American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-20 14:47:49

I don't really try to debate clark on this issue because the military has shown to be a great builder of technologies, so it really isn't debatable whether or not they can do it. Especially the US military, since that's where a very large percentage of taxpayer money goes.

The military has been working on replicative technologies (ie, 3d-printing) for instance. Instead of having to carry around new axels and so forth, you just carry a machine capable of creating axels. Such technology would put you aheard of any military without this ablity. And if anyone is capable of doing this sort of thing, it's the military. And this is the sort of stuff I've always been talking about, with regards to space, it just so happens that the military can make use of such technology. Ain't it a damn shame that technology is a double edged sword?

Another example. Though it's true that the interstate in the US was a publics work thing, it was also intended to for potential invasion, just as much. You want to have vehicles able to go from one end of the country in no time.

And I don't even have to mention how the internet started as a military thing (though we must credit acdemia just as much- the point stands).

I just hope clark is wrong, because humans can't be battling it out forever. I think the recent trend we're seeing with the dollar falling could suggest that the might of the US isn't as great as some would presume.

dickbill · 2003-05-20 15:52:50

Clark, you should be happy when I post in your threads. This is a fun forum here. Even if Mr Clark's topic are so serious that they deserve special treatment, you are not expecting Collin Powell to answer your posts personnally right ? You deserve it though, after all the links you have posted, I wish Collin Powell or some officials from NASA, or even Zubrin, would comment on this issue but lets face reality, in the new mars forum, all you can expect is answer by fun guys like me, more or less serious, more or less politically correct, more or less stupid.
I am sure many people read the forum just to know the latest about the devilish indians, and also the devilish aliens. But i promiss I will spare your thread now.

clark · 2003-05-21 09:59:32

The following is a link to a transcript on a briefing by the under Secratary of Air Force, Peter Teets. He made these comments in Feb. 2002.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002 … 207st.html

Under Secretary of the Air Force Peter Teets Briefs on Space Transformation

Presenter: Under Secretary of the Air Force Peter Teets Thursday, Feb. 7, 2002 - 1:02 p.m. EST

Our vision for national security space is one which takes advantage of the best we have to offer from both the military and the national space communities, and I intend to create an integrated national security space capability that's better than anything that we have today.
Shown on the left here is a chart that kind of summarizes our key goals to provide this nation with, first of all, universal situational awareness. And I'll just say, in universal situational awareness, that word "universal" has a temporal component as well as a spatial component. And I think what we've found is that in moving ahead with this war on terrorism, it's going to be important for us to have persistent intelligence -- universal in terms of time, but also universal in terms of space, and on the surface, under the surface, et cetera. And so, it's going to be important for us to develop some breakthrough technologies and implement techniques that use the best of both military and national systems to implement the mission, all, of course, in an effort to support the joint war fighting concept that has been so effective in Afghanistan.
It's important that this vitally important space asset be assured -- that is to say, that we have assured access to space -- and that we also are able to protect those assets. I think it vitally important that we have a cadre of space professionals that are dedicated to this mission, and I'm on a course to make certain that we have the best and the brightest involved in this national security space endeavor. We also need to integrate the cultures of our military and intelligence community space professionals. And clearly, our focus will be on mission success.

Q: Mr. Teets, you talked about new technologies. A layperson's question for the great unwashed, if you would. What are some of the -- could you give us some examples of the limitations now for gathering intelligence and other information from space, and what new technologies are on the horizon, the kind of thing you want to develop to address that?
Teets: I'd be happy to. One of the things that I think we've learned well from the conflict in Afghanistan is that while the intelligence collection capabilities have been excellent, we need to add persistence to the equation. That is to say, you know, satellites orbit the Earth every -- if they're in low-Earth orbit, every 97 minutes, or thereabouts. And you'd like to have more long-dwell. You'd like to be able to have a focused view of hot spots on the face of the Earth that is not intermittent, but more continuous. And that's what I mean when I talk about universal situational awareness. Universal has this temporal component. You'd like to know all the time what's going on around the face of the globe.

Q: Can you talk about organization -- how you're going to work within the building, NRO? Talk a bit about, if you could, about NASA, how you want to work with folks over there -- specifically, this idea of combining Air Force's RLV [Reusable Launch Vehicle] requirements with space-launch initiative. Where do you see that going over the next couple of months?
Teets: Well, I'm interested in exploring that whole notion with NASA.
I should say that I've had a note from Sean O'Keefe, and at the right time I'll be meeting with Sean to discuss that very question.
I know that there have been some wheels put in motion to see if we can't leverage technology, that they're -- they would leverage some from us, we would leverage some from them, in looking at RLV development. And I think it's very worthwhile to do that. I think it wise for us to have a partnership with NASA and help them in ways that are possible for us and vice versa.

Q: And also, can you give an overview, please, of your '03 -- at least your unclassified '03 budget request, and a quick sketch of some of the things you're looking at?
With respect to the FY03 budget, I think it's fair to say that the president's overall budget has been submitted to the Congress. We do anticipate some, in that budget, additional funding in '03. And we're planning, frankly, some additional funding in the out years as well. And I think it will enable --
You know, I'm not real comfortable with going through an overall numbers-kind of discussion at this point. I would say that it -- I believe that there will be significant -- additional resources applied that will allow us to do some additional research and development and execute a national security space plan that can meet the goals of the nation.

Q: Sir, you talked about a lot of good space assets here. I wondered what you think about the value of pursuing anti-satellite capabilities, like perhaps the Army's KE-ASAT [Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite] program or tests down the road, such as lasing satellites or looking at the use of directed energy in space.
Teets: Well, I think one of the real important things that we need to look at now is how we are going to protect and defend our space assets. It is clear that these assets are vital to our national security, and it's important for us to know at what point in the future will those assets be threatened in some way, and how do we see those threats developing and evolving, and then put together a plan that will allow us to protect those assets. I'd say we're very -- the planning for that is in its very formative stages, and so I can't give you a lot of detail or a lot of specifics on the matter, but I can tell you that I'd be happy to talk to you in another six or eight months and hopefully have a more definitive plan to discuss with you.

This isn't happening overnight.

clark · 2003-05-21 10:36:06

Here is a link to a transcript of a briefing regarding the role of space assessts to the US military. The transcript is lengthy, and almost all of it is informative. This was given in March of 2003.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003 … 12spa.html

Air Force Briefing on "Space: The Warfighter's Perspective"

Presenter: Maj. Gen. Franklin J. Blaisdell Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 10 a.m. EST

Let's talk a little bit about the advantages. And I've given them to you here somewhat up front. I'm going to go through each of them and give you really what space does for air, land and sea. It's a force multiplier.
And we're the number-one space-faring nation. We are extremely dominant. It's the ultimate high ground. And here is an opportunity to not only move from day-to-day operations but to continue to make a difference in any battle that we enter. Air, land and sea is used to working together and has for many, many conflicts. Space over time now has -- since Desert Shield, Desert Storm, which was really the coming-out portion of that -- has really made a difference. And you see it today in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. So an opportunity here to really make a difference.

This provides a pretty good perspective of the militaries view on the neccessity, and criticallity of space based assests for US dominace.

clark · 2003-05-21 11:08:31

Link:

http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/slaw/lawofwar.htm

The Law of War in Space
Printed in the Air Force Law Review;
Obtained March 13 2001

Air Force Judge Advocate General School
The Air Force Law Review

2000

48 A.F.L. Rev. 1

LENGTH: 62360 words

ARTICLE: Armed Conflict on the Final Frontier: The Law of War in Space
Major Robert A. Ramey*

* Major Ramey (B.A., Wheaton College; J.D., Seattle University; LL.M., McGill
University) is an instructor, International and Operations Law Division, The Air
Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He is a member of the
Bar in the state of Washington.

SUMMARY:
... ... Because these customary principles are codified in the Outer Space
Treaty, and the treaty has been ratified by all States currently active in
space, customary international law seems less important in ascertaining
principles applicable to future space warfare. ... For example, should
Colombia, Iran, Indonesia, or Yugoslavia acquire the means of space launch in
the coming years, all four being non-parties to the Outer Space Treaty, any
restrictions on such States' space activity that do not come from obligations
imposed by other space treaties will occur largely by operation of customary
international law. ... Further, as with the Outer Spon
Agreement requires that all activities on the moon be carried out in accord with
"international law," and that States bear "international responsibility for
national activity" on the moon. ...

This link contains information and interpretation of interantional laws governing the use of space for military applications. It also examines the restrictions, or lack of, in place for weaponizing space.

This will give you a good understanding of what limitations, or lack of limitations govern US militaries space based assests.

clark · 2003-05-21 11:32:42

http://taiwansecurity.org/NYT/2003/NYT-031403.htm

China Works to Put Astronauts in Orbit
By Joseph Kahn

(appeared in New York Times, Mar. 14, 2003)

But China's aims go far beyond low-earth orbit. Beijing is pursuing multibillion-dollar programs to construct a space station and explore the moon. Its scientists are energetically, if still dreamily, planning a colony on Mars.
China's Communist leaders are taking a page from the American playbook of the 1960's to spur technological advances, give China a place at the pinnacle of military power and bolster the popularity of a governing party that still faces enormous social and economic problems.
"Space technology does not belong to the rich countries alone," said Zhang Houying, a scientific director of the Shenzhou program. "In science there is only a No. 1, no No. 2. We'd like to lead in contributing to mankind." China's space program, controlled by the reflexively suspicious military, has long been shielded in secrecy. The program's managers do not disclose their budget, launch details or even the names of the 14 astronauts in training at a guarded complex outside Beijing.
But the country's top officials make clear that they intend to challenge the United States in space, where it has faced little competition in manned space flight since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Barring a quick breakthrough in NASA's review of what happened to the Columbia, the American shuttle fleet could still be grounded when China becomes the third nation to send its own astronauts into orbit, providing an extra jolt of publicity that the Chinese believe will add to the prestige of the mission.
Chinese officials also argue that the United States has wasted wealth and energy on the complex and inherently risky shuttle. That gives China, though still at least a generation behind in space technology, a chance to catch up.
China intends to reach the moon by 2010. Some here belittle the American moon landing in 1969, proclaiming they will do more than "plant a red flag and pick up rocks," as one space planner put it.

Many have argued that a only another 'apollo style' race can reinvigorate and reorient US space policy... something to consider.

clark · 2003-05-21 11:45:31

The following link is to the RAND organization- this is a think tank for the US government and military. The webpage linked lists the research projects slated for 2003. These are the current Air Force research projects for 2003, and it will give you a feel for what kinds of questions (and who wants to know) are being asked.

http://www.rand.org/paf/agenda03/aerospace.html

CONOPs for Command and Control of Global Task Forces

This project will help the Air Force develop command and control concepts to support the operations of task forces around the globe. The task forces will rely heavily upon persistent surveillance of key enemy forces, flexible and responsive reconnaissance of enemy territory, and instantaneous control of forces around the globe. This study will identify the information, command and control forces and capabilities, and plans needed well before a conflict begins in order to execute a timely and effective air and space strike.
Sponsors: Deputy Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters, US Air Force; Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Striking at Global Ranges: CONOPs for and Characterization of the USAF?s Next Long-Range Strike Capability

This study will help the Air Force develop concepts for employing air and space forces from the U.S. and limited overseas bases to provide the kinds of capabilities envisioned for the proposed task forces and thus define broadly the characteristics of the Air Force?s next long-range strike systems.
Sponsors: Deputy Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters, US Air Force; Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force; Air Combat Command/Directorate of Requirements

Denying Sanctuary to Adversaries: Concepts and Systems

This project will develop and evaluate alternative concepts for employing air power to deny an enemy safe operation of his forces wherever they might be. Defeating a very mobile, clever enemy is likely to require something close to "omnipresence"?that is, continuous surveillance of areas where mobile forces might be deployed or facilities from which fleeting targets might emerge, and ?shooters? ready to attack the fleeting targets before they can be employed or hidden.
Sponsors: Deputy Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters, US Air Force; Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force; Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Programs, Headquarters, US Air Force; Air Combat Command/Directorate of Requirements; Air Force Command and Control & Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center

Building a Global, Multinational Architecture for Position and Timing (PNT) and Implications for Global Positioning System (GPS) Modernization: An Initial Look

This study will examine a global architecture for PNT and evaluate the implications for GPS modernization. The Europeans appear to be committed to developing and deploying the Galileo PNT system. If this system is deployed, it may present both challenges and opportunities for the U.S. Air Force. Challenges include the need to develop concepts to protect U.S. forces from enemies who might use Galileo signals for targeting purposes. Opportunities include the use of Galileo signals to augment our own PNT systems.
Sponsors: Deputy Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters, US Air Force; Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force; Commander, Air Force Space Command

There are more...

Palomar · 2003-05-21 13:41:09

"China intends to reach the moon by 2010. Some here belittle the American moon landing in 1969, proclaiming they will do more than "plant a red flag and pick up rocks," as one space planner put it."

*Aw, is somebody jealous they didn't get there first? Let's see them put their money where their mouths are, then.

C'mon, China: Prove it.

And I think they are conveniently forgetting that technology has much advanced from 1969 (when the computer in the Apollo crafts had less "umph" in them than the computer chips that run today's toys). So OF COURSE, anyone should be able to do much more in 2010 versus 1969. That's a no-brainer.

To our additional credit, not one American starved to death while our men were being sent to the moon. Ahem.

"Glass houses," China...beware!

--Cindy

clark · 2003-05-22 09:03:07

I don't think people are still starving in China... if I'm not mistaken, I believe they also export grain now.

Then there's that whole Vietnam thing while we went to the moon... and Kent State... and the backlash against the Civil Rights movement... and a brush with nuclear armagedon...

I think we all live in glass house's when all is said and done.

clark · 2003-05-22 11:30:15

There is a current program called NAI (national aerospace intiative) that is designed to bring together various aerospace research performed by various US governments, to see what dual use technologies exsist and better leverage the different programs- this allows research programs to either merge, or reduce the amount of duplicative work.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/ncof/ncf_n78.htm

'National Aerospace Initiative' Pushes Dual-Use Technology
FRANK MORRING, JR. / WASHINGTON
Originally published in AW&ST May 20, 2002

The U.S. Defense Dept. is spearheading an interagency efficiency drive that could see hypersonic weapons technology evolving into air-breathing first stages for space launch vehicles. Ultimately, the push could extend into other dual-use items like sensors, communications and space nuclear power.

The U.S. Defense Dept. is spearheading an interagency efficiency drive that could see hypersonic weapons technology evolving into air-breathing first stages for space launch vehicles. Ultimately, the push could extend into other dual-use items like sensors, communications and space nuclear power.
In addition to hypersonics and access to space, the NAI will tackle in-space technologies like microsatellites and multifunction satellites. Sega said some NAI activities could be reflected in the Fiscal 2004 federal budget request that will be assembled this fall for release early next year. Although Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has suggested that the Defense Dept. pump funds into SLI to help NASA with its other funding problems (AW&ST May 13, p. 23), the NAI will not be funded by any one agency.
"There's been a history of NASA and [the Defense Dept.] collaborating in technical areas, and I believe it's the desire of both agencies to collaborate in areas that make sense," Sega said. "I think as we move forward on some of the projects that we have, you would see both organizations providing some investment."
While work on NAI is moving along--last week Sega's office organized a workshop to discuss infrastructure needs for NAI activities--planning for science and technology cooperation in two other "transformation initiatives" is less advanced. Ultimately, Sega's office plans to pull together federal efforts in surveillance and knowledge systems, which includes sensors, unpiloted vehicles, high-bandwidth communications and cyberwarfare. A Defense Dept. "tiger team" is already running an inventory on energy and power technologies leading to an all-electric force, and is talking to the Energy Dept. about fuel cell technology.
A cornerstone of the Bush Administration's plans for NASA is a push to develop nuclear sources for space propulsion and power generation, which includes both radioisotope thermoelectric generators and fission reactors (see p. 64). So far the Defense Dept. has not discussed possible cooperation in that area with the civilian space agency, Sega said, although discussions are likely eventually. "We just haven't gotten to that point," he said.

That last statement by Sega was made a year ago...

clark · 2003-05-22 11:35:09

Statement by Vice President Dick Cheney:

"The United States aerospace industry plays a major role in our national defense, economic growth, scientific advancement, and quality of life. The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry studies the issues associated with the future of the industry in the global economy and assesses the future importance of the U.S. aerospace industry for U.S. economic and national security. The Commission's findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress will greatly assist in the development of policies to support a robust U.S. aerospace industry for the twenty-first century. The country owes a debt of gratitude to Chairman Bob Walker and the Members of the Commission for their service to the country in this important endeavor."

A link to the Commissions website:
http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/

A link to their 300 page findings and reccomendations for the future of US aerospace:

http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/Aero … Report.pdf

And a link to a word document listing the nine comprehensive reccommendations (in case you don't feel like reading the 300 page report)

http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/rele … elease.doc

In its Final Report, the Commission recommends that:
1. The United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce, and exploration.
2. Transformation of the U.S. air transportation system be a national priority.
3. The United States create a space imperative.
4. The nation adopt a policy that invigorates and sustains the aerospace industrial base.
5. The federal government establish a national aerospace policy and promote aerospace by creating a government-wide management structure.
Aerospace Commission Final Report Page 2
6. U.S. and multilateral regulations and policies be reformed to enable the movement of products and capital
across international borders on a fully competitive basis and establish a level playing field for U.S. industry
in the global marketplace.
7. A new business model be designed to promote a healthy and growing U.S. aerospace industry.
8. The nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce.
9. The federal government significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace research in order to enhance U.S. national security, enable breakthrough capabilities, and foster an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system.

"The Commission was jointly established more than a year ago by an act of Congress that was signed by President Bush. Six members of the panel were appointed by Congress and six by the president. It began its work last November. "

Bill White · 2003-05-22 15:17:11

Okay - maybe I can add to clark's link parade.

Potential "Negation Policy" concerns non US nations.

clark · 2003-05-22 17:45:22

frightening.

Bill White · 2003-05-22 20:11:45

How about this?

"Pax Americana Cosmos"

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-22 23:14:31

I'm not impressed by most of clarks posts in this thread, I must admit. Am I the only one who sees most of this militarisation stuff as, well, silly spy or weapons related technology? Where are the military built biospheres on Luna? Why aren't they looking in to that? Where are the mass human launchers or whatever? Surely a military Lunar base would need ships capable of shipping lots of men in case of disastor (either war-time or accidental)?

Where is the long term sustainablity stuff coming from the military? If the military doesn't have this stuff, how can they reliably exist in space (with a human presence)? Sure, the military can do it, but I don't see it being done. Yet.

clark · 2003-05-23 07:56:38

I'm not impressed by most of clarks posts in this thread, I must admit. Am I the only one who sees most of this militarisation stuff as, well, silly spy or weapons related technology?

The silly spy and weapons stuff is the impetus for further development of space based infrastructure for operating in and out of space.

Where are the military built biospheres on Luna? Why aren't they looking in to that?

Because it is hardly a military requirement. I do not neccessarily belive that the military requires people in space to operate or do what it wants.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say they do need to put people on the Moon to support operations.

One, any military duty on the moon, or indeed in space, will be a short term duty of 6 to 9 months. Why? Becuase the debilitating effects of zero g or micro gravity. If this is the case, then having a 'biosphere' is not neccessary. The military only needs to resupply any human inhabited facilities with each rotation of the crew. I might also add that nuclear submarines can go 6 to 9 months between resupply.

Two, NASA has reoriented it's research goals- the whole 'enabling' thing. One of the focus of research is on bio-medical sciences to combat long duration zero-g. Remember, NASA and the military are collaborating with their seperate technology research programs...

Where are the mass human launchers or whatever?

Again, there has been no identified need for placing mass amounts of human in space. However, the OSP is being configured as primarily a human launcher. I also have linked previously to airforce research programs that are developing RLV technologies.

Surely a military Lunar base would need ships capable of shipping lots of men in case of disastor (either war-time or accidental)?

Why? I don't think we would ever use the Moon as a launch point for a human assualt on earth... that's a bit fantastic, and a stretch. Luna makes a better logistical base, which dosen't require lots and lots of 'warriors'.

Where is the long term sustainablity stuff coming from the military? If the military doesn't have this stuff, how can they reliably exist in space (with a human presence)?

Well then Josh, you need to now explain how you can honestly believe that we can colonize Mars then. ???

The Mars Society, and Zubrin, all point out that humanity has the capability to live on Mars, today. Yet you question it when I say that the military may build a base on the moon, on the grounds that it is technologicaly infeasible at this moment.

It dosen't add up.

I might also add that we have the technology, and ability, to inhabit LEO, yesterday. By the time they are ready to implement something on the moon, we will have had a decade of experience with the ISS and construction in space.

clark · 2003-05-23 11:55:11

In other news,

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030522232826.pitf1id8.html

Moscow to develop precision weapons: minister
WASHINGTON (AFP) May 23, 2003

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced last week that his country was prepared to develop a new generation of strategic weapons, but did not specify their nature.
Visiting Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Wednesday in Hawaii that Russia was prepared to cooperate with US plans to construct an antimissile shield under certain conditions.
Ivanov, now on a visit to Washington, said those conditions include guarantees neither country would use the defense shield against the other

Candian officals have signaled that they will take part in the development of the missile shield, as will Japan.

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-24 15:25:20

Well then Josh, you need to now explain how you can honestly believe that we can colonize Mars then.
The Mars Society, and Zubrin, all point out that humanity has the capability to live on Mars, today. Yet you question it when I say that the military may build a base on the moon, on the grounds that it is technologicaly infeasible at this moment.
It dosen't add up.
I might also add that we have the technology, and ability, to inhabit LEO, yesterday. By the time they are ready to implement something on the moon, we will have had a decade of experience with the ISS and construction in space.

I don't think my comments contridict the feasiblity of colonizing Mars. I'm merely saying that I don't see anything with regards to reliable colonization coming from this stuff you're talking about. A base isn't the same as a colony.

And even then, I think you made the point that the military doesn't necessarily require a long term, self-sufficient human presence in space. The point I was basically getting at with my very questions.

People here may mock me or snub their noses when I talk of self sufficiency, but I think it's dang necessary to last for any reasonable period of time in space (ie, without costing tons of money, and without risking the very lives of the people who are out there). If the military isn't talking about self-sufficiency, then the military is irrelevant in my mind.

That's actually what makes China's goals so scary. They have, indeed, outlined long term goals of self-sufficency in space. Whether or not they'll pull it of, is obviously another thing, but if the US wants a realistic presence in space, we will have to have similar goals in mind.

If China set up a base on Mars, it would have levels of military control, I do believe that much. The US presence on Mars would, then, also require a similar military presence. So the stuff I talked about, I think, would be absolutely necessary. Heck, your very posts make the point. One country gets better technologically, other countries follow suite. It's only a matter of time, assuming peace cannot be had and we continue to be petty idiots, before we ?need? to have to expand military capablity to Luna. We'd eventually ?need? craft to shuttle men around because we're fighting with China for resources, etc.

I might rightly think that the military is capable of achieving amazing goals, but I'm confident that right now, none of their goals help long term space colonization (with the exception of perhaps launch capablity), and it's still going to be up to orgainzations like the Mars Society to get any of this done.

clark · 2003-05-25 06:31:32

People here may mock me or snub their noses when I talk of self sufficiency, but I think it's dang necessary to last for any reasonable period of time in space (ie, without costing tons of money, and without risking the very lives of the people who are out there). If the military isn't talking about self-sufficiency, then the military is irrelevant in my mind.

Self suffiency is of course an ideal goal, but I don't believe we can learn to be self sufficient in space before we get there. We have to learn to live in space to see what the actual constraints are- and we need time in such a situation to explore all the various avenues towards greater and greater self-suffiency.

That means any near term human presence in space isn't primarily about 'long term habitation'. It's about seeing how long we can habit space- under what conditions, etc.

I might rightly think that the military is capable of achieving amazing goals, but I'm confident that right now, none of their goals help long term space colonization (with the exception of perhaps launch capablity), and it's still going to be up to orgainzations like the Mars Society to get any of this done.

Couldn't you conceive of a race where the nations of earth capable of placing humans in space do so so that the people in space are like them?

dicktice · 2003-05-25 11:41:22

Quoth Cindy: "And I think they are conveniently forgetting that technology has much advanced from 1969 (when the computer in the Apollo crafts had less "umph" in them than the computer chips that run today's toys). So OF COURSE, anyone should be able to do much more in 2010 versus 1969. That's a no-brainer."

Cindy: Sadly, launch capability hasn't advanced one iota, in the U.S. since Apollo. It's just as hard now as it was then. China will need to compete with someone (like India?) to keep going, when things get rough, e.g. like failing to return from Lunar orbit--in which case said competitor hopefully might be in a position to perform the first Interplanetary Space Rescue...?
Now, regarding "Omph" ... in computer chips? Oh, come now! I seem to remember Ann Sheridan advertised in the movies, as the "Omph girl" during the late 1930's to early 1940's ... but definitely none of THAT sort of thing existed within the IC-circuits of the three Apollo computers! And even if they did, having even more of it in today's chips won't make launching any easier, dear girl. Definitely a brainer--still.

clark · 2003-05-27 12:16:42

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 … -5190r.htm

Bush case on defense plan cites N. Korea
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Mr. Bush also says in the presidential order, known as National Security Presidential Directive-23, that his administration will develop a strategic "triad" of long-range conventional and nuclear weapons, missile defenses, and an industrial and research infrastructure.

The document says the missile-defense system to be fielded next year and in 2005 will include a combination of ground-based missile interceptors, sea-based interceptors and Patriot PAC-3 systems, as well as sensors on land, sea and in space.

The systems to be deployed for advanced missile defense include additional ground-based and sea-based interceptors, deployment of the Army's Theater High-Altitude Area Defense, and the Air Force's Airborne Laser systems.
Missile defenses also will include "a family of boost-phase and midcourse hit-to-kill interceptors based on sea-, air- and ground-based platforms," the directive says. It also mentions enhanced sensors and the development and testing of space-based defenses.

According to the directive, the United States will begin deploying an "evolutionary" missile-defense system next year that will be improved and expanded over time.
Mr. Bush says in the directive that because the system will evolve, the secretary of defense "shall update me and propose changes" as needed.
The directive also says the United States will build defenses capable of protecting both itself and its allies.
It orders the secretaries of defense and state to "promote international missile defense cooperation" within military alliances such as NATO. It also calls for the removal of blocks to cooperation with other nations and orders the two secretaries to issue a report by next month on ways to improve technology-sharing with allies.

"The new strategic challenges of the 21st century require us to think differently, but they also require us to act," Mr. Bush says. "The deployment of effective missile defenses is an essential element of the United States' broader efforts to transform our defense and deterrence policies and capabilities to meet the new threats we face. Defense of the American people against these new threats is my highest priority as commander in chief, and the highest priority of my administration."

Many researchers note that a missle defense system can be used for anti-sat capability. it can also be used to intercept a missle whose target is a sattelite.

It should also be noted that the current Alaska ground based interceptors were intended to be 'technology test beds', yet are actually being developed to be fully functional and 'working' as soon as the end of 2004. Expect the same logic to dictate the "development and testing of space-based defenses."

clark · 2003-05-29 10:02:24

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030528 … -4284r.htm

Another Op-ed appeared in the Washington Times, this time regarding Chinese ambitions in space and what this means to future US strategic concerns.

The piece is written by Robert S. Walker, former chairman of the House Science Committee, served last year as chairman of the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. He currently is chairman of Wexler and Walker Public Policy Associates.

Are the Chinese serious about human space flight? Most definitely. And they are interested in doing more than simply going to low Earth orbit. They are headed for the moon.
For most of last year, the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry looked at our nation's position relative to our global competition. Clearly, the Europeans are determined to challenge our preeminence in commercial aviation, and the challenge to our leadership in space is coming from the Pacific Rim.
The conclusion that the Chinese are engaged in an aggressive space program is my own, based upon the commission's findings, but not included in the panel's final report. hat we saw and heard during our year of hearings and investigation convinced me that China intends to be on the moon within a decade and will announce they are there for a permanent stay. An investment of less than 1 percent of their growth revenues over the next decade would provide revenue for a very robust program.
When the aerospace commission visited the Russian cosmonaut training facility at Star City, we found a Chinese crew in residence. Since the Chinese space program seems to be basing its technology on Russian equipment, the presence of Chinese in Star City was not all that surprising. But where they were training was.
The day we were visiting, the Chinese crew was utilizing the EVA (extra-vehicular activity) building. You do not train for EVAs if you are doing simple orbital missions. EVAs are typically related to space-based construction work.
Put the Star City experience together with some direct discussions on the Pacific Rim and the picture becomes clear. Many Japanese space observers are convinced that China has a moon program and that, ultimately, Japan may be drawn into the competition. India already has created its own moon mission, in large part because they are monitoring Chinese space efforts.
At my Washington office a few weeks ago, I met with a visiting Japanese parliamentarian who specializes in science and technology issues. I related to him my belief that the Chinese would be on the moon within a decade with a declaration of permanent occupation. He disagreed. He smiled and said my conclusion was accurate but my timing was off. In his view, the Chinese would be on the moon within three to four years.
Regardless of who is right about the time frame, and I still believe that even a decade is ambitious, the fact remains that the Chinese are devoting resources and gearing up to do something that we are no longer technologically capable of achieving in the immediate future. We went to the moon, planted our flag, gathered samples, took credit for an amazing achievement in human history and then abandoned the effort. The space technology available to us today could not be used to replicate what we did 35 years ago.
For many Americans, our inability to compete in a new moon race will not be important. Been there, done that. But for our strategic thinkers and planners, there are some serious questions that arise from a Chinese moon capability.
First, a nation with the technological capacity to do a sustained moon program would have achieved an ability to build, integrate and utilize spacecraft. Without even ascribing any hostile intent to such a capability, our strategic planners would have to acknowledge the profound impact on the balance of power.
Second, the Chinese have a long history of undertaking projects designed to enhance their national image. As the second nation ever to land humans on the lunar surface, China would attain international prestige. As the nation that establishes a permanent presence on the moon, the Chinese would have an ongoing international impact.
Third, as the nation in position to exploit moon resources, China could leapfrog the world in some important earthbound technologies. Scientists have acknowledged the usefulness of H3 in helping achieve nuclear fusion success. The moon appears to be a large source of naturally occurring H3, a commodity that would be of such value that the transport back to Earth would be economically feasible.
So far, there has been little recognition of or concern about the Chinese moon program in U.S. policy circles. But it represents a real challenge to our leadership role in space.
Our response to the challenge should be aimed not at another moon program of our own, but the development of technologies that would give us the option of several different missions within a decade. Building new propulsion systems, such as nuclear plasma engines, would provide us with the ability to go back to the moon, but also to go to Mars in a mission taking weeks rather than months.
The Chinese moon program appears to be a go whether we get back in the game or not. Space dominance is a 21st-century challenge we dare not refuse. The aerospace commission concluded that stretching our technological reach with new power and propulsion options and developing the capacity to get to low Earth orbit regularly and less expensively would help us hold our space leadership position well into the future.

clark · 2003-05-29 10:05:11

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030527/030527-3.html

News about tethers, which may lead to lower costs in accessing space.

NASA aims high with orbital transport system
Hi-tech ropes may replace rocket boosters.
29 May 2003
TONY REICHHARDT

NASA doesn't expect to see this kind of tether system demonstrated before 2010, but has awarded $4 million to four teams working on it, as part of a programme designed to foster innovative propulsion concepts. The technology, known as Momentum-Exchange/Electrodynamic-Reboost, will be evaluated over two years using computer simulations and other basic research.
The idea of tether propulsion is an old one but it has yet to prove itself, says Enrico Lorenzini, head of a space-tethers research group at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has received one of the NASA grants. NASA, the US Department of Defense, student researchers and small companies have all flown tether experiments in space with limited success. A pair of US?Italian tethers that were unfurled from the space shuttle in 1992 and 1996 proved that tethers could produce current when dragged through the Earth's upper atmosphere, but hardware problems cut both experiments short
A NASA-funded tether experiment, known as the Propulsive Small Expendable Deployer System or ProSEDS, was to have been launched this spring. The system would have been deployed from the spent stage of the Delta rocket that launched it. By interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, the tether would have dragged the rocket back and released it into the atmosphere, where it would have burned up.

Lorenzini and other researchers in the field see the mission as a key milestone in winning confidence that tethers are safe and practical. If the experiment is successful, they believe that other applications will follow. Pioneers in the field say that last week's grant also shows a new level of space-agency support for more advanced tether-propulsion ideas
Robert Hoyt of Tethers Unlimited in Lynnwood, Washington, is another of the researchers who has been given a grant by NASA. "It's the first time what I would call real NASA money has been spent on the concept," he says.

nirgal · 2003-05-29 19:41:39

I read that article (about the chinese moon program) too. I really hope SARS doesn't hurt China's economy too bad, that could quickly put an end to their ambitions regarding space.

TJohn · 2003-05-29 20:59:03

I had seen somewhere that China said they would continue with their space program regardless of SARS.

The article posted by clark was interesting. Can you imagine the look on NASA and the administration's face when we see pictures of China's flag on the moon and finding out that they are there permanently?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2003-05-20 14:47:49

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#127 2003-05-20 15:52:50

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#128 2003-05-21 09:59:32

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#129 2003-05-21 10:36:06

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#130 2003-05-21 11:08:31

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#131 2003-05-21 11:32:42

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#132 2003-05-21 11:45:31

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#133 2003-05-21 13:41:09

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#134 2003-05-22 09:03:07

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#135 2003-05-22 11:30:15

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#136 2003-05-22 11:35:09

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#137 2003-05-22 15:17:11

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#138 2003-05-22 17:45:22

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#139 2003-05-22 20:11:45

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#140 2003-05-22 23:14:31

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#141 2003-05-23 07:56:38

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#142 2003-05-23 11:55:11

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#143 2003-05-24 15:25:20

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#144 2003-05-25 06:31:32

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#145 2003-05-25 11:41:22

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#146 2003-05-27 12:16:42

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#147 2003-05-29 10:02:24

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#148 2003-05-29 10:05:11

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#149 2003-05-29 19:41:39

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#150 2003-05-29 20:59:03

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

Board footer