You are not logged in.
I know it's early to plan for 2006 but NASA has to decide in September which CEV it wants. The CEV is not sufficient for a mars mission. I doubt it's bathroom sized crew area would be desirable for a moon hab either.
The following budget proposal completes our ISS commitments and includes everything we need to fulfill the Presidents Vision for Space Exploration. There is no massive redesign needed to go from the moon to mars.
Proposal for NASA's budget for the year 2006
NASA's Budget is $18 billion, about half goes to research. The other $9 billion should go toward the following:
-Fund $6 billion to begin building the hardware for the NASA Design Reference Mission to mars. Sell two crew positions, one to the European Space Agency and one to Japan for $500 million each (earns $1 billion for each moon mission and $1 billion for the mars mission). The hardware would be tested first on the moon with a projected mission in the year 2013. In 2014 we would identify and make improvements to the architecture. First mission to mars in 2015 (in-situ propellant production lander). First human mission to mars departs early 2018.
-Fund $500 million to begin building the Hubble Origins Probe for an estimated launch date in 2011.
-Fund $2.4 billion for eight Space Shuttle missions to complete the US obligation to the ISS. Next year (2007) fly one final mission to service the Hubble at a cost of $300 million. Retire the space shuttles but place one in preservation.
-Do not procure the CEV. We can ride Russian rockets to the ISS.
Sell a part of our allocated ISS experiment time to some of the other 14 countries in the ISS partnership. Canada contributed $1.4 billion to the ISS in exchange for about 30 minutes of experiment time a week. The US could sell some of it's time to Canada and other countries. Estimated income $500 million?
Offline
I though Spacehab's double logistics module looked promising. Slap on a lander frame and cut a decent sized door/access ramp and you have a pressurised rover garage/refueling station and samples storage facility that could be shipped to the Moon without crew for a commitment to Lunar science and colonization and can easily be relocated, towed by its own lunar rover or launched into sub-orbit for a quick trip around the Moon. This and a small lunar orbit boost engine can fit in the back of a space shuttle. Oddly enough it will all look a lot like a small version of the "eagle" from the Space:1999 television drama.
All you need then is a Lunar passenger service from the ISS and people interested in Lunar colonization, mining, and infrastructure development. I for one would love to go. I'm sure there will be cues of technicians lining up for Lunar colony.
Offline
Well quite the wish list but I would start with the existing reference pages from Nasa on the 2006 budget year request.
My thought would to leave in as much science as possible and not to delay nuclear developement or missions with hardware already being built.
NASA's FY 2006 Budget and Planning Documents contains links to this years and the incomming plan as well.
Why no sell more seats for the grand mission to mars as a world flag and footprint effort. The Russians and anyother nation with trade barriers could supply equipment or barter in other means other than direct cash installments.
I agree fund HOP, to continue the Hubble science effort but make this community aware that they must start to raise there own funds to pay for these telescope or lobby congress for them. That does not mean all cost but a good portion would help.
As for the shuttle budget to complete 8 more flights to the ISS. I think that aught to be doubled if not tripled to be closer to the actuall cost we would be at. For we only get 4 flights a year at present and that is costing 4.3 billion I think.
Riding Russian rocket to the ISS is a whole problem by itself and may be bartered as earlier mentioned in regards to a seat to mars. But long term something is still needed for manned flight to the station either way no matter what it gets called.
To sell experiment time to other nations would either mean a manned presence on the station by US people or getting them seats to it. I am not sure how we could work this to the Mars mission Nasa budget benefit but anything is possible with enough thought.
Online
If the shuttle costs $1.1 billion per flight then I would prefer to spread the missions to ISS out over more years. NASA can't spend more than $2.5 billion on the space shuttle a year. That would mean flying the shuttle twice a year for 4 more years, and I would perform the Hubble servicing mission with one of the first missions.
The $9 billion a year for the Moon/Mars hardware is the driving force since it's going to cost $55 billion total we need to begin funding it by 2007 in order to build and launch the first mission to the moon by 2013, then make refinements and launch the in-situ to mars by 2015.
I suppose NASA could sell a third spot on the Moon/Mars missions.
Offline
You do realize that a lunar colony could fund it's growth on the back of Colonization/mining and tourism. Such an independent Lunar state financed by mining would mean that NASA and Russia and all the other little "space-faring" nations would not need to make these cut backs in the Space industry.
As long as the minerals stay off-world, why shouldn't we allow large scale commercial mining and refining on the moon? A large volume unmanned LEM the size of SPACEHAB/BOEING's Double logistics module would provide an ideal shuttle launced all purpose vehicle.
As an ore mover, they could ship minerals by the tonne back to a mineral processing colony for refining. The tech is here and now. and the economy is one that needs proving for future projects.
Who cares if such activity changes the way the Moon looks. It will prove to the people on earth that Man can conquer the Universe one world at a time. It will remind them every day that fear only hurts you.
Offline
Sigh...Lets try to keep things real. This is a budget for 2006, not 2096. Nothing from the moon is going to fund anything in 2006.
Also, what 'cutbacks' are you talking about? The above proposal cuts nothing. It does NOT fund the CEV because it is not necessary.
How is your spacehab going to land on the moon? How is it going to ship minerals to a colony? How is any of this useful for a manned mission to mars?
Offline
Opening the Moon to Tax free Mineral exploitation by Companies gets infrastructure. Such private investment (as long as generic systems were made available by the likes of BOEING cheaply) would take the financial costs off NASA and the other Space programs. Sending a Converted Double logistics module with a small lunar orbit boost engine and lunar lander systems into space It would mean support infrastructure in place so that when NASA contracts out to build that Mars transport with lunar dust for radiation shielding and Tritium rocket fuel, It can put in an order with The Lunar Mining group and get what it wants quickly. Meanwhile the private sector continues to build infrastructure and resource wealth on the Moon.
Most important, it would provide the opportunity for NASA to become more Passenger orientated as people travel to the Moon from the ISS in increasing numbers.
Also, what 'cutbacks' are you talking about? The above proposal cuts nothing. It does NOT fund the CEV because it is not necessary.
The initial Budget cuts the ten million people needed on Mars within the next hundred years. It cuts the increase in the sustainable International Space Station population that must be achieved for Mars Colonization. And considering Mars colonization will be four to seven landing on Mars in the Crew Emergency Vehicle It cuts Mars utterly and completely. Infact everything that remains on that budget can be done by machines (China proved that when it orbited a chip mfg. plant in an unmanned payload).
Option A: All the Astronauts can find New jobs (except for the Atlantis guys- their department is looking at a military controlled space program anyway), and you can wind NASA down to nothing but an Administration body in charge of nothing in particular that spends it's last days telling school children how they beat the Soviets to the Moon.
Option B: You can open the Moon to Corporate Mining and give all those Astronauts the chance to die of old age on the Moon as they spend their years in mineral processing, equipment maintenance, and constructing a lunar colony. NASA and all the other Space program nations on the other hand will then be free to focus on the development of a Space Plane and a space space station.
Offline
Well if cheap rocket launch access to space was available, the likes of Boeing and lockheed would be no more but we all know that it is not the case. Even buying Russian is out of the question at this time thou they are at least 1/5th the cost of boeings or lockheeds products.
The budget for 2006 had a little bit of action in that requests did go out to try for another 2.4%.
NASA FY 2006 Budget Request Increase 2.4% over FY 2005
Webpage does have some projection charts to future years requests.
Online
It can put in an order with The Lunar Mining group and get what it wants quickly. Meanwhile the private sector continues to build infrastructure and resource wealth on the Moon.
Most important, it would provide the opportunity for NASA to become more Passenger orientated as people travel to the Moon from the ISS in increasing numbers.
Installing a lunar boost engine and lunar lander on your converted double logistics module may get it to the moon but I doubt it would still fit inside the space shuttle for launch. Also once it gets there it still can't make rocket fuel from lunar regolith. And we would still need to build hardware for a mars mission.
NASA contracts out to build a mars transport? Um, I think you should start your own thread with that one. You will definately get a good debate from me. Don't hijack my post with it though.
Do you have a link for your Lunar Mining Group? They probably play hard rock.
People travelling from the ISS to the moon? How? Using what rocket and what fuel?
You know what, since this is a budget thread why don't you come up with your own budget proposal with estimated costs for your ideas.
Offline
If the US Congress passed legislation allowing the sale of http://isdc2005.xisp.net/~kmiller/isdc_ … .net]media rights for America's return to the Moon (or better yet, Mars) we would have more money to budget with.
This can be done on a non-exclusive basis, as I explain in the paper.
By giving away the TV rights for free we send the clear message to the general population that "this stuff is not really that important."
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Also once it gets there it still can't make rocket fuel from lunar regolith.
Electromagnetic Catapults. Although the Initial investment involved refined metals from the Moon, and massive electricity generation, The need for Fuel is reduced to bare minimum.
Offline
The budget does not cut any of your crazy ten million people needed on mars because there never was any money approved for that. NASA is not that stupid. Ten million? Why not 100 billion? If you are going to be completely outside of reality why not go all the way?
Your options A and B are comical. You are living in a fantasy world.
Electromagnetic catapults? Your not getting it, this is a budget for 2006, not 2096. How is the crew who lands on the moon in your tiny double logistics module supposed to make this catapult system, being that it's their only way to get home? What would power it?
Offline
"...Also once it gets there it still can't make rocket fuel from lunar regolith..."
Yes you can. The Lunar dust is actually choc full of oxygen in the form of metal oxides and silicates... Lockheed already has an idea for a one-tonne machine to extract it (which consumes about 38kW), about two or three of which would be needed to support a perminant Lunar base. With LOX on hand and the occasional load of Hydrogen, the vast majority of your rocket fuel by mass is produced on site.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Here is the query I have run by NEWSCORP:
I am currently in a Forum discussion on the NASA budget and the question of Media rights to NASA TV has come up. I was wondering if NEWSCORPORATION as a Major Media House considered NASA TV as economicly viable Educational content for a commercial television broadcaster such as the FOX Media group and whether or not the exclusive broadcast rights to a camera fixed to an Astronaut's Space helmet as he (or she) did nothing more than mining on the surface of the Moon in the employ of a mining company would even hold interest in the commercial media?
I'll post the reply if and when.
The budget does not cut any of your crazy ten million people needed on mars because there never was any money approved for that. NASA is not that stupid. Ten million? Why not 100 billion? If you are going to be completely outside of reality why not go all the way?
Your options A and B are comical. You are living in a fantasy world.
Electromagnetic catapults? Your not getting it, this is a budget for 2006, not 2096. How is the crew who lands on the moon in your tiny double logistics module supposed to make this catapult system, being that it's their only way to get home? What would power it?
If an electromagnetic launcher can move minerals from the Moon to the ISS why not the Same for Crew return?
If the shuttle costs $1.1 billion per flight then I would prefer to spread the missions to ISS out over more years. NASA can't spend more than $2.5 billion on the space shuttle a year.
News to me. Last estimate I heard was that a shuttle launch costs 400 million.
Offline
Yes you can.
So you are agreeing with SRMeaney's idea that a double logistics module could be placed in orbit from the space shuttle and equiped with it's own rocket to get it to the moon and be able to land on it's own.
Then somehow the crew would make rocket fuel and blast off for home.
Offline
A NASA budget of nine Billion on research? It's time they off-loaded that on the science and research budgets of the rest of the world. I'm sure India would love the engineering contract of NASA's Space Science Budget. They could even do it in Metric.
Offline
News to me. Last estimate I heard was that a shuttle launch costs 400 million.
Argue with Spacenut, he's the one who posted saying it costs $4.3 billion for 4 shuttle launches.
Offline
A NASA budget of nine Billion on research? It's time they off-loaded that on the science and research budgets of the rest of the world. I'm sure India would love the engineering contract of NASA's Space Science Budget. They could even do it in Metric.
That $9 billion goes toward US schools and companies who provide equipment and research for NASA. Giving it to India, or anyone else, so they can use it for their own technology (weapons systems) would be stupid.
Offline
Well, petroleum has doubled in cost since 2004 so I suppose the carryon would affect NASA costs and contracts. A billion dollars a shuttle launch will cripple a Mars program.
It will be unmanned probes and crew-less launch vehicles.
You can kiss the non-military astronaut program goodbye.
That $9 billion goes toward US schools and companies who provide equipment and research for NASA. Giving it to India, or anyone else, so they can use it for their own technology (weapons systems) would be stupid.
if the technocracy of India can do it for half the price of US companies, there goes another unsustainable fantasy to the wall.
Ok Dook, How much does NASA's Admin salaries come to?
Offline
A billion dollars a shuttle launch will cripple a Mars program.
How so? If you look at the budget proposal I posted they work together just fine.
One mistake I made, NASA's budget for 2006 is expected to be $16.2 billion. $2 billion less than I planned for.
So I would reduce the money for each research program by an equal amount to save $1 billion and spend only $8 billion for the Mars/Moon Direct hardware. Also the money from our sale of ISS time and to ESA and Japan for taking along their astronauts would start coming in.
Offline
So I would reduce the money for each research program by an equal amount to save $1 billion and spend only $8 billion for the Mars/Moon Direct hardware. Also the money from our sale of ISS time and to ESA and Japan for taking along their astronauts would start coming in.
The current position of ESA and JASA astronauts is that they are going to the ISS awaiting the modules that there respective space agencies have built and paid NASA to launch. It would be foolish to sell them time for astronauts who do nothing without the modules that are sitting in storage. So your 2006 budget should be about doing the international agreements that the USA entered into and those modules which are the ISS's chance to do worthwhile science into space.
And with there being no free flights from the Russians and these modules being specifically only able to be launched by NASA's shuttle(as per contract, Nasa's terms) this means only shuttle flights can deliver them and only one module per flight. And they also need an increase in power supply (another flight) as Nasa restricted these modules from having there own power supplies (something both ESA and JASA wanted).
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Grypd: You didn't read the initial post of this topic. It's all there. My budget proposal includes 8 more space shuttle missions to finish the ISS plus one to service the HST.
Canada was the one who I suggested to buy some of our time aboard the ISS. If no one wants it then, so what. We can still build the Moon/Mars Direct hardware, fly the space shuttle to finish the ISS and repair HST, build the HOP, and fund research. I want to sell to ESA and Japan 2 or 3 crew positions on the moon and mars direct missions for $500 million each spot.
SRMeaney: The moon escape velocity is 3,000 mph, depending on mass, so I doubt your electromagnetic catapults can do the job.
Offline
Lets start with who lobbies and how we get the funds..
Prepared Statement of Michael Griffin before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science
Legacy carry over:
With this FY 2005 Operating Plan update, NASA is fully funding—within our FY 2005 budget— the $762 million increase for returning the Space Shuttle safely to flight, consistent with the recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), over $400 million in Congressionally-directed items, $291 million for Hubble servicing, and over $500 million in necessary programmatic cost increases, notably to cover cost growth in several space science missions, including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, scheduled to be launched this August, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto set to launch in early January 2006.
Why the necessary programmatic cost increase of $500 million?
The President has reaffirmed his commitment to the Vision by again making it a priority in his FY 2006 budget request in a very challenging budget environment. The $16.46 billion requested for NASA reflects an increase of 2.4% over FY 2005.
NASA Priorities in the FY 2006 Budget Request
The President's FY 2006 budget request for NASA reaffirms the funding strategy outlined above. NASA's FY 2006 request endeavors to provide a balanced portfolio of programs to meet the needs of our national priorities in aeronautics and civil space. It maintains focus on key priorities, milestones, and schedules for the Vision introduced in the FY 2005 budget. To support the Administration's goal of reducing the deficit, NASA's budget was reduced $0.5 billion in FY 2006 below the level planned in the 2005 budget for FY 2006. In addition, returning the Shuttle safely to flight will cost $0.4 billion more in FY 2006 than previously estimated. To address these and other items, we proposed a budget that provided $0.4 billion (11 percent) less for Exploration Systems than previously planned for, $0.3 billion (5 percent) less in Science, $0.1 billion (11 percent) less in Aeronautics, and $0.2 billion (4 percent) more in Space Operations. These changes were not easy, but in the end, we made the decisions to protect the priorities outlined above.
Looking strongly at the timeline of projects and how to create cash for the CEV means tough choices ahead.
Of course with that said they are even undertaking a review of the exploration plan for CEV and of the timeline for given spirals.
Science
The FY 2006 budget request of $5.5 billion for the Science Mission Directorate will support 55 missions in orbit, 26 in development, and 34 in design phase. By 2010, the Science budget will increase by 23 percent over current levels.
The FY 2006 budget includes $858 million for Mars and Lunar robotic exploration.
This will help to maximize the exploration and science benefits of this important program. The budget also includes $218 million to maintain competitive efforts for the Explorer Program, $56 million for the Beyond Einstein program to study the universe, $234 million for studying the Sun in the Living With a Star program, and $136 million for competitive opportunities in the Earth System Science Pathfinder program.
This budget also includes $372 million to continue developing the James Webb Space Telescope for a 2011 launch and provides $93 million in development funds for the Hubble Space Telescope to extend its scientific productivity.
The again in 2005 there was the $291 million identified for a deorbit module for Hubble.
Very lengthy but wil not continue to peice out quotes at this time.
All please read, so that we all know where the money trail is.
Online
Here are the official numbers for Shuttle and ISS:
Meeting Our Obligations
The FY 2006 budget request of $6.8 billion for the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) reflects the first step in the Vision for Space Exploration: returning the Space Shuttle safely to flight and resuming flight operations. Going forward, all SOMD expenditures will be consistent with the retirement of the Space Shuttle by 2010, while maintaining operational safety of flight throughout the program. The FY 2006 budget includes $4.5 billion for the Space Shuttle program. The budget also provides $1.9 billion for the ISS. NASA currently is examining configurations for the Space Station that meet the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration and needs of our international partners, while requiring as few Shuttle flights as possible to complete assembly.
Online
Yes you can.
So you are agreeing with SRMeaney's idea that a double logistics module could be placed in orbit from the space shuttle and equiped with it's own rocket to get it to the moon and be able to land on it's own.
Then somehow the crew would make rocket fuel and blast off for home.
No, Shuttle is much too light to do the job, what I am stating is that your crude attempt at assasinating the Lunar program is nonsense. With LOX production on the Moon, that erases ~80% or so of your fuel mass bill, which thanks to the rocket equation, would reduce the total propellant mass needed from Earth geometricly.
Right now it is estimated that the actual hardware and work put into a Shuttle flight costs aproximatly $300-500M, certainly no less then that. However, there are overhead costs, most notably the JSC center, that make the budget around ~$4.3Bn for four or five flights a year. That makes each Shuttle mission actually cost about a billion each.
The ISS is going to take alot more then eight flights to finish to I bet.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline