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

clark · 2003-10-22 09:47:02

Very good point Dicktice. But remember, these are some of the people whispering in certain leaders ears. We may not be surprised by the actors who say their lines, in fact, we come to expect it. Yet we must not ignore what they are saying.

Some more on the actors and their lines:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=888

Cheney Meets With Members of Congress to Discuss Space Policy
Keith Cowing
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

: Vice President Cheney met with Senators today to discuss national space policy. The meeting lasted for half an hour minutes and broke up at around 3:30 PM. Present at the meeting were Cheney, 3 White House staffers, Sean O'Keefe, and Senators Nelson, McCain, Hollings, Breaux, and Brownback.
According to a source familiar with the discussion, Cheney told the Senators that he and the President would not set new space goals without the input of Congress. Cheney said that current White House discussions have focused on the appropriate role of robotic and human missions.
Sen. Hollings said that he wants to see a presidential commission established to look into space policy. He is reported to have said that "the space program is a mess." He added that he saw no use for the ISS or the OSP and is unconformable with relying upon Russia for access to the ISS. He told O'Keefe "you are not going to change NASA culture".
Update: Sen. Hollings' office contacted NASA Watch shortly after the meeting ended with the followig comments: "No Democratic member, including Sen. Hollings, expressed any lack of support for the future of human space flight, and Hollings, in fact, recommended the acceleration of the OSP. According to staff attending the meeting, all Senators sought to move beyond the current stasis of the space program and create a new national vision for space. Hollings concluded his comments by saying, "We need to achieve the art of the possible."
Sen. McCain hailed the accomplishments of Adm. Gehman and the CAIB, said that China?s recent Shenzhou 5 mission was a "direct challenge" to America, that not enough money has been going to NASA, and that he sees no future for the ISS or the Space Shuttle. Specifically, he asked that he be provided with an explanation of what the future of the Shuttle program is noting that if NASA does not provide the true cost of Return to Flight "there is a train wreck coming".
Sen. Nelson did not have a specific preference for a national space goal - just that whatever that goal is that there be enough money to pay for it. Moreover he said that the space program needs to be headed - or guided directly by the President and/or the Vice President.
Sen. Brownback said that NASA's manned program "is a failure". He added that great things were being done with robotic probes. He also expressed a lack of enthusiasm for the ISS and said that past failures indicates that NASA has no vision. Brownback said that such a vision is needed - that "America needs to return to the Moon and go on to Mars."
Sen. Breaux said that he felt that a national goal needed to be established and that this should focus on a reusable launch system with all the resources needed to do it right.
The meeting broke up after 30 or so minutes, and Cheney, O'Keefe, and Cheney?s entourage headed over to the House for a similar meeting (now underway) with House leaders. That meeting concluded at around 4:00 PM EDT

And if anyone has been following the recent events in the Lone Star State (Texas, for you out of towners), you will notice that the redistricting plan by Republicans has gone through. The end result though is that Represenative Lampson (HR3057- vision for america's future human space exploration...moon and mars stuff) has lost his seat (after his term, he will have to run in another district).

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … an/2162281

The Johnson Space Center and the NASA complex now are in the 9th District of U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont. Lampson's district is eliminated in the new map, and NASA is taken into the 22nd District of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.

So now the Republican Majority leader represents the interests of JSC and the NASA district. Something to think about for the future...

clark · 2003-10-24 12:23:38

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10760

AIP FYI #136: Should Mars be Human Space Flight Objective?

Date Released: Friday, October 24, 2003
American Institute of Physics

An October 16 hearing on the future of NASA's human space flight program revealed areas of consensus, and areas of disagreement, among the witnesses on directions for the U.S. space flight program. The panel of witnesses at this House Science Committee hearing brought a tremendous depth of expertise covering manned and unmanned space science and exploration, military technology, and the history of technology. Several were former NASA officials. While the witnesses saw little value in the current space shuttle and space station programs, there was not a clear consensus on what NASA's goals for its human space flight program should be. Although they believed a more ambitious program of exploration could be done without a massive increase to the NASA budget, the witnesses did not fully agree on whether more funding was needed and where it should come from.

The witnesses, however, agreed that an exploration mission could be conducted within NASA's current budget or with a minimal increase that was sustained over time. Griffin, Huntress and Murray all advocated a flexible, progressive program with a series of short-term, incremental milestones to be accomplished along the way, although they disagreed about whether a lunar base would be an appropriate intermediate objective.

There was consensus that the current human space flight program should be redirected toward other goals, but also concern about maintaining the nation's commitments to its international space station partners. "I believe there is value in the U.S. keeping its word," said Griffin. Huntress outlined "two choices" if funding increases were not forthcoming: either "reengineer what we're doing now" and give up commitments to the foreign partners, or continue on the current path, complete the space station - "which, to honor our international commitments, I think we really must do" - and start to plan for an exploration initiative after the station's completion.

Although not all supported a major new mission to establish outposts on Mars and throughout the solar system, all five witnesses agreed with Boehlert's summation that "the primary reason for human exploration is the impulse to explore, rather than a more utilitarian goal that you can quantify or measure immediately, although there can be collateral benefits."

Most of what they are debating is detailed in H.R.3057, the Humans Exploration space intitive (Lampson). It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

Bill White · 2003-10-24 12:40:53

Other quotes from clarks link:

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, warned the panel that, "whether you like it or not, we're not going to have a significant increase in the budget."

IMHO this suggests - - Mars needs to fit into existing NASA funding levels.

When Space Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) challenged the witnesses on whether they would agree to an exploration initiative if the funding came from U.S. university research programs, most declined to support it on those terms.

IMHO this suggests - - no commercial sources need apply to offer funding assistance. Mars will be paid for by the US taxpayers or not at all.

Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) expressed dismay over "the optimism I see," saying that a Mars mission would be a "very long, very expensive, very difficult journey." He added that it would be difficult to gain support, even within the scientific community, where many would argue that they could do more valuable research with the same funds.

IMHO this suggests - - we need some good luck here.

clark · 2003-10-24 13:00:23

IMHO this suggests - - Mars needs to fit into existing NASA funding levels.

Or that it needs to be articulated in such a way as to make a strong case for increased funding.

IMHO this suggests - - no commercial sources need apply to offer funding assistance. Mars will be paid for by the US taxpayers or not at all.

Of course not, Uncle Sam picks one pocket, ours. :laugh:

IMHO this suggests - - we need some good luck here.

We don't need the scientific community, we need the voters, and the politicans understand this all to well.

Joe Blow dosen't want to spend millions on having women watch porn, or hanging cats by their tails, or any other science project that answers the esoteric questions of the scientific elite. These things mean absolutely nothing to them becuase Joe Blow isn't going to take the time to understand the import os such things.

Now, space, the moon, Mars- these are great metaphors that people can latch onto in the most general and broadest of senses. I can write a poem about Mars, or space, and people can relate to it without knowing the temp. differential. The idea is accessible, which is the important thing.

Exploration needs to be the driver, which is the ultimate agreement that came out of that discussion. Not science for science sake- science is a means to achieve our ends, not an end to itself. And that is the realization people are finally coming to.

clark · 2003-10-24 13:14:50

And now, for Act II: :;):

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10762

Alert: Signatures on Dear Colleague Letter: "Support our Nation's Space and Aeronautics Programs"

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:17:24 -0400
From: "Kathryn Holmes"
Subject: Signatures on Dear Colleague

The link is to a picture of the letter (there is also a link to a pdf version of the letter).

I caqn't quote it, but I can paraphrase...

They are calling on Bush to support an increase of funding for NASA and a new dedication to pushing the boundaries of human exploration of space.

Oh Bill....

Oh Josh...
:laugh:

Bill White · 2003-10-24 13:15:21

We don't need the scientific community, we need the voters, and the politicans understand this all to well.
Joe Blow dosen't want to spend millions on having women watch porn, or hanging cats by their tails, or any other science project that answers the esoteric questions of the scientific elite. These things mean absolutely nothing to them becuase Joe Blow isn't going to take the time to understand the import os such things.
Now, space, the moon, Mars- these are great metaphors that people can latch onto in the most general and broadest of senses. I can write a poem about Mars, or space, and people can relate to it without knowing the temp. differential. The idea is accessible, which is the important thing.
Exploration needs to be the driver, which is the ultimate agreement that came out of that discussion. Not science for science sake- science is a means to achieve our ends, not an end to itself. And that is the realization people are finally coming to.

Dang! You and I agree again. . .

clark · 2003-10-24 13:21:52

Eventually enough people will come around. Then, well, then it's time to rule the world muhhahahaha.... :laugh:

I urge anyone who cares enough to contact your represenative to have them sign the letter being sent to Bush.

dickbill · 2003-10-24 14:18:29

I also agree that in order to sale the idea of exploring Mars by men and women to the public, the scientific goals are not enough. More of a big show is necessary, we need adventures, suspens, romance, passion, anything to stimulate the public interest. Scientifics will take advantage of it anyway.

clark · 2003-11-04 12:51:30

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/space-weapons.pdf
PDF Developments In Military Space: Movements towards Space Weapons?

Developments in Military Space:Movement towards Space Weapons?

by Thresea Hitchens, VP, Center for Defense Information

The link is to a 13 page PDF file giving a brief synopsis of the current strategic position of space-capable nations, which include US, China, Russia, India, Isreal, Fra

clark · 2003-11-07 10:24:09

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EK05Ad04.html

China in space: Military implications
By Arun Sahgal

Technological developments in concert with a revolution in military affairs have made space an important dimension of future warfare. The Chinese have closely studied all the recent wars (Gulf Wars I and II, and the Kosvo and Afghan wars) and have come to the conclusion that in the ongoing revolution in military affairs, victory is only possible through exploitation of unknown fields in asymmetric warfare. It is in this context that Chinese military planners have focused on "information warfare" and "space supremacy" as the key components of its battlefield "Supremacy Theory" as enunciated in an October 28 People's Liberation Army (PLA)Daily article, "Space is the commanding point for the information battlefield".

Shenzhou V's two primary payloads included an electronic intelligence payload mounted on the nose. This consisted of two major components. UHF (ultra-high frequency) emission direction finding was accomplished by three Earth-pointing television-type antennas deployed on long telescoping booms. Seven horn antennas arranged in an arc supplemented these, which could detect and localize radar transmissions. This combination was designed to allow coverage of the entire Earth's surface as the module passed over it. This is an enormous leap in Chinese military surveillance given the fact that China has never flown a major ELINT (electronic intelligence) satellite. As the orbital module is likely to remain in space for nearly eight months, such a capability in effect provides China with wide-ranging satellite cover over a variety of targets such as the US carrier battle groups in the Indian and Pacific oceans and over areas of interest in India, Taiwan, Tibet etc

The above capabilities are underscored by the assertions of the People's Daily that the spacecraft can carry out missions of reconnaissance and surveillance better and allow the military to deploy, repair and assemble military satellites that could monitor and control military forces on Earth. This raises the prospects that the future Chinese manned space station, a model of which was shown at Hannover Expo 2000, under Project 921-2, which could be deployed as early as the turn of the decade, will have multiple military missions. A future space station could enable launching and repairing of military satellites, and cue and guide future PLA precision-guided weapons such as terminally guided ballistic missiles and new land attack cruise missiles. China in addition has planned to launch four high-resolution electro-optical satellites and four cloud-penetrating radar satellites by 2006. These satellites will allow twice-daily monitoring of any target on Earth.

Conquering space represents an opportunity in what China refers to as mankind's "Fourth Frontier" to recapture its lost legacy of technological mastery and innovation. The annual report on the military power of the People's Republic of China, published by the US Department of Defense, states that while the strongest immediate motivation for the manned space program appears to be political prestige, China's manned space effort almost certainly will contribute to improved space systems in the 2010-15 time frame

Euler · 2003-11-07 16:31:55

What would be the tactical and strategic significance of a military base on the moon? Are the moon's advantages enough to make the military favor a lunar base over other options?

clark · 2003-11-08 16:28:51

What would be the tactical and strategic significance of a military base on the moon?

Distance and flexibility in response options to threats of LEO or GEO space assests.

One nuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere is enough to litteraly destroy or degrade the orbit of all sats in LEO. The US, the largest user of space assests would litteraly be crippled. Economicaly, militarily, as well as our ability to respond to civil disasters.

It would take years to replace the infrastructure, and we would have very few alternatives or fall-back plans becuase another EMP pulse by another nuclear detonation would be all that is needed to put us back in square one. The effects of the blast would last for months by the way.

So based on this, what are our options? Invest in the ability to launch on demand (something we are working towards), but this has problems. Launch on demand can also be destroyed by missle shields and ASAt weapons. It's a dead end.

Now, the moon, at three days journey means we have time (as opposed to minutes with a nuke launched into space). We have an easier time of replacing sats, or retrieving them from facilities on the moon. We can also place fall-back systems to replace any critical ones lost to an intial blast until actual sats can be launced.

The moon provides for a secure level of redundancy that is missing from our current space strategy.

Just sit down and think about how you might go about 'controling space', the stated goal of the US military, and you'll end up with the same conclusions.

Euler · 2003-11-08 18:45:52

replace satellites that have been destroyed. I can see some justification for it, but it sounds like it would be extremely expensive to do, and the replacement satellites could be destroyed by a second EMP or ASAT attack. It seems like it would be more efficient to try and find ways to stop the satellites from being destroyed in the first place.

clark · 2003-11-08 18:55:43

I can see some justification for it, but it sounds like it would be extremely expensive to do, and the replacement satellites could be destroyed by a second EMP or ASAT attack.

Which is why you place redundant systems on the moon you can rely on if the sats are wiped from the sky. Also, realize that by having such redundant systems on the moon, or the ability to quickly return sats back to working order, you reduce the actual likelihood of attack on the systems to begin with. Part of military analysis is to see what damage you can do to the enemy that they cannot recover from- if they can quickly recover, then the usefulness of such a strike is lessened.

It seems like it would be more efficient to try and find ways to stop the satellites from being destroyed in the first place.

All true, and the military is looking into ways to do this. new generation nano sats are being designed to be able to monitor near themselves to look out for hostile ASAT's. New strategies for sat deployment rely on constellations of small sats, instead of just one or two big ones (allows greater flexibility and redundancy in case of attack).

However, all of these solutions suffer from the same problems in that you will have sats operating in a medium and a location that is not easily defensible, nor is it easy to react. A pile of sand launched on a rocket can make large swaths of the sky useless for sats to orbit in (the sand becomes little ballistic missles).

Even a space station suffers from the same problems because LEO and GEO, there is nothing. No where to hide, no where to protect yourself, and all a group needs is a crude nuke and an intermediate range missle (many many countries have the latter already)
What you need is someplace with a little distance to help your reaction time, and some place you can *secure*.

You just can't secure LEO and GEO, but the US military wants to. So, you have to go to the next logical place to do it, the moon.

Christina · 2003-11-12 15:42:48

Sadly, Moonbase Alpha is looking in jeopardy

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m … 01112.html

due to lack of water......................

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-12 17:33:22

China Outlines 4 Scientific Goals For Moon Project

Chang'e I, China's moon probing project is proceeding in full swing in a well-organized way. China's first moon probing is planned to be launched in three years. Four scientific goals have been set for the first stage of the program, Chang'e I moon orbiting project.

<snip>...

There are four scientific goals for this stage of "orbiting".

For the first goal, there will be three-dimensioned graphs of the lunar surface. Basic structures and physiognomy units of the lunar surface will be defined precisely. Researches on the shape, size, distribution, and density will be made on the crates on the moon.

These researches on the crates will produce data for identifying the age of the surface and early history of terrestrial planets and provide information needed to select the sites selecting for soft landing on the moon surface and for the lunar base.

The second goal is concentrating on the distribution and types of elements. It will be focused on the content and distribution of 14 elements such as titanium and iron which can be exploited. A map of elements distribution around the moon will be sketched. Graphs for lunar rocks, mineral materials and geology will also be drawn respectively. The area rich in specific elements will be identified. And prospects of the development and exploitation of the mineral resources will be evaluated.

The third goal is to detect the depth of the lunar soil through microwave radiation. In this way we can calculate the age of the lunar surface and distribution of the lunar soil on the lunar surface. This lays a foundation for the further estimates of the content, distribution, and quantity of helium-3 which is power generating fuel caused by nuclear fusion.

The fourth goal is focused on the space environment between the earth and the moon. The average distance between the earth and the moon is 380,000 thousand km, which is in the earth's far magnetotail. Here the satellite probes solar energetic particles, plasma in solar wind, and the interaction between the solar wind and the moon and between the tail of the magnetic field of the earth and the moon.

Source: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-03zy.html

clark · 2003-11-13 12:19:18

http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/03111315 … r1dyo.html

Russia to join India's moon programme: space official

MOSCOW (AFP) Nov 13, 2003

Russia is prepared to join in India's lunar space study project, the head of the Russian Space Agency said Thursday after a government meeting to discuss the 2004 federal space budget.
"India has drawn up a moon-study programme, and Russia with its long-time experience is in favour of participating in it," Yury Koptev was quoted as saying by the RIA Novosti news agency.
"Cooperation with India in this sphere would be useful and we are discussing it," he told reporters.
Space research featured on the agenda of a three-day visit to Moscow by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, along with several ministers and nearly 100 businessmen, which ended Thursday.
"Europe, America and China are showing a renewed interest in moon studies and we are also prepared to share our experience," he said.

clark · 2003-11-13 12:24:01

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/esa-general-03v.html

European Commission Adopts Space Action Plan

Brussels - Nov 12, 2003

A policy paper on "Space: A New European Frontier for an Expanding Union" has been presented by the European Commission in Brussels today. Space technologies are set to play a key role in helping the Union achieve its main objectives: faster economic growth, job creation and industrial competitiveness, enlargement and cohesion, sustainable development and security and defence. The policy paper was developed in close co-operation with the European Space Agency (ESA) and calls for substantial additional spending on space.

Key recommendations
Space technologies and applications can bring essential support to the Union's policies and objectives. They have vast social, economic, and commercial potential. Therefore the Commission recommends:

putting additional efforts into a variety of space infrastructures and applications, which will make a crucial contribution towards satisfying the needs of the citizens and in response to the Union's political objectives
consolidating the existing scientific and technical basis of space activities
updating the institutional structure to give the Union new responsibilities for driving, funding and co-ordinating activities within an enlarged Space Policy.
The Commission argues that Europe faces two real risks if it does not adopt a new approach to space policy. It may run the risk of decline as a space power and space companies could also suffer because of weak commercial markets, and critical knowledge and skills could be permanently lost to Europe.

The Commission proposes three main budget scenarios to support the Action Plan. A first option would be to support the needs identified during the consultation on the European Commission's space policy (see IP/03/82 and IP/03/880) and would involve an annual expenditure growth rate of 4.6%, with respect to the overall public level of funding in 2003 (Euro 5,380 billion). The second scenario presents an annual growth rate of 3.4%, a higher rate than the global growth rate of the EU economy. The third is more modest and is based on the current level of EU expenditures with a growth rate of 2.3 %, which, it is argued, would not be sufficient to guarantee EU independence with respect to technology and access to space.

clark · 2003-11-18 10:21:48

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-03zi.html

Space Control Gives US Defense Forces A Leading Edge

by 2nd Lt. Regina Gillis for Air Force News Service
Washington - Nov 18, 2003

The Space and Missile Systems Center Space Superiority Materiel Wing has forged a way to make space control a relevant goal in a world where asymmetric advantage tips the scale toward victory. As Col. James Haywood, Space Superiority Materiel Wing director, sees it, space is the final frontier.
Gaining operational advantage and meeting the core space control functions of situational awareness, defensive counterspace and offensive counterspace assures freedom of action in space, enhancing warfighting capability.

There are two groups underneath the materiel wing. One group is the Advanced Space Superiority Systems Group. The other is the Counterspace Systems Group," Haywood said.
He explained that organizational change has allowed the wing to put more of a laser focus on developing offensive counterspace, defensive counterspace and space situational awareness capabilities -- laser programmatic focus and then technologies needed to support those. It has also leveraged an evolution of air and space doctrine that facilitates a balance.
Space doctrine has matured, in many ways, similar to how air doctrine has grown and matured.

Doctrine has an offensive counterspace component, defensive counterspace component and space situational awareness component -- having that overall awareness of the space environment is important to respond to what might be changing.
"If someone is trying to employ or operate against your forces and national interests, we want to be able to see that right away, detect what they are doing and then react to it," said Haywood. "All that is wrapped up in space situational awareness. We understand that, certainly within the command and at the product center. In our materiel wing, we had to organize in a way to meet changing requirements.
"Space control has emerged as a part of Air Force doctrine, forcing a reconstruction of what it means to fight a war," continued Haywood. "Tenants of air and space power set up operations that achieve concentration of purpose. These tenants ensure synergistic effects are produced and balance the operations along the joint operational boundary and functional lines integrating, as necessary, to get the job done."

clark · 2003-11-18 12:15:03

http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … 31117.html

NASA Brings Back Plans To Fly X-37 Demonstrator In Orbit for 270 Days

By: Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer

NASA has revived plans to fly its X-37 experimental space plane in orbit for 270 days, a requirement that originally was set by the U.S. Air Force as a way to begin proving the feasibility of orbiting Earth with camera- and bomb-laden space planes for months at a time.
The Air Force withdrew from the X-37 program in 2002. At that time, the 270-day requirement then ?floated to the side,? said Daniel Dumbacher, NASA?s X-37 project manager.
Now, however, NASA has decided to restore the 270-day requirement as a way to test new, scientific remote sensing instruments, Dumbacher said. ?I would not say that we?re defining a military requirement,? he said. ?The 270-day requirement was revived for the purposes of making X-37 more applicable and useful to other parts of? NASA.
NASA is negotiating with Boeing to include the 270-day requirement in a modified contract that NASA hopes to have completed by early 2004, Dumbacher said. The X-37 orbital flight would take place in late 2006.

The X-37 is a winged vehicle that resembles a miniature space shuttle orbiter. It will demonstrate 25 innovative aerospace technologies under NASA?s Orbital Space Plane program, an effort to develop a crew rescue alternative for the international space station by late 2008.
X-37 advocates are concerned that if NASA chooses a wingless capsule as the best way to carry astronauts home in an emergency, their project will be vulnerable to cancellation.
By reviving the 270-day requirement, NASA managers might be trying to draw the Air Force back into the program, said Theresa Hitchens, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. Hitchens said it would be difficult to justify the long-duration requirement on the grounds of testing remote sensing instruments.
?You could do that on a micro-satellite,? she said. ?I don?t get the justification for testing that kind of instrument on that kind of platform.?

?The 270-day on-orbit requirement is a NASA requirement,? Kucharek said. ?It happens to coincide with the Air Force requirement in the original X-37 cooperative agreement. There was no Air Force input that revived the requirement, only the desire by NASA to have a vehicle capable of a broader range of activities for NASA application.?
Meanwhile, German aerospace companies are looking for a role on either the Orbital Space Plane or the X-37 project. At the request of NASA Administrator Sean O?Keefe, U.S. contractors met their German counterparts in Huntsville, Ala. Sept. 18-19 to discuss industry-to-industry opportunities in reusable space transportation. German companies would like a role in X-37 ? and potentially the Orbital Space Plane ? supplying thermal protection system technologies developed under the canceled X-38 program, according to a German aerospace source.

clark · 2003-11-20 12:31:42

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11051
CRS Report: U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial (part 1)

Updated October 6, 2003
Marcia S. Smith, Resources, Science, and Industry Division

The Department of Defense (DOD) has a less visible but equally substantial space program. Tracking the DOD space budget is extremely difficult since space is not identified as a separate line item in the budget. DOD sometimes releases only partial information (omitting funding for classified programs) or will suddenly release without explanation new figures for prior years that are quite different from what was previously reported. The most recent figures from DOD show a total (classified and unclassified) space budget of $15.7 billion for FY2002, $18.4 billion for FY2003, and a FY2004 request of $20.4 billion. DOD space issues include management of programs to develop new early warning and missile tracking satellites, and management of military and intelligence space activities generally.

DOD is requesting $20.4 billion for space programs (classified and unclassified) for FY2004, compared with its FY2003 appropriation of $18.4 billion. The House and Senate passed their respective versions of the FY2004 DOD authorization bill on May 22 (H.R. 1588/S. 1050). The FY2004 DOD appropriations act was signed into law September 30 (P.L. 108-87).

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11050

CRS Report: U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial (part 2)

The majority of U.S. government space funding goes to NASA and DOD. This table shows NASA and DOD space funding, but must be used cautiously. Tracking the DOD space budget is difficult since space is not specifically identified as a line item in the DOD budget. OMB and GAO provided CRS with DOD space funding figures through FY1995 including funding for both unclassified and classified DOD space programs. However, in 1996, the Director of Central Intelligence decided for the first time to classify the NRO funding figure so total figures for DOD space spending were not available for more than a year. In the summer of 1997, the Administration finally released a number for the total DOD FY1996 space budget, $11.5 billion, but at the same time revised numbers downward for FY1992-1995 without explanation. This table uses data in the FY2000 Aeronautics and Space Report of the President (released in 2002), with additional data from NASA's FY2004 budget estimate (including out-year projections), and from DOD for FY2000-2003 DOD space spending figures and out-year projections. DOD's space budget for FY2002 was $15.7 billion, for FY2003 is $18.4 billion, and the FY2004 request is $20.4 billion. NASA received $14.9 billion in FY2002; $15.3 billion in FY2003; and the FY2004 request is $15.5 billion. All NASA figures include aeronautics funding ($400 million-$1 billion annually in recent years).

Space-Based Lasers and Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapons for Boost-Phase Missile Defense. Space-based lasers (SBL) and space-based kinetic energy (KE) "hit-to-kill"weapons have been of interest in the context of missile defense since President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program in 1983.
Conceptually, these weapons would be able to attack missiles while they are still in their boost phase (from launch until burnout), prior to when warheads or decoys are deployed.
Funding for research on SBL has waxed and waned over the years. From 1995-2001, Congress added funds to the DOD request for SBL ($50 million in FY1996, $70 million in FY1997, $98 million in FY1998, and $74 million in FY1999). Congress directed DOD in the FY1999 DOD authorization conference report to release promptly a request for proposals (RFP) for a space based laser readiness demonstrator, but the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board concluded that technology was not sufficiently advanced to proceed with it. A Boeing-Lockheed Martin-TRW team jointly began work on the demonstrator, called the Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX), and Congress approved $148.8 million for FY2000, and $148 million for FY2001.
In FY2002, SBL was transferred from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO, now the Missile Defense Agency). BMDO requested $165 million for IFX, plus $5 million for SBL optics, but Congress cut $120 million in the FY2002 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-117), effectively killing IFX. Funding for technology work continued in FY2002 and FY2003 ($49 million and $25 million respectively). In the FY2004 budget, SBL work has been folded into the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA's) technology budget and is not identified separately.
The FY2002 budget also included funds for BMDO to resume work on space-based kinetic energy (KE) weapons: $5 million for experiment design and $15 million for concept definition. The FY2002 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-117) cut $10 million. The FY2003 request was $54 million, which was approved in the FY2003 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-248), but cut by $21.3 million in the authorization act (P.L. 107-314). In FY2004, the space-based KE interceptor effort has been folded into the overall BMD interceptors line and is not identified separately.

This is a non-partisan review of current space related activites and their budgets, an aid for Congressional represenatives.

Notice the disparity of funding between military space, and the civilian side. If you bother to read the report, it will explain the difference between the two programs, at least regarding philosphy of launch responsibilities- there is a great deal of overlap between the two programs though.

by 2008, they are predicting a 28 billion dollar budget for military space. ???

clark · 2003-12-01 10:28:00

More rumors of what may be...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=902

Bush to Charge NASA with Implementing Broad Space Vision to Dominate Cislunar Space

Frank Sietzen, Jr.
Sunday, November 30, 2003

President George W. Bush will propose a sweeping new vision of U.S. space leadership that will call for use of the Moon for technology development and partnerships between NASA and the Defense Department to make maximum use of existing or planned U.S. space systems, this column has learned from informed sources.
NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe will be tasked with leading the effort, aimed at presenting Vice President Dick Cheney and the president with a roadmap to what some are calling "renewed U.S. space dominance" during 2004.
Following a year-long review of U.S. space objectives, programs, and assets, the Bush administration was presented with a broad set of options during the summer's deliberations, a source indicated.
O'Keefe "worked to build a consensus" for renewed U.S. manned spaceflight beyond shuttle and station. The return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade became "by default" the least expensive and risky of the paths proposed for the U.S. space program.
Bush will call for renewed U.S. activities leading to leadership of space exploration "in the Earth-Moon system" that could include manned lunar landings, the employment of a series of commercially-available launch vehicles and upper stages, new robotic lunar probes that will include orbiting communications and navigation relay satellites, and the development of a "flexible" manned spacecraft that is likely to be a form of the proposed Orbital Space Plane, but no new advanced launchers, large Apollo-style space vehicles or reusable replacements for the shuttles. Creation of a manned lunar base would evolve from more limited landings, if at all.

Development of new, advanced space technologies that would reinvigorate the space program and industry has been more of a focus of the effort than the use of the Moon itself, the source said. Military use of space and military test beds were also key elements in gaining acceptance of the renewed space plan. Testing of the Prometheus atomic rocket would also be a part of the plan.
The existing space shuttle fleet will play a crucial role in the plan by use of its heavy lifting capabilities in an unmanned form. Use of the existing U.S. expendable Delta and Atlas fleet as well as the remaining three shuttles was mandated early on, the source indicated. Part of this exercise has also been a parallel effort to arrive at a retirement date for the shuttle. That had yet to be agreed upon, this column has been told.
NASA's budget will annually rise "no more" than seven percent, beginning in 2006, according to the source. This excludes the cost of the OSP and the shuttle's return to flight. Less than $250 million in new funding will be allocated in FY2005 for the space dominance implementation plan.
A series of options studied this summer that could free up agency funding for the manned initiative included NASA ending whole areas of existing unrelated work and transferring the programs to other federal agencies. The study included ending NASA-funded aeronautics research, and earth science programs. But it was not clear if these transfers would be attempted as part of a reorganization of the space agency that was set in motion by the Columbia accident as well as the Bush space vision exercise, or delayed until after the 2004 Presidential Election. The idea was considered so controversial that many thought it would never go beyond the study phase.

American moonbase? I must be crazy.

clark · 2003-12-01 13:21:24

not to steal the thunder from soon to be Moon declarations, here is an update on military space, and the coming FALCON space dominance and strike program, from your friendly thinkers at DARPA.

Here are the names to be aware of, and look into, if you care:

Elon Musk, of SpaceX.com, look at his October release, which states:

http://www.spacex.com/

SpaceX Wins DARPA & Air Force Launch Vehicle Contract
We?ve been selected as a phase one winner of the FALCON launch vehicle development program underway with the Air Force and DARPA. By pure coincidence, this program has the same name and approximate specifications as our launch vehicle (Falcon). Since we?re already approaching completion of Falcon, our proposal was only to charge the government for modifications required to allow launch of a satellite on very short notice.

Elon Musk, who has created a new space launch business, iis sending his first rocket up on a DARPA sponsered project, as part of the overall FALCON program, which is run by DARPA.

Now, what exactly will the rocket be launching into orbit under the FALCON program (please note, that the name of Elon Musk's launcher is called the Falcon)?

I'm glad you asked, it will be launching a CAV, or if you are unfamiliar, a Common Aero Vehicle, or CAV. Well, what is that?

go here for a full description in pdf format:
http://www.darpa.mil/body/NewsItems/pdf/falcon_fs.pdf

To find out what a CAV is, what the Falcon rocket will be launching, look on the bottom of page one of the pdf file, and the top of page two.

Here it is, typed out:

The U.S., however, needs a prompt global reach capability in the much nearer term. The near-term operational capability is embodied in the Common Aero Vehicvle (CAV) mutionions delivery system integrated with a low-cost, operationaly responsive, rocket booster. CAV would be an unpowered, manueverable, hypersonic glide vehicle capable of carrying approximetly 1,000 pounds in munitions or other payload. CAV designs based on exsisting technologies are predicited to have a downrange on the order of 3,000 nautical miles

Elon Musk's rocket is designed to be cheap, carry about 1000 pounds, and be responsive. It is in essence, exactly what the military wants to deliver the CAV to space.

Bill, you wanted a stock tip. Here it is.

Euler · 2003-12-01 13:40:27

Why are they sending an atmospheric glider into space?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2003-10-22 09:47:02

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

#252 2003-10-24 12:23:38

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

#253 2003-10-24 12:40:53

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

#254 2003-10-24 13:00:23

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

#255 2003-10-24 13:14:50

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

#256 2003-10-24 13:15:21

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

#257 2003-10-24 13:21:52

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

#258 2003-10-24 14:18:29

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

#259 2003-11-04 12:51:30

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

#260 2003-11-07 10:24:09

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

#261 2003-11-07 16:31:55

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

#262 2003-11-08 16:28:51

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

#263 2003-11-08 18:45:52

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

#264 2003-11-08 18:55:43

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

#265 2003-11-12 15:42:48

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

#266 2003-11-12 17:33:22

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

#267 2003-11-13 12:19:18

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

#268 2003-11-13 12:24:01

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

#269 2003-11-18 10:21:48

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

#270 2003-11-18 12:15:03

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

#271 2003-11-20 12:31:42

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

#272 2003-12-01 10:28:00

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

#273 2003-12-01 13:21:24

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

#274 2003-12-01 13:40:27

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

Board footer