft with the nuclear fuel used to go into deep space.
Those should be the 2 biggest goals NASA should focused on: high Thrust, high Isp propulsion, and the energy technology to power it, along with everything else.
Thorium is the future. It could be the near future…
Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling.
Stevens’ prototype systems exist today and are small and safe enough to use everywhere producing less radiation than a banana.
Do some research on “Space Exploration Technologies”. They have all the markings of crony capitalists with an inside track to the current administration. They contributed heavily to the Obama campaign. I do not trust them.
In 2 years, they will get a pound into orbit for $1000. This is a huge game-changer.
This debate is silly, because there’s a perfect way to split the difference. President just says: we’re putting a man on Mars sometime before 05:40 A.M. on December 14, 2022 (50 years after the last Apollo 17 lunar EVA), but we’re only worrying about getting there from LEO, to which privateers will haul our gear – and we encourage anyone to try to beat us.
I think that sending Obama into outer space would satisfy the need to see what happens when a human is sent to Mars on a one-way expedition as well as satisfying the need for a muslim astronaut. It’s a win-win. On the other hand, though a very worthwhile goal, it would actually be a waste of time and money. There would be no coherent information gathered from his incessant whining and blaming people (in spite of his being elevated to world-hero status) and he wouldn’t know how to work the technology, given his ignorance of the oval office communication system (AKA “telephone”).
Oh, hahahaha, yes!
AMEN! A fellow patriot with a great idea for getting rid of a traitor.
I’m sure Mars is a nice place, but I’d prefer to wave as the ship slingshots by enroute to the belt.
“develop the “critical technologies of orbital assembly, automated docking, and propellant transfer and storage.” In fact, none of these technologies were needed to go to the moon in the 1960s, and none are needed to send astronauts to the moon or Mars today.”
And what’s more, all of these technologies *exist today*. There’s no reason not to incorporate them in your plans Mr. Zubrin.
“It is clear that a mission-driven space program should be more optimal for actually accomplishing missions, but why should it be so much better at technology development than one that allegedly purports to be technology-driven?”
The mission driven approach would indeed be better *if* it used fair, competitive and redundant procurement of propellant launch services as it easily could. All technology development could flow from that – safely off the critical path – and be prioritised by market forces. Why don’t you support that?
“The per-pound cost of space launch decreases as launch vehicle capacity increases, so by shunning heavy lift for orbital refueling, the depot approach will increase the cost of interplanetary ventures.”
Are you the same Bob Zubrin who was involved with Black Horse? And now you’ve been reduced to advocating minor cube/square advantages of large launchers when the real gains are to be had by using reusable instead of expendable launchers or at least cheap mass produced ones? What would the Bob Zubrin of fifteen years ago have had to say about such pathetic gains, which will in all probability be swamped by the inefficiency of a pork-driven government project? Do you realise why you never got funding for Black Horse? A large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market in support of a mission driven exploration program would be your best bet for both cheap lift and manned exploration of Mars.
“Worse yet, it will greatly increase the mission risk, since the more launches that are needed to mount a mission, the greater the chance that one will fail.”
Ah, the old 1-(1-p)^n myth. Unless you stupidly design your mission so that it cannot accommodate a single failure (a la Constellation in other words) a failed propellant launch is not a problem. It’s only propellant after all. Use of EELVs and propellant transfer would *decrease* risk, not increase it.
“Moreover, an orbital depot needs to be in an orbit at a particular inclination to the Earth’s equator. If a high inclination orbit, like that of the Space Station, is used, this will further reduce the payload that can be delivered to it by any booster. If a low inclination orbit is used instead, access to the depot will be restricted.”
This is only an issue for HLVs, which is begging the question. In addition, the trick is to use both LEO and Lagrange point depots, initially probably only Lagrange point depots (or better yet, refuelable spacecraft instead of dedicated depots), which would be enough for moon / Mars missions. That will solve all your issues and it is highly preferable for a large number of reasons anyway. You cannot plead ignorance on this point.
“In addition, propellant delivered to an orbital depot will have to be stored in heavy thickly-insulated tanks, which are a waste of launch capacity and so disadvantageous for use on an interplanetary mission that duplicate lightweight flight tanks will also have to be launched, thereby running up mission mass and costs still further.”
Then use hypergolics. You will even gain some dry weight advantage by launching the spacecraft dry. If you use LEO rendez-vous with a separately launched EELV upper stage for efficiency you can transport the individual pieces to L1/L2, from where use of hypergolics will be acceptable. Use of small SEP tugs operating between EML1/2 and SML1 (proven technology for storable propellant) to preposition return propellant (a la Huntress’ plans of which you cannot be ignorant) will keep IMLEO and therefore cost acceptable, even if RLVs don’t emerge soon as a result of the large market for propellant launch services.
While I do not completely agree with all of Dr. Zubrins ideas I think you are being unduly harsh towards someone who has accomplished more in his life and seen more of this industry AND invested more of his heart and soul than you or most others ever will. I thought such behavior was forbidden or at least reasonably discouraged in posting here.
So we should keep the program going for elitist scientists “who (have) accomplished more in (their) life and seen more of this industry AND invested more of (their) heart and soul than you or most others ever will”? Are we talking about a welfare program for scientists? Personally, I thnk don’t need it. Reminds me of Jim Hansen and his global warming diatribes.
The Apollo program reminds me of Napoleon Bonaparte. He brought glory to France for a time, but when it was over, Europe was covered with “ashes and graveyards.” Apollo brought glory to the US, but economically, it was an utter fiasco.
Mars is a dead end.
What product will be produced on Mars and sold for a profit on Earth?
The energy is free and continuous, the small gravity-well resources abundant, and gravity itself is no longer present, to limit economies of scale.
Space is the place. Why waste all that money and energy getting out of Earth’s gravity well, just to jump down another, like Mars?
Perhaps because the human body requires gravity to remain healthy and possibly sane.
Perhaps because it’s a world that could be terraformed and settled.
Perhaps the all mighty “profit motive” is not the reason to go there.
Perhaps human beings are EXPLORERS with inquiring minds not calculators with legs.
Perhaps YOU would be happy as an asteroid miner but most of us want to be able to walk with “an” earth under our feet and some kind of a surrounding ecosphere instead of the sterile can of a space habitat and perpetual zero G.
Let me preface my statement with a bit about myself. I’m an amateur astonomer and have been since I was about 10. I went to JPL for the Jupiter flyby coverage. I love the idea of moving into space but there is a problem. What no one here seems to consider is; “What is the legal, constitutionality of the space program?” The federal government has a clearly defined goal, that is to protect the U.S. and it’s citizens from enemies. Not to control businesses, not to feed everyone or make sure everyone has shoes or a place to live or medical care. That’s not it’s job. The only legal, constitutional goal of the federal government in space is to protect us from aggressors who would use space as a means to attack us. Not to go to the moon or mars, not to explore space,etc., etc. The federal government has no business going to space for any reason other than that.
He who controls the “high ground” usually wins the battle. You could … technically … qualify everything we’ve done so far under “defense”. It would be a simple matter to substitute military personnel for the civilian ones or just to make them civilian contractors. If we leave space to other nations, we leave ourselves vulnerable.
Then all you have to do is establish a post office on the Moon and the Constitution allows the feds to build a postal “road” … Well you can’t lay an actual road so the road would have to be spaceroads to the Moon … BTW, the courts interpreted that clause to apply to railroads … Call it a spaceroad and you’re good!
Aside from that, the libertarian icon Thomas Jefferson didn’t seem to have a problem with sending Lewis and Clark out on an expedition. Information is vital to a defense … sending human explorers and robots when necessary out to gather that information is the best way to get it.
Zubrin and Simberg are both missing the point. Oddly they both accuse each other of doing so. At least Simberg is consistent – Zubrin flips and flops over the years – depending on the prevailing winds – and who he *thinks* is listening to him. Newsflash Bob: your 15 minutes were over a long time ago.
Short-sighted people look at the glory and excitement of missions to other places, but totally ignore the burden the U.S. Taxpayer bears. What do they get out of their $Billions? Pictures and pebbles. Oh sure, a couple of people will be able to claim that they walked some place new, but just like those who went to the Moon, no lasting value will have been created.
I come from a manufacturing background, so I have a little different perspective on what we should be doing in space. I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space, because if you do that, then you can do a lot more in space. Zubrin pooh poohs the idea of depots in space, but then again his dreams are for one-off missions like Apollo. But if your goal is to stay in space, and stay at the Moon and Mars, then you need to create supply and transportation infrastructures that allow a constant flow of people and material through and to space. If you ignore the cost of this infrastructure, then you’ll never be able to afford to establish and maintain a permanent presence in space.
Why? Because so far space exploration is an investment in the future, but has not provided tangible ROI for the U.S. Taxpayer. No minerals, precious metals or spices have come from space for us to consume, which is what expeditions of the past have usually relied upon to pay for their costs. So far we choose to invest 0.5% of our national budget because we HOPE something of tangible value will eventually be returned. Playing golf on the Moon or Mars is not that ROI, nor is pebbles and pictures or even “knowledge”.
So to me building up our capabilities incrementally is a good idea, because it allows us to build upon each new level of achievement. Commercial cargo should be online by next year, and commercial crew by 2016. Add in fuel depots and suddenly you don’t need a government in order to leave LEO. The trend is clear – lower the costs, and capabilities follow immediately. Ignore costs, and we’ll continue to stay trapped in LEO like we have for the last 40 years.
Space Cadet: Zubrin’s flip flopping and inconsistencies are common among followers of Lyndon Larouche – such as Zubrin.
Simberg makes excellent technical points. Its just too bad that his website is mostly filled with all that odd political nonsense he likes to spew. Zubrin’s personal attacks on Jeff Greason are unsubstantiated and uncalled for – but then again, this is Bob Zubrin we’re talking about.
The best advantage of orbital depots is that they allow us to engineer our way towards space exploration. If someone thinks they can use a space plane to get the stuff up cheaper than SpaceX, they are welcome to try. The depot can pay a flat price and let people compete on the cheapest way to deliver the fuel. I think heavy-lift is the clear winner but we could let the market decide.
But orbital depots are not required, at all, for a mission to Mars. You don’t get anything out of a depot that you didn’t put in it, and SpaceX is epxected to demonstrate in 2013 that it can put a pound into orbit for $1000 using heavy lift. We can throw things directly at Mars and let them land on Mars, and then assemble them on the ground. (Columbus didn’t try to build a massive boat in the middle of the Atlantic.)
I understand Dr. Zubrin’s fear that depots, if built, would become politically mandated for a Mars mission, even if they weren’t the best technology for the job. I have personally witnessed many people who think that their personal area of research (such as zero gravity) is required for a Mars mission. In a bureaucracy, there is nothing better than making sure that you are in the path of as many important things as possible. From an engineering process, this is madness.
SpaceX may simply lower launch costs so much that someone like China (or even Elon Musk) could directly fund a Mars mission. Two billion dollars is still a lot of money, but it’s as much cheaper the old reference mission of $30 billion was to the $450 billion plan that Bush 41 got handed.
Zubrin: 1. Simberg: 0.
Dr. Zubrin’s comments drew upon his knowledge and expertise in astronautics, while Simberg’s relied on analogies and rhetoric. I especially was convinced by Zubrin’s demolition of Simberg’s proposal for orbital fuel depots. He explained in clear, quantitative terms why the concept, if implemented, would be a waste of time and money. All Simberg could muster in its defense was the vacuous statement that trying to “open up space without them is like saying that we should have had no gas stations on the interstate highway system, and should instead have had everyone drive across the country in a gasoline tanker truck, or with expendable drop tanks.” Has he ever even read Zubrin’s Mars Direct plan, or NASA’s modified version of the scheme?
What neither of the gentlemen discussed here (though Zubrin has at great length elsewhere) is the potential social impact of humans to Mars. It would inspire a generation of future engineers and scientists, as was the demonstrable case of the Apollo program. Humanity’s long-term survival depends on its establishing other branches of civilization beyond the earth. We currently enjoy a window of opportunity in which to begin the colonization of the solar system. Mars is the natural first choice for a permanent extraterrestrial base. There is no guarantee that the will and the resources to enable us to branch out will be available indefinitely. We ought to take the initiative now to begin the settlement and commercialization of space.
Humans to Mars by 2020!
is like saying that we should have had no gas stations on the interstate highway system, and should instead have had everyone drive across the country in a gasoline tanker truck, or with expendable drop tanks.
It’s even worse — fuel depots don’t magically make fuel, so Simberg is arguing for a scientific advantage that doesn’t exist.
Pretend you had to get from LA to New York, and the only way was a 3000-mile long road. And there is nothing along the road right now. You have as much fuel as you want in LA, though.
You have a fleet of 60mpg car. It will only take you 50 gallons of gas to make the trip. But, your car only has a 25 gallon tank, and all other capacity is already spoken for.
Solution 1
You build a fuel depot at the midway point. But you can’t drive a car out to the 1500 mile mark and use its spare fuel, because it’s empty at that point. So you first build one at the 750 mile mark. Car #1 drives out there, using up 12.5 gallons, and leaving 12.5 gallons left which it uses to make a fuel depot. Car #2 follows, and it uses all the fuel left at the 750 mile mark to top off its tank. It makes it to the 1500 mile mark with 12.5 gallons left. Car #3 and car #4 do the same work as cars 1 and 2, respectively, and now we have 25 gallons at the halfway mark. So, finally, car #5 can drive 1500 miles, refuel, and then finish the trip.
Solution 2
You set out 5 cars at once, each with 25 gallons, total of 125. At the 750 mile mark, you have used up 12.5*5 gallons, so you have a total of 62.5 gallons left. Two of the cars drop out, giving up their fuel to the others. At the 1500 mile mark, you have used up 12.5*3 gallons, so you have 25 gallons left. You consolidate that gas all into one car, which finishes the trip.
The careful student will see that the only difference between Solution 2 and Solution 1 is the timing of the trips. In one, you launch them sequentially; in the other, they all go at the same time.
(Note in both examples I abandoned each intermediate car, and its driver. The lesson is the same if you require everyone to make it back in both examples, but this keeps it short enough for a blog comment.)
Which is better? It depends. If you only have access to one car at a time, you have to do Solution 1, but you also need to set up and maintain 2 fuel depots. If you have the ability to run 5 cars at once, Solution 2 is better.
The analogy for space is just building a bigger rocket. There are engineering principles here that go beyond the rocket equation; but what we see in general is that the bigger the rocket, the more efficient it is. The Falcon Heavy costs about twice as much as the Falcon 9 to launch, but it puts five times as much stuff into LEO. Now, there are limits to just how big you can make a rocket, but the Falcon Heavy clearly isn’t past that point. There’s probably room for at least one more big step.
Now, space planes (like Scaled Composites does with SpaceShipOne might be able to beat the Falcon Heavy, because they can burn oxygen for so much of their flight. Space planes may end up being like efficient scooters on our highway, able to go 200mpg, and even though they only have 1 gallon tanks, they could conceivably get you across the country for less fuel.
But you don’t need the space planes for Mars. The total mass for a Mars mission is beyond a Falcon Heavy, but that doesn’t mean we need to make multiple launches into Earth orbit and assemble the ship there. We can just launch multiple payloads at Mars.
But usually it doesn’t matter. To launch stuff to Mars, you don’t need to launch
Hit enter too soon, sorry. Omit the last paragraph and continue here:
In fact, for Mars missions, it’s often better to break up the launch into several steps anyway. The reference mission calls for landing an empty return vehicle on Mars before the crew ever takes off, which also allows it time to establish a base and process local resources. The crew would leave Earth knowing that a fully-fueled return vehicle is already waiting for them, and that it has already gone through and survived the most dangerous part of the trip: landing.
“Orbital construction” and “fuel transfer” sound cool, but we don’t need them for Mars or the asteroid belt. Maybe we’ll need them for Jupiter missions, or maybe we will have built enough stuff on Mars in the meantime that we can launch directly from there or the asteroid belt.
Engineers call stuff like orbital construction “a solution looking for a problem.”
Zubrin wins this one hands down. It is simply a case of Zubrin’s powerful clear thinking demolishing Simberg’s empty and tortured political rhetoric.
Ad Ares!
Mr. Simberg succinctly articulates the vision on which a practical space program can be achieved; it is grounded in reality. What is needed an approach that uses the strengths of NASA partnered with the United States private sector. In only this way can we achieve greatness.
Mr. Zubrin’s goal is admirable, but not only is fiscally impossible, it is fiscal insanity. NASA and the U.S. congress has proved to us all, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that only NASA can spend 11.1 billion dollars and only have power point, wicked cgi movies, and the world’s largest model rocket test to show for it.
The government is not made of money. In the coming years, yes, we will start slashing, not cutting, social welfare programs. We have to, or learn to speak Chinese. It behooves us all, now, to start the process of not just going somewhere, like Mr. Zubrin wants, but making a buck once we get there. No flags and footprints. When we get to Mars I want the first man off the lander not to be an astronaut, but a geologist.
We need to make space a place where people, corporations, can make money. If we could see the forest through the trees we would see we have an 18.5 billion dollar budget for space development through exploration. Mr. Simberg’s plan does this while Mr. Zubrin’s plan will not develop the things we need to hold our ground in space.
Apollo was great, but we couldn’t continue because it was fiscally impossible. Lets not make the same mistake twice.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
The prohibitive cost argument you make is not based on projections for the humans-to-Mars mission plan that Zubrin advocates. He spelled out his most current version of his original “Mars Direct” concept at the recent International Space Development Conference (ISDC) in Huntsville, AL. He calls is “Semi-Direct”. You can read a summary of it at the Mars Society’s website (http://marssociety.org). Relying on Space X’s cost estimates for its coming Falcon Heavy booster, Zubrin calculates that a mission to Mars taking place by 2020 that sends two astronauts for a stay on the planet of 1.5 years could be mounted for a “modest” cost falling within NASA’s current budget. You may be thinking of the so-called “Battlestar Gallactica” mission plans that call for on-orbit refueling stations, nuclear-powered spacecraft, and the like, none of which Zubrin supports or thinks feasible.
Dr. Zubrin is very explicit that he doesn’t want a “flags and footprints” mission. In fact, it was one of his biggest gripes about the 90-day plan. Besides taking 30 years and spending $450 Billion to get there, it would only put a man on the the surface of Mars for a few days.
SpaceX is soon to demonstrate the ability to lift 53 tons to LEO for less than $100 million. Three launches would be sufficient for a Mars mission, with no need for orbital assembly.
A Mars mission could probably happen for a billion dollars. That’s still a lot of money, but that’s less than a quarter of what NASA spent on the shuttle in each of 30 years.
I’ve been reading Dinesh D’Souza’s book; “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”. It is very disturbing and appears to be very accurate in it’s assessment of Obama’s motivating ideology, anti-colonialism.
So ask the question what does a mid 20th century anti-colonialist (Obama’s father, please refer to Obama’s book “Dreams FROM my Father”) think about the U.S. space program.
Answer; The U.S.(the evil colonial power) must be impeded so the developing world (victims) can receive the justice that is due to them.
Question; Do Obama’s policies fit this hypothesis? Answer; Yes they do.
Please acquaint yourself with D’Souza’s book you can read the Amazon.com customer reviews here;
http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/product-reviews/1596986255/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar
Zubrin: 0.9 Simberg: 0.9
I am fans of both because they both have sound arguments. I agree with Zubrin that focus produces accomplishments but dislike his use of a strawman to refute depots. This is ironic since Zubrin is a champion of ISRU and methane or kerosene are storable as opposed to hydrogen. 300s rather than 450s means a spaceship going to mars would require about ten times the ship mass in fuel. Easily done with existing components (Bigelow BA330s and a SpaceX upper stage.)
This gives you a fully reusable ship in orbit for any destination, but mars is the first place to settle because all the resources you need to survive are there and they will have to rely on themselves since earth will only provide a minimum of resupply.
NASA not needed. Small plots of real estate legally owned by individuals provide all the funding you need REGARDLESS OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION.
Allow any individual to claim a one sq. km plot with recognition in a registry. They can improve a hectare for resale with a habitat (water and power from privately owned utility companies) and one to three of Zubrin hobby farms (supplying enough food for 3 to 9 people.) That one km plot pays the entire cost of migration when sold off a hectare at a time assuming 1% profit over WHATEVER IT COST TO GET THERE. Every two years or so new plots will be ready for settlement from each prior settler. New settler can claim their own sq. km. in addition to landing on a ready to inhabit hectare.
Over time, costs will come down, but this is sustainable at current costs.
Life, Liberty and Property!
I should clarify. Assume it cost $20m per individual to arrive on the surface of mars with 360 days of supplies. They claim one sq. km. They then have up to 360 days to develop their first one hectare plot before their supplies run out. It should take considerably less time. Then they start work on their hectare plots for resale.
The new colonist pays $20m more or less to get to the surface of mars and now has a choice… Bring along 360 days of supplies and arrive in the same situation as the prior setters or… bring 90 days of supplies (900kg) and 2700kg of things martians will be eager to buy and have a ready to live in hectare for $500k more for a total of $20.5m and still claim one sq. km.
A settler may not develop all 100 hectares for resale, but they can give what’s left to their children (who can each claim one sq. km. for themselves until that runs out after the first 144 million colonists.)
Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all of us you really realize what you are speaking about! Bookmarked. Please additionally visit my site =). We will have a link exchange arrangement between us
Thanks on your marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back down the road. I want to encourage you continue your great posts, have a nice holiday weekend!
My partner and I absolutely love your blog and find the majority of your post\’s to be exactly what I\’m looking for. Do you offer guest writers to write content in your case? I wouldn\’t mind creating a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome web site!
We stumbled over here by a different web address and thought I may as well check things out. I like what I see so now i\’m following you. Look forward to looking over your web page again.
Everyone loves what you guys tend to be up too. This type of clever work and coverage! Keep up the very good works guys I\’ve included you guys to our blogroll.
Howdy I am so delighted I found your website, I really found you by accident, while I was researching on Bing for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say many thanks for a tremendous post and a all round entertaining blog I also love the theme/design, I donít have time to look over it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the great work.
Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you present. It\’s great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn\’t the same out of date rehashed material. Wonderful read! I\’ve bookmarked your site and I\’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Hey there! I\’ve been following your blog for some time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Austin Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep up the fantastic work!
I am really loving the theme/design of your blog. Do you ever run into any internet browser compatibility problems? A couple of my blog audience have complained about my website not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari. Do you have any solutions to help fix this issue?
I am curious to find out what blog platform you\’re working with? I\’m experiencing some small security problems with my latest blog and I\’d like to find something more safeguarded. Do you have any recommendations?
Hmm it appears like your blog ate my first comment it was {extremely so I guess I\’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I\’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I\’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any recommendations for rookie blog writers? I\’d definitely appreciate it.
Woah! I\’m really loving the template/theme of this blog. It\’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it\’s difficult to get that \”perfect balance\” between usability and visual appearance. I must say that you\’ve done a very good job with this. In addition, the blog loads very quick for me on Firefox. Exceptional Blog!
Do you mind if I quote a few of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site? My website is in the very same area of interest as yours and my visitors would certainly benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this ok with you. Regards!
Howdy would you mind letting me know which webhost you\’re working with? I\’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you recommend a good web hosting provider at a fair price? Many thanks, I appreciate it!
Very good blog you have here but I was curious if you knew of any community forums that cover the same topics discussed in this article? I\’d really love to be a part of community where I can get comments from other experienced people that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Kudos!
Howdy! This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I truly enjoy reading your blog posts. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that go over the same subjects? Thank you so much!
Do you have a spam issue on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have developed some nice practices and we are looking to swap methods with others, why not shoot me an email if interested.
Please let me know if you\’re looking for a article writer for your blog. You have some really good posts and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I\’d really like to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please blast me an email if interested. Thanks!
Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is fundamental and all. Nevertheless think about if you added some great photos or video clips to give your posts more, \”pop\”! Your content is excellent but with pics and video clips, this blog could definitely be one of the best in its niche. Wonderful blog!
Great blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog jump out. Please let me know where you got your theme. Thank you
Howdy would you mind stating which blog platform you\’re using? I\’m going to start my own blog in the near future but I\’m having a tough time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I\’m looking for something unique. P.S My apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!
Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Internet explorer. I\’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I\’d post to let you know. The style and design look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon. Thanks
With havin so much content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement? My site has a lot of completely unique content I\’ve either written myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my authorization. Do you know any techniques to help protect against content from being ripped off? I\’d certainly appreciate it.
Have you ever thought about creating an ebook or guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog based on the same subjects you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my readers would enjoy your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e mail.
Howdy! Someone in my Facebook group shared this site with us so I came to check it out. I\’m definitely enjoying the information. I\’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Superb blog and superb style and design.
Awesome blog! Do you have any recommendations for aspiring writers? I\’m hoping to start my own site soon but I\’m a little lost on everything. Would you recommend starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I\’m completely confused .. Any ideas? Bless you!
My programmer is trying to persuade me to move to .net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the costs. But he\’s tryiong none the less. I\’ve been using WordPress on various websites for about a year and am anxious about switching to another platform. I have heard good things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can import all my wordpress posts into it? Any kind of help would be really appreciated!
Does your blog have a contact page? I\’m having trouble locating it but, I\’d like to send you an email. I\’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.
It\’s a pity you don\’t have a donate button! I\’d definitely donate to this excellent blog! I guess for now i\’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to brand new updates and will talk about this website with my Facebook group. Chat soon!
Greetings from Colorado! I\’m bored to tears at work so I decided to browse your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I love the information you provide here and can\’t wait to take a look when I get home. I\’m amazed at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I\’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, fantastic site!
Hi there! I know this is kinda off topic however I\’d figured I\’d ask. Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa? My site discusses a lot of the same subjects as yours and I think we could greatly benefit from each other. If you\’re interested feel free to send me an email. I look forward to hearing from you! Excellent blog by the way!
Currently it sounds like BlogEngine is the top blogging platform out there right now. from what I\’ve read Is that what you are using on your blog?
Fantastic post but I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic? I\’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Many thanks!
Hello there! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could get a captcha plugin for my comment form? I\’m using the same blog platform as yours and I\’m having difficulty finding one? Thanks a lot!
When I originally commented I clicked the \”Notify me when new comments are added\” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service? Cheers!
Hello there! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvellous job!
Hello there! I know this is kind of off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this site? I\’m getting fed up of WordPress because I\’ve had issues with hackers and I\’m looking at options for another platform. I would be fantastic if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.
Hi there! This post could not be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this post to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You clearly know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
Today, I went to the beach front with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said \”You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.\” She put the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell someone!
The other day, while I was at work, my sister stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a forty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!
I was curious if you ever thought of changing the layout of your website? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?
Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam responses? If so how do you reduce it, any plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it\’s driving me mad so any support is very much appreciated.
This design is wicked! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog well, almost…HaHa! Excellent job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!
I\’m really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It\’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Great work!
Good day! I could have sworn I\’ve been to this site before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it\’s new to me. Anyhow, I\’m definitely delighted I found it and I\’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!
Howdy! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There\’s a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Many thanks
Hello, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, amazing blog!
Sweet blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I\’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Many thanks
Good day! This is kind of off topic but I need some help from an established blog. Is it tough to set up your own blog? I\’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I\’m thinking about creating my own but I\’m not sure where to start. Do you have any tips or suggestions? Many thanks
Howdy! Quick question that\’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when browsing from my apple iphone. I\’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to correct this problem. If you have any suggestions, please share. Many thanks!
Iím not that much of a online reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up! I\’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back later on. Many thanks
I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz answer back as I\’m looking to create my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thank you
Whoa! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It\’s on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Great choice of colors!
Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the images aren\’t loading properly. I\’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I\’ve tried it in two different web browsers and both show the same outcome.
Hey are using WordPress for your site platform? I\’m new to the blog world but I\’m trying to get started and set up my own. Do you need any coding expertise to make your own blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hi there this is kind of of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I\’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!
Hi there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers? My last blog wordpress was hacked and I ended up losing a few months of hard work due to no backup. Do you have any methods to prevent hackers?
Howdy! Do you use Twitter? I\’d like to follow you if that would be ok. I\’m undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.
Howdy! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers? I\’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I\’ve worked hard on. Any tips?
Good day! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with Search Engine Optimization? I\’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I\’m not seeing very good results. If you know of any please share. Appreciate it!
I know this if off topic but I\’m looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is required to get setup? I\’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I\’m not very web smart so I\’m not 100% sure. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated. Appreciate it
Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the images on this blog loading? I\’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it\’s the blog. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
I\’m not sure exactly why but this blog is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my end? I\’ll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.
Hey! I\’m at work browsing your blog from my new iphone 4! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the great work!
Wow that was strange. I just wrote an incredibly long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn\’t appear. Grrrr… well I\’m not writing all that over again. Anyways, just wanted to say superb blog!
Great items from you, man. I have consider your stuff previous to and you are simply too great. I actually like what you’ve acquired right here, certainly like what you’re saying and the best way in which you say it. You are making it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it wise. I can’t wait to learn much more from you. This is really a great website.
Bob:0.6, Rand:0.4
Bob got the way to go to mars NOW right, but Rand got the way to go to mars in the future right.