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

clark · 2003-03-12 11:51:44

I think we will be back on the moon, with a base, by 2015-2020.

China has set it's sights upon manned space, and part of their long term plan is utilization of the moon.

Given the direction of our space policy related to our military, it will become imperative to our national interests to create a moon base, of some derivation, to help secure our LEO and GEO based space assessts.

It will also allow for greater flexibility in our responses to situations that threaten our space based assests, and improve the security of our space dominance.

I believe the turning point will come politcally in October when China launches their Taiknaounts into orbit. The American public will find it unpalatable that China can launch men into orbit, but America cannot (due to the Shuttle problems).

This sets the stage for a politcal discussion regarding our future in space during the next presidental election in 2004.

I believe the Presidents advisors have positioned him well for the debate, being that Bush has consistently supported increases in NASA's budget. Bush has also selected O'Keefe who has reprioritized enabling technologies that will allow us more options for space exploration and utilization beyond the 2010 time frame, and worked to reimage NASA as trustworthy and finacnially responsible (both neccessary requirements if NASA wants to get the budget increases it would need for these future projects).

So, am I off my rocker or what?

Byron · 2003-03-12 13:09:58

In light of the pending budgetary crisis of the 2010's, a U.S.-funded Moon base around that time is rather unlikely in my opinion, although a bit of optimism never hurts!

I do believe that a Moon base or any other major space project will have to be international in scope...to do so otherwise will make it exceedingly vulnerable to the winds of political change and budgetary problems.

Also, for any type of major, long-term space project to work and to be able to stay within the range of tight budgets (which will be an absolute necessity in order to win widespread public approval), we will have to go nuclear, a la Orion, or build a viable space elevator. It has been proven time and time again that chemical rockets are just not practical for more than a token involvement in space. We need huge, stupendously powerful rockets that can ferry dozens, even hundreds of people at a time, and to move many tons of needed material to whereever we need them, and nuclear power is the only way this can be done at a reasonable cost.

As for NASA, I'm thinking we just need to start over with that. I say we should just dismantle NASA, and form a wholly new space agency (perhaps in conjunction w/ private companies)...one that will be free of the soul-sapping bureaucracy and lack of will that it is experiencing today. NASA got us further than we could have ever dreamed back in the 60's with Apollo, but that ballgame's been over for decades now. If there is ever a chance for America to be a leader in space in the future, NASA will have to go, imho.

B

Bill White · 2003-03-12 13:18:40

I do believe that a Moon base or any other major space project will have to be international in scope...to do so otherwise will make it exceedingly vulnerable to the winds of political change and budgetary problems.

Byron - I would argue the contrary position - and not merely to be difficult. In this new age of "freedom fries" and the pouring of Evian water into the sewer I do not see the USA entering into any new and expensive multilateral space endeavors.

clark · 2003-03-12 13:21:16

In light of the pending budgetary crisis of the 2010's, a U.S.-funded Moon base is rather unlikely in my opinion, although a bit of optimism never hurts!

Assuming there is a budgetary crisis. If Iraq goes as planned, the US will have access to cheap oil for decades to come. This will help boost our economy. But I hope to avoid Iraq and other related issues in this thread. Also, the scope and type of base on the moon will greatly affect the costs we will be dealing with.

I do believe that a Moon base or any other major space project will have to be international in scope...to do so otherwise will make it exceedingly vulnerable to the winds of political change and budgetary problems.

Oh, you mean International in scope like Japan, the ESA, and Russia? Let's even assume that ESA and Russia go their own way, Japan would more than likely be very interested in supporting this goal, if for no other reason than to counter Chinese space development. Also, don't forget Taiwian...

Also, for any type of major, long-term space project to work and to be able to stay within the range of tight budgets (which will be an absolute necessity in order to win widespread public approval), we will have to go nuclear, a la Orion, or the construction of a viable space elevator.

Perhaps that is one way. There are other options. We are developing the OSP- which is just for people. As for cargo, all we need is a BIG rocket. We built them before, we can do it again.

Nuclear is needed for energy production.... which kind of makes you think about Project Promethus...

We need huge, stupendously powerful rockets that can ferry dozens, even hundreds of people at a time,

Um, no, we don't. What would we do with hundreds of people in space? No, we need a few skilled people in a highly automated situation- heck, we may not even need the people. We need the capability *right now* to get a few people into space safely, and reliably. Not hundreds.

OSP is slated to be in production by 2010, if not sooner. By that time, we will have had an additional 10 years or so of LEO experience. We will be nearing the point where we have exhastued much of what we can learn there, so the next step will be the moon.

As for NASA, I'm thinking we just need to start over with that. I say we should just dismantle NASA, and form a wholly new space agency (perhaps in conjunction w/ private companies)...one that will be free of the soul-sapping bureaucracy and lack of will that it is experiencing today.

Personal feelings aside, I just don't see this happening Byron. I am being serious in my consideration of how thinkgs might develop in the next decade. And my conclusions do not lead to the disolution of NASA.

Palomar · 2003-03-12 13:44:47

Byron - I would argue the contrary position - and not merely to be difficult. In this new age of "freedom fries" and the pouring of Evian water into the sewer I do not see the USA entering into any new and expensive multilateral space endeavors.

*I can see where you are coming from with this, Bill, but I certainly hope you are wrong. Will our gov't allow the situation with Iraq to interfere with multilateral space endeavors? Knowing the gov't...yes, it's possible, but I think you may be a bit too pessimistic. Of course, who knows how much of a grudge will be mutually held between governments.

:groans:

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-03-12 14:00:29

Given the direction of our space policy related to our military, it will become imperative to our national interests to create a moon base, of some derivation, to help secure our LEO and GEO based space assessts.
It will also allow for greater flexibility in our responses to situations that threaten our space based assests, and improve the security of our space dominance.

Clark, stop thinking that America is the Empire of Star Wars and that you gonna be Darth Vador. You use a battle language like if the Klingons want to attack your space dominance and your future secret moon base.

Right now the situation is not great, forget the galactica battlecruiser, even the ISS is in great danger, in my opinion, if for any reason, the ISS becomes unstable and start to lower its orbit, without the shuttle to resuply, it might be evacuated in emergency, and the ISS could be lost. 40 billions in the ocean. It is a catastroph scenario but the NASA should prevent this. I hope NASA have a plan to rescue the ISS, in case of such an event.

Byron · 2003-03-12 14:03:42

As for NASA, I'm thinking we just need to start over with that. I say we should just dismantle NASA, and form a wholly new space agency (perhaps in conjunction w/ private companies)...one that will be free of the soul-sapping bureaucracy and lack of will that it is experiencing today.
Personal feelings aside, I just don't see this happening Byron. I am being serious in my consideration of how thinkgs might develop in the next decade. And my conclusions do not lead to the disolution of NASA.

Just want to clarify that I was merely stating a personal opinon of what should be done, as opposed to what will happen to NASA, which will likely exist in some form or another for many decades to come.

I just don't feel that NASA is living up to its potential as it could, like for example, if NASA gave up on LEO altogether (leaving it to the private sector), and used their budget for planetary exploration, the whole Solar System would soon be teeming with probes and robotic craft, relaying back information and scientific discoveries we can only dream of at the present. NASA is currently stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels. If we want to move forward and outward, things are going have to change in a big way with NASA.

Bill, I agree you have a point about our current attitude towards other countries...but if this way of thinking is applied to international space ventures, we might as well hang up the hat to any idea of a Moon base or Mars mission, as the American public is unlikely to foot the entire bill for large space projects such as a lunar base or a mission to Mars.

B

Bill White · 2003-03-12 14:33:31

Bill, I agree you have a point about our current attitude towards other countries...but if this way of thinking is applied to international space ventures, we might as well hang up the hat to any idea of a Moon base or Mars mission, as the American public is unlikely to foot the entire bill for large space projects such as a lunar base or a mission to Mars.

I do see an opportunity - several years down the road - to push for an international "humans to Mars" mission as a way for the USA, the EU and Russia to "kiss and make up" after we all decide to clean up the wreckage from the current UN diplomatic train wreck.

January 2005 or January 2009 would be the target window to push this idea really hard.

Palomar · 2003-03-12 15:01:34

I do see an opportunity - several years down the road - to push for an international "humans to Mars" mission as a way for the USA, the EU and Russia to "kiss and make up" after we all decide to clean up the wreckage from the current UN diplomatic train wreck.
January 2005 or January 2009 would be the target window to push this idea really hard.

*Provided Dubya -isn't- re-elected...yeah.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-03-12 17:51:42

Byron: Nuclear, a la Orion; not from Earth to LEO, surely?
Chemical rockets: H2 + O2 can't be beat to reach LEO, and they're chemical.
Who needs the Public for support, when it's the Military who want a Moon Base to counter the Chinese?
Space elevators: Is it 3000 already?

Clark: We could never, ever exhaust what we can learn in LEO! That's a challange.

Cindy: If he's re-elected, it'll mean everythings okay; if not, that'll be okay too. Get me, Schweethart?

dickbill: The Russians'll prevent the ISS's orbit from degrading, by giving it a boost up with each Progress, using up its excess fuel, before undocking to burn up their garbage. Count on it.
NASA has no end of plans, by the way...it's your Congress that create the problem situations. Face it.

Bill White: Re. the U.N. train wreck. This is the way the U.N. is supposed to work. Not to worry.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 18:30:51

Yes clark, you are way off your rocker. I don't know what it is with you and your optimism over this admin and this admins interest in space exploration.

Indeed, your whole argument is predicated on one variable, that China's success in space will spur new developments here. One variable isn't enough, though! To fully answer your question with any sense of conclusion would require discussing everything from war to economy.

I suspect that the US, with OSP, will continue to be the leader in LEO operations. I suspect, better still, that China (with their alliance with Russia) will become the leader in Lunar operations. The US will undoubtedly, as time goes on, attempt to beat China and so on, but like I said, we can't say whether or not they'll ?win? without looking at the bigger picture.

If I were to make an equal prediction about China, I would at least include their long term plans and latest economic growth. If we do that with the US we can see clear indications that Luna isn't in any immediate plans, and as of now OSP/LEO are the mainstay of manned operations.

Phobos · 2003-03-12 19:30:18

Nuclear, a la Orion; not from Earth to LEO, surely?
Chemical rockets: H2 + O2 can't be beat to reach LEO, and they're chemical.
Who needs the Public for support, when it's the Military who want a Moon Base to counter the Chinese?

Dicktice: Yeah, chemical rockets are definately the height of efficiency, economy, and the absolute pinnacle of propulsion technology if all you want to send to the moon are three people in a tin-foil spaceship.

Space elevators: Is it 3000 already?

Dicktice: No, it's 2003 and the elevator is 90% doable right now, just gotta make those CNT fibers strong enough and it's as good as built. Don't think it'll take a thousand years for that to happen but hey, if your cynic what can I say.

Cindy: If he's re-elected, it'll mean everythings okay; if not, that'll be okay too. Get me, Schweethart?

Dicktice: Sure whatever ya say honey.

soph · 2003-03-12 20:54:46

Chemical rockets: H2 + O2 can't be beat to reach LEO, and they're chemical.

Okay-NERVA-1000 seconds isp, chemical, 450. Yup, chemical can't be beat.

And yes, nuclear Earth->orbit. Maybe not orion, but NTRs are viable, if the political climate continues to change as it has been towards nuclear power.

dickbill · 2003-03-12 22:41:24

dickbill: The Russians'll prevent the ISS's orbit from degrading, by giving it a boost up with each Progress, using up its excess fuel, before undocking to burn up their garbage. Count on it.
NASA has no end of plans, by the way...it's your Congress that create the problem situations. Face it.

Hi dicktice,
I know that, that the Russian progress are supposd to lift the ISS orbit, but I think the russian want secretely to disengage from the ISS (my personnal opinion, I have no formal proof, but it is part of the new geopolitical map, partly because of the war by the way): Too expensive for them, not enough rewarding.
So what happens if the russians "cannot" send progress cargos in the next couple of months because they are out of money ?
Nothing much, right, but you know the murphy's law ?
Solar flares for example, the atmosphere expends a little bit, the friction increases, still no progress, still no shuttle...just bad luck, like recently. It could be that or a metallic piece destabilizing the all structure or, again, bad luck.

clark · 2003-03-13 09:42:47

. I don't know what it is with you and your optimism over this admin and this admins interest in space exploration.

It's not optimism. I also do not believe that this admin is remotely interested in space exploration, for its own sake. However, I do believe, and with good reason, that this administration is interested in developing our capabilities for space.

This is borne out by the numerous policy reports related to the weaponization of space, and the priortization of major projects related to space utilization.

Both Cheney and Rumsfield have been involved in space related policy. Look at the defense policy reviews, NSA space policy reviews, and all the prior research that points towards greater reliance on our space based assessts.

One of the key components of our long term military strategy is to secure our access to space, and deny our advesaries access to space.

So I ask you, how do we achieve this? What will be required?

The pieces for a ballastic missle defense system will be in place by 2004, and it will only be expanded. Our research into particle physics is now begining to see actual products being created for military applications. A key component of the Star Wars defense system is to have multiple layers of defense- which includes space based assests.

In order to make our space based assests effective, we will need nuclear power- not solar. Guess what one of the side benefits of Project Promethus is?

I point to a moon base because it could provide logistical support to our militaries LEO and GEO endeavours.

dickbill · 2003-03-13 14:26:27

One of the key components of our long term military strategy is to secure our access to space, and deny our advesaries access to space.

Sure, but why wait to have a base on the moon ? why not to nuclear carpet the chinese now, while they still are in the process to devellop their technology to access LEO. After, it will be more difficult.

"In my life, I killed more than 30 men, this is without counting the blacks, the indians and the chineses"
Jesse James

clark · 2003-03-13 14:40:04

Sure, but why wait to have a base on the moon ? why not to nuclear carpet the chinese now, while they still are in the process to devellop their technology to access LEO. After, it will be more difficult.

Yeah, sounds REAL reasonable. Nuke everyone, then we don't have to worry.... blah blah blah.

Sorry if the real world dosen't work that way.

It works on threat assessment, can you say that with me?

Thre-at as-sess-ment.

Kind of like what we are doing with Iraq.

Our military trains for possible wars that may take place in the future. Guess who tops the list for future conflicts beyond the 2010 range? Can you say Chi-na? Are you with me, is this difficult to understand?

You post like a troll, so you're getting a troll response.

I am pointing to actual policy papers that our leaders use to make decisions. The f--king people whose job it is to think about these problems tell the people who have to make the f--king decisions what they should probably do based on the information at hand.

And guess what happens to these individual policy reviews? if you're half-way bright, you might come to a conclusion that other people put the seperate policies into a more coherent whole.

When we have a review of current policy, it is done to make sure that whatever they are reviewing falls in line with other overall policy directions.

Things like saying, "we don't want to support abortion" so we then review all foreign and domestic policy related to the topic, and make changes as neccessary, or point out where movement is needed to come into complaince with executive goals.

So, now you might understand how the process works. Or you can claim I want to be Vader, whatever.

I don't mind legitimate critism, but ignorant opinion is something I can get on FOX.

dickbill · 2003-03-13 15:37:42

Our military trains for possible wars that may take place in the future. Guess who tops the list for future conflicts beyond the 2010 range? Can you say Chi-na? Are you with me, is this difficult to understand?

Denying the access to space to China is already too late, it seems. But really, even if I ignore the rest of your post, I think you exagerate grossly the issues:
China might be able to send in orbit a soyouz-like vehicle and crash something on the moon, but a base ! I don't think they have the technology to set up a lunar manned base soon.

That they represent a possible thread in the future is possible but actually the chinese invasion of sensitive US technology has already started. If you could visit some University labs 10 years ago, you could barely see a lab without chinese techs. That was the past. Now you see US labs with chinese boss AND chinese staff exclusively. This is easily verifiable by reading the papers author's names: chinese from the first to the last (the boss) author. Like:
Hu Chen, Li Hu, Mike Li, Wang Fu,
University of Alabama !!!

Gosh !!! It seems the KKK focused too much on the blacks and not enough on the lemon faces, but anyway. The US cannot deny the chinese to access the US labs, i don't see how they could deny the access to space. And they reproduce like rabbits !
what are we gonna do ?

dicktice · 2003-03-13 16:58:54

Phobos: Tinfoil crewed capsules are all it'll take next time, because all the rest of their stuff will have arrived already, in un-crewed soft landers. It's all been done before, public domain technology, for the asking given the motivation. And China has plenty of motivation. I imagine the space elevator will then be constructed by the Chinese, working from their mines and production facilities on the Moon, and erected in near-Earth space. It'll be a giveaway!

Byron: Of course, CNT fibres are theoretically strong enough... but when they will be long enough, is what I question.

Cindy: You blithly skipped over the in-between years: If the U.N. can get through those two critical years intact--that's when either Bush outcome would turn-out okay. (Oh, I do so like to be called "honey" by a dame.)

dickbill/Clark: What's to prevent the Russians from just taking over the ISS and occupying it by default, if the U.S. gives up on it? Unthinkable, you say? Dog-in-a-manger, I say!

dickbill · 2003-03-13 17:34:06

dickbill/Clark: What's to prevent the Russians from just taking over the ISS and occupying it by default, if the U.S. gives up on it? Unthinkable, you say? Dog-in-a-manger, I say!

Crush the ruskoff before they do it man ! I mean, crush the lemon faces too ! I donno, like, leave a 1 dollar bill in the floor of the ISS, once inside, the ruskoffs will kill each other to get it !
right Clark ?

clark · 2003-03-14 09:00:49

Denying the access to space to China is already too late, it seems.

No, China, and other countries, are developing their ability to exploit space. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but that's not how the military and threat assessment work. They look at potential advesaries, and look at current and potential capabilities.

One of the consistent findings of the policy reviews is that the US is highly reliant on its space based assessts to maintain it's force multiplier. Our reliance on space for support of military operations is increasing (the US is the major user and owner of most satellites in space).

ur reliance on space for our military advantages means that our satellities are an Achilles heel. Denial, or destruction of space based assests greatly reduces our ability to defend from, attack, and predict threats.

This is why am predicting that the US will develop a moon base of some type, to create the ability to respond to threats to our LEO and GEO assessts in more flexible ways.

China might be able to send in orbit a soyouz-like vehicle and crash something on the moon, but a base ! I don't think they have the technology to set up a lunar manned base soon.

They are planning a base by 2010. Even if they can't get a base, they can certainly get to LEO and GEO- which means the *US* will need a base on the moon.

Take a look at the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003....=GOOGLE

As fro the rest of your racist garbage, you only make yourself look like an incompentant and ignorant shell of a person. Do you feel better about yourself now Dickbill? Any other ethnicity you would like to sterotype? Please, I for one would like to know just how stupid you really are.

Are we supposed to be impressed with you? Unfortunetly I've known too many people who think like you, if you can call it that, in my life time. Just another pathetic little man who feels insecure about themself, so you lash out with senseless slanders.

Twit.

clark · 2003-03-14 09:42:52

Here is a link to some of what I am talking about, the text that is related to this thread has been pasted from the article.

http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/InsidetheRing.html

Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters who write fro the Washington Times.

Space war
The Pentagon's senior space official this week called for revising the U.S. policy banning weapons in space.

Peter Teets, Air Force undersecretary and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, made the remarks this week at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

Mr. Teets said the military policy on space weapons is being reviewed and "could conceivably change."

The policy needs to be changed so that space weapons can be used to defend the hundreds of satellites used for spying, communications and warning, he said.

"But I, for one, believe that the time has come for us to consider a change in policy which would allow us to have some offensive capability as well," Mr. Teets said.

Later before the same subcommittee, Air Force Gen. Lance Lord, commander of the Air Force Space Command, said "offensive counterspace" arms are needed because space attacks are inevitable. "I think it's not a matter of if, it's when somebody is going to try to perturb our asymmetric advantage in space," Gen. Lord said.

Twenty years ago, about 250 satellites, three-quarters of them owned by governments, were orbiting the Earth. Today, about 1,000 satellites are in orbit and half are owned by governments.

U.S. defense officials have said Russia and China are developing lasers and other weapons that can attack satellites.

dickbill · 2003-03-14 09:44:04

They are planning a base by 2010. Even if they can't get a base, they can certainly get to LEO and GEO- which means the *US* will need a base on the moon.

You mean, a lunar base with missiles and lasers to crush the russkoffs, right ?

As for the chinese, they might dream of that base and claim to make it for 2010, I'll believe it when I see it.

Clark, you're not funny, I thought you would like my plan to fool the russkoffs, with the 1 dollar bill left in the ISS. You really react like the frenchs, with grand gesture and grand passion. Ok, I'll try to spare your sensitivity now.
What's your plans to deny the lemon faces access to Mars ?

(maybe I should stop before he get mad, but I'm sure everybody here enjoy the posts )

clark · 2003-03-14 09:51:40

Okay, play the village idiot. I suppose every village needs one, even ours. Careful though, competition is fierce around these parts.

You mean, a lunar base with missiles and lasers to crush the russkoffs, right ?

Yeah, to crush the Russians. That's it. And don't forget that we need all of this to enforce my brand of totalitarianism on all of humanity....

A moon base would allow for us to easily repair, or replace lost sattelites. It allows us the ability to create fuel in space, which means it can act as a center of logistical support for Earth launched hardware. Read the policies- major goal is to have the ability launch on demand- on the order of hours, not months. It calls for large constellations of small satellites that can work in conjunction. At some point the military is going to see the utility of a moon base in developing and securing our military goals for the use of space.

What's your plans to deny the lemon faces access to Mars ?

These are not my plans. Is english your first language? I suggest you revist this thread when your comprehension skills are up to snuff.

Byron · 2003-03-14 10:37:43

Duckbill, I'd (and just about everyone else on here) would appreciate it if you didn't refer to Chinese as "lemon faces" or Russians as "russkoffs". That kind of derogotory language is really not necessary in a discussion of this nature...

If you think you're tying to be "funny," you have failed to even make it past the starting gate....

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-12 11:51:44

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

#2 2003-03-12 13:09:58

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

#3 2003-03-12 13:18:40

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

#4 2003-03-12 13:21:16

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

#5 2003-03-12 13:44:47

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

#6 2003-03-12 14:00:29

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

#7 2003-03-12 14:03:42

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

#8 2003-03-12 14:33:31

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

#9 2003-03-12 15:01:34

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

#10 2003-03-12 17:51:42

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

#11 2003-03-12 18:30:51

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

#12 2003-03-12 19:30:18

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

#13 2003-03-12 20:54:46

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

#14 2003-03-12 22:41:24

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

#15 2003-03-13 09:42:47

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

#16 2003-03-13 14:26:27

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

#17 2003-03-13 14:40:04

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

#18 2003-03-13 15:37:42

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

#19 2003-03-13 16:58:54

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

#20 2003-03-13 17:34:06

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

#21 2003-03-14 09:00:49

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

#22 2003-03-14 09:42:52

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

#23 2003-03-14 09:44:04

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

#24 2003-03-14 09:51:40

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

#25 2003-03-14 10:37:43

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

Board footer