NASA's Moon Mission

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-21 19:55:51

now lookie here

It sounds like NASA runs the risk of being gutted and its future destroyed because Congress might take away about 40% of its manned spaceflight budget for the next dozen years.

How about this instead... present them with a choice, either you destroy NASA's future, since NASA doesn't have one beyond the ISS, and doom the agency to a quiet, undignified death when the ISS is gone...

...Or get rid of the ISS, starting right now, Fiscal Year 2006. The ISS has no future even if it were complete in its original form, much less its decrepit and doubly useless current form, no science can possibly even justify the operating expense. Plus, how many people will tune in to see a NASA/RSA/ESA exec declare the ISS "finished" versus will tune in to watch man return to the Moon? ...Thought so.

Getting rid of the ISS now, which is almost completly without any material worth, and which will continue to stagger on at the supreme expense of NASA's (and America's) future in space, will save about as much money as axing VSE.

Hey Mr. Congressman:
A: Completly useless, dangerous, pitiful debacle that nobody cares about and has no future. One that is increasingly becomming a political liability and not an asset as its cost balloons but you don't have the will to cancel it... pander to Russia over the increasingly bad Iran situation to get embarrasing rides on Soyuz rockets for a few years, which will only encourage Iran... and oh yeah, ensures NASA's doom after the ISS is gone.

B: Score political points by having the guts to get rid of a hyper-overpriced useless pork project with "institutional momentum," avoid the Russia/Iran INA showdown, ensure America will continue being the leader in space replete with undiluted national pride and inspiration, and oh yeah making sure there is a NASA after 2017.

*cue Jepardy music*

John Creighton · 2005-09-21 20:29:24

now lookie here
It sounds like NASA runs the risk of being gutted and its future destroyed because Congress might take away about 40% of its manned spaceflight budget for the next dozen years.
How about this instead... present them with a choice, either you destroy NASA's future, since NASA doesn't have one beyond the ISS, and doom the agency to a quiet, undignified death when the ISS is gone...
...Or get rid of the ISS, starting right now, Fiscal Year 2006. The ISS has no future even if it were complete in its original form, much less its decrepit and doubly useless current form, no science can possibly even justify the operating expense. Plus, how many people will tune in to see a NASA/RSA/ESA exec declare the ISS "finished" versus will tune in to watch man return to the Moon? ...Thought so.
Getting rid of the ISS now, which is almost completly without any material worth, and which will continue to stagger on at the supreme expense of NASA's (and America's) future in space, will save about as much money as axing VSE.
Hey Mr. Congressman:
A: Completly useless, dangerous, pitiful debacle that nobody cares about and has no future. One that is increasingly becomming a political liability and not an asset as its cost balloons but you don't have the will to cancel it... pander to Russia over the increasingly bad Iran situation to get embarrasing rides on Soyuz rockets for a few years, which will only encourage Iran... and oh yeah, ensures NASA's doom after the ISS is gone.
B: Score political points by having the guts to get rid of a hyper-overpriced useless pork project with "institutional momentum," avoid the Russia/Iran INA showdown, ensure America will continue being the leader in space replete with undiluted national pride and inspiration, and oh yeah making sure there is a NASA after 2017.
*cue Jepardy music*

Sounds good as a last resort. However if NASA loses that budget it could be hard to get it back.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-21 20:38:21

I think the $20Bn figure is downright preposterous, and would be characteristic of Bob's history of lying and deception to push his personal one true way of getting things done.

NASA budget guys came up with that figure when Mars Direct was still new. That price estimate is from 1992 or 1993 so it's 12-13 years old, but Robert Zubrin didn't come up with it.

Commodore · 2005-09-21 21:06:33

I wouldn't worry too much about NASA funding. fiscally conservitive republicans are a small minority.

And you can't rebuild a region by gutting its industries.

dicktice · 2005-09-21 21:07:09

Here's a quote:

"The NACA ceased to exist on October 1, 1958. It was succeeded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was formed largely in response to Soviet space achievements. NACA became the nucleus of the new agency, and all NACA activities and facilities were folded into NASA. The major focus became space research, but aeronautics would remain as the first "A" in its name."

Here's the poser: Those who salivate over the demise of NASA (for whatever reason) shouldn't overlook where NASA came from, and what would happen to the former NACA (National Advisorary Commitee for Aeronautics) functions which made American aeronautics viable. Kindly extrapolate the consequences of your simplistic decision to eliminate NASA with the loss of its non-space oriented functions, if any. The world without NASA, in other words.

Austin Stanley · 2005-09-21 22:02:11

Well the biggest problem with using our current methods of Titanium refining on the moon is probably not lack of Hydrogen or Chlorine to carbochlorinate the mix, since it can likely be recycled, but the Coke which supplies both the heat energy and the carbon cannot easily be recycled. The heat we could replace, but reduced form of Carbon is harder to come by, especialy on the moon.

It's the same story with nearly all current metal refining techniques which nearly all rely upon some form of Pyrometallurgy, namely roasting the impure Ore's with coke. Coke's role as a source of a Carbon reducing agent is primary in nearly universial in metal refining process, which is unfortunate since Coke is not likely to be found on extra-terrestial enviroments.

In the case of Titanium however, there is some promise. The two earliest methods of refining Titanium the Hunter and the Kroll process, both rely upon pyrometalurigal techniques and so are not very usefull to us in space. However, the new FFC Cambridge Process does hold much promise for use on the moon. This electrochemical method uses less energy, is more efficent, and faster then the current Kroll process. And like most electrochemical process, it is possible to recycle nearly all of it's important chemical componets. The only element that is potentialy wasted is the evolved oxygen which on the moon will can be captured as a usefull gas.

RobS · 2005-09-21 22:07:55

Has anyone seen a web page where the $104 billion is broken down? I am curious about the figures.

-- RobS

Rxke · 2005-09-22 01:48:12

For those that did not get to tune in.NASA News Conference With Mike Griffin: Exploration Systems Architecture Study Transcript

thanks for that, SpaceNut.

However: there's a very funny typo in the transcript, in the beginning:

how NASA will fulfill the President's vision for expiration,

EDIT: Hmmm... Has this page been hacked or something... Or did the transcriber sneakily show contempt for GWB?

the President put out a very old vision for space exploration

VTTFSH_T · 2005-09-22 02:34:16

What is NASA's reason for going back to the moon? Are we going to build a useful base when we go? No. Are we gonna build anything useful when we go? No. It's just an excuse for NASA to do something that LOOKS good. What they should do is design a new shuttle that is capable of reaching high orbits. Because of the space shuttle, we haven't had ANY off-planet missions that do something productive, like building a USEFUL base on the moon, as opposed to walking around, driving around and golfing!

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 05:02:04

It is looking more like another workfare program for Nasa's work force of engineers to take over after shuttle is dead and retired to a museum.

The real meat of what we all thought the vision was to be is missing even from the presidential exploration announcement.

Where is the private civilian commercial market to get its start if no other company other than the contract winner is to build ships for the vision for Nasa.

With this moon program much like its predecesor it leaves nothing to be build from when making a base as each trip is made.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-22 06:07:13

Oh please SpaceNut and VTTFSH_T... You two don't seem to be very interested in what is actually happening and are just dissing the current plan without a good reason.

We are going to build a base on the Moon, which will have enough room and power to operate year-round plus will probobly have a LOX factory. This is all thats needed for a "beach head" base. Having a place to stay and supply of oxygen for breathing and fuel opens the door for large scale science, tourism, and later commercial mining. That is a useful base!

Driving around golfing? I think you have insulted NASA's honor VTTFSH...

A new Shuttle is exactly what we DON'T need right now, because a new Shuttle can't send large vehicles in a reasonable number of pieces. It would take several flights just to send one crew rotation or cargo canister, which would require a space station for assembly. A new Shuttle would cost $20-25Bn to build, and an assembly space station another ~$10-20Bn+ more, and thats just so you can build ships. NASA is proposing to actually get the Moon landings started, and return to the Moon, for about $40-50Bn (maybe a little more).

A new Shuttle doesn't make much sense, its just not very useful, because we don't NEED that many flights yet. It would be sitting in a hanger most of the time and not going anywhere! A reuseable Lunar crew/cargo network would also need Lunar oxygen to be efficient, which isn't available yet. Building a base with NASA's current plan to start making oxygen and having a place for astronauts to live is more efficient with big rockets then it is with Shuttles.

Tourism, commercial mining, and all that are great, but we aren't ready for them yet. The demand on Earth for Platinum and Helium-3 is not very large yet, but should rise in the next few decades. Then, not now, would mining be profitable. Space tourism ventures need to "grow up" before they can think about Lunar tourism, like having someone sane take Bigelow's patents from him and hire NASA to send & build a "tourist wing" at the NASA base.

In the mean time however, there is still much to learn and do on the Moon! If we are ever going to build a base, we have to be sure the location is okay before construction begins. That base should also be close to potential future mining sites, so there is exploration to do there. You need the heavy lander like NASA wants so that you can carry a multi-day pressurized rover, which will weigh alot. And say you find a promising rock, but its buried in the dust? Or you want a core sample? Then you are going to need a heavy drill... say, NASA's lander can carry it too, convienant no?

And finally, space astronomy in the vein of Hubble and Chandra and the rest have been magnificent boons to humanity, but telescopes have practical limitations, one of the biggest is "noise" from the Earth and Sun. The Moon offers a unique advantage, that on the Moon's "dark" side, you convienantly have the Moon between the scope' and the Earth & Sun for days on end. This is the only way to make space telescopes much more powerful then Hubble or JWST... And lookie there, NASA's lander ought to be able to carry a telescope to the dark side too. Swell, huh?

The private civilian commercial companies, to be quite blunt, don't have any business feigning to think they are ready to contribute to manned spaceflight. They aren't that good yet. Burt can barely build a supersonic Cessna, and Elon's one-tonne rocket hasn't flown a single time. Kistler is basically dead in the water, Starlifter is a joke, and 4Frontiers is just in it to mug NASA in court. Quite a lineup there, SpaceNut? NASA has no business trusting AltSpace yet, because they aren't trustworthy, mature, credible companies yet.

And your last point SpaceNut, the NASA lander can haul around 12MT in addition to the crew, right? Well, for a six-month stay, they aren't going to need all 12MT for supplies! Say about half of that, 6MT, could be for base parts on every flight. 6MT would be enough to carry a two-story TransHAB module, a 100kW class nuclear reactor, a Lunar bulldozer/ore truck or two, a soil furnace, a sizeable solar farm, and a variety of other things. Your notion that they "leave nothing behind" is just not true.

RobS · 2005-09-22 08:17:46

NASA has indicated willingness to set up commercial contracts for private companies to supply ISS. That's a good way to help start private commercial flights to orbit, and earth orbit is half way to anything in the solar system.

I think I even saw somewhere that the schedule calld for a base on the moon by 2022. If that's the case, then the 2018 landing WILL lead to something else.

GCN is right, if we send crews to the same spot again and again we will accumulate STUFF there, and that will make that spot the safest place in the solar system off Earth. We can explore the moon around it--admittedly a small area--but eventually send out missions to other spots as well, developing a series of beachheads. NASA's plan makes a long-term development possible. The non-reusable lunar lander can eventually be replaced by a reusable one once lunar fuel is available. That means when commercial flight to orbit gets cheaper, flights to the moon will get cheaper, and the moon will already have a beachhead. . . that's really valuable.

Bit by bit, year by year.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 09:26:16

Oh please SpaceNut and VTTFSH_T... You two don't seem to be very interested in what is actually happening and are just dissing the current plan without a good reason.

So where is this whole document plans link?

There was nothing in Griffin's announcement that said moon base.

The LM on Steroids still after leaving some equipment and the descent stage leaves little to nothing to build from.

As for 6 months stay all I have seen is 18 days.

NASA has indicated willingness to set up commercial contracts for private companies to supply ISS. That's a good way to help start private commercial flights to orbit, and earth orbit is half way to anything in the solar system.
I think I even saw somewhere that the schedule calld for a base on the moon by 2022. If that's the case, then the 2018 landing WILL lead to something else.
GCN is right, if we send crews to the same spot again and again we will accumulate STUFF there, and that will make that spot the safest place in the solar system off Earth.

Yes Nasa has made that commercial statement for ISS cargo but the are no other launch sites owned or operated other than by Boeing and Lockheed at this time all others are suborbital. Not to mention that probably neither would sell off the shelf items to others for which some one else could build these ships.

I would love to see the reference doc for the moon base if you can find the link.

At this time the moon landings do not appear to be all in the same place and probably are not to revisit any sites until the 2022 date that you posted.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 10:43:20

I did a little digging on the Nasa site in search of the info:
Facts about NASA's Exploration Architecture and New Spaceship

The lunar heavy cargo launch vehicle will consist of five shuttle main engines, and two, five-segment shuttle solid propellant rocket boosters. This combination yields a lift capability of 106 metric tons to low Earth orbit, and 125 metric tons if using an Earth departure stage. Although primarily designed to carry cargo, this system can be human-rated to carry crew into orbit.
NASA has the capability to land 21 metric tons on the lunar surface with dedicated cargo missions.

NASA’s Exploration Architecture

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 11:37:25

Here is the document for were cancelation of the Nasa moon mission comes from of saving only 44 billion on a 10 year cycle while it is proported to be 104 billion over 13 years.
page 7 contains the line item

Cancel NASA’s New Moon/Mars Initiative
In 2004, the President announced a new initiative to explore the Moon and Mars with the goal of returning humans to the Moon by 2020. NASA currently intends to use the savings from phasing out the space shuttle in 2012 to fund this program. Savings: $44 billion over ten years ($11.5 billion over five
years)

Note the new retirement date 2012? ???

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-22 17:24:58

Well SpaceNut, VSE does call for a base, but it wasn't Griffin who said it... it was his manager... President Bush

You know, the whole go to the Moon to stay bit? That was in the speech.

At two to three missions per year, I doubt that NASA would need more then two or three years to settle down on a site. In the mean time, they could be be modifying the manned lander for a pure heavy cargo lander and designing base componets, rovers, telescopes, etc.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 19:46:26

[url=http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=3885332&nav=2aKD]Boehlert: NASA won't get "blank check" for new moon mission

The chairman of the House science committee says NASA's on the right track in its plan for a return to the moon. But Sherwood Boehlert _ a Utica-area Republican _ says the space agency shouldn't get a "blank check" for the program.
Boehlert says the use of an Apollo-style capsule _ like that used in the first moon missions _ is a good idea. He says the U-S should _ in his words _ "take advantage of the technology we already have."
The congressman told Binghamton radio station W-N-B-F that he believes NASA will be able to develop the next-generation space vehicle without huge annual spending increases.
He says the space agency's current schedule for a return to the moon may have to be adjusted because of budget constraints.
NASA's administrator this week said the agency is aiming for a manned moon mission by 2018.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 20:24:11

I followed though and found the original Presidential speech.
[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html]President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program
For Immediate Release, office of the Press Secretary, January 14, 2004
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. [/url]

Looked for the term moonbase but alas it is not in the document.

I do however agree that doing flags and foot prints are not worth the effort of going. I would rather risk a flag and foot prints on a place that we have never been to before mainly Mars than to do a repeat of apollo.

VTTFSH_T · 2005-09-22 21:57:12

yup, there's no reference to a "moon base" in the speech. Also, does bush realize he will not be president in 2018? just making sure bc idk if he knows he won't be president.

Ad Astra · 2005-09-22 22:00:48

Yes Nasa has made that commercial statement for ISS cargo but the are no other launch sites owned or operated other than by Boeing and Lockheed at this time all others are suborbital. Not to mention that probably neither would sell off the shelf items to others for which some one else could build these ships.

What about SpaceX's pads at Vandenberg and Kwajelein? What about the Taurus and Minotaur pads used by Orbital Sciences (or, for that matter, the Pegasus, which uses no pad.) A space startup can get its own pads. Right now, LC-46 at the Cape is available.

Regarding our reasons for going back to the moon:
At this point, NASA Watch's Keith Cowing is correct in that NASA is doing a poor job explaining to American taxpayers why they should fund the lunar return. From what I can tell, NASA has two major obectives:

1. Establish a base that can be used to demonstrate man's ability to work in space and conduct science on the moon.

2. Prepare for a Mars mission by exploiting lunar oxygen, demonstrating life support systems, and developing methane engines.

Mars wasn't mentioned by Michael Griffin. For space enthusiasts, this will make them lose faith in the "why" behind lunar return. However, the media would savage NASA and the president at the first mention of Mars. The media view is that Mars is a multibillion-dollar boondoggle, and that humans on Mars is unnecessary because we can send robots to Mars on the cheap (an interesting reply can be found on the 9/22 NASA Watch, from none other than Mars rover principle investigator Steven Squyers.)

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-22 22:07:37

Yeah, NASA has to talk a fine line to avoid being ripped to pieces by the media for being "hopeless dreamers who suck up billions uselessly"

I would like to abridge your two points, AdAstra:

1: Establish a base as a foothold for future Lunar mining, tourism, and science-for-profit enterprises, which can be greatly catalyzed (or in todays' world, enabled) by a government built "beach head" installation and technology portfolio. Oh, plus find viable mining locations and test mining techniques.

2: Prepare for a Mars mission by (re?) building NASA's competance (& confidance?) in interplanetary manned exploration, plus use Mars componets like HAB modules or nuclear reactors for Lunar installation(s). NASA hasn't had to go anywhere in a long time, and a low-risk "warm up" would be good for the engineers (its only three days distant).

RobS · 2005-09-22 22:08:38

There's this in http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133820main_ESAS_Facts.pdf : "NASA will establish a lunar outpost, one mission at a time."

And here's a reference to 2022 in http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17838

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, September 19, 2005
Source: National Space Society

NASA sets out an inspiring, affordable path for future exploration

WASHINGTON, DC: The National Space Society hails the formal announcement of NASA's Exploration System architecture, setting out the agency's exploration plans for the next two decades.

"We are going back to the Moon and on to Mars with a plan that the nation can afford," said George T. Whitesides, Executive Director of NSS.

Under the plan, the first new moon landing will take place in 2018, with startup of a lunar outpost in 2022. Ultimately, NASA envisions crews stationed at the outpost for up to several months. Exploration of Mars could and should follow the establishment of the lunar outpost.

"The Exploration Architecture is a strategic starting point which will evolve as the engineering, organizational, and political challenges are addressed," said Gary Barnhard, Chairman of the NSS Executive Committee. "NSS looks forward to working with NASA and the many other organizations, companies, and agencies whose collaborative efforts will take this journey forward."

The new architecture plans for the establishment of an infrastructure for space exploration, built around the core of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, with plans for In-Situ Resource Utilization and a set of common modular connectors between all vehicles. It also enables human exploration of the lunar poles for the first time, where reserves of frozen water may be located.

"This new plan is the real start of settlement of our solar system," said Whitesides. "It also opens the exciting possibility that the US will put the first woman on the Moon in 2018, a milestone which would underscore the motivational importance of this plan to our nation's youth."

The new strategy is budgeted to fit within NASA's current plans for exploration funding. It will take advantage of the potential cost-savings of commercial innovation and entrepreneurial activity. With explicit plans for entrepreneurs, the architecture sets NASA's policy to prefer commercial services for launch of crew and cargo to the International Space Station, if private companies can affordably meet NASA requirements. The society believes that this new direction for NASA is critical to the ultimate success of the Vision and must be maintained.

"Administrator Griffin has stated that NASA is baselining commercial service to ISS in the out years of this plan, with the preference to keep NASA at the far frontier," said Whitesides. "We believe that this direction is the right approach and will maximize the resources of our nation."

NSS strongly supports the new architecture and will soon begin a new campaign of public education and advocacy to build support among the American public.

About the National Space Society

The National Space Society (NSS) is an independent, grassroots organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring civilization. Founded in 1974, NSS is widely acknowledged as the preeminent citizen's voice on space. NSS counts thousands of members and over 50 chapters in the United States and around the world. The society also publishes Ad Astra magazine, an award-winning periodical chronicling the most important developments in space. For more information about NSS, how to join or donate, or the annual International Space Development Conference, visit: http://www.nss.org

George T. Whitesides
Executive Director
email: george@nss.org
phone: 202 429 1600

And there's a reference to "1st human lunar outpost IOC at South Pole" here at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18001

-- RobS

Ad Astra · 2005-09-22 22:38:20

Despite long-term plans of exciting moon missions, the space program between 2011 and 2018 seems pretty dull. The only manned missions that will launch from the US will be Stick + CEV flights to ISS. We'll probably conduct 2-3 of these missions per year. Yawn. But I suppose that in the 2016-2017 time period we'll see shakedown flights of the lunar CEV, massive in-line SDV, and LSAM, like what happened in Apollo 7-10.

VTTFSH_V · 2005-09-23 02:09:23

The word of the day: USEFUL

Let us ask, what did we do on the moon during the Apollo program? We walked around, put up a flag, saluted, drove around, collected some rocks, and HIT TWO GOLF BALLS INTO A CRATER. You think that this is HONORABLE? NASA should be ashamed of themselves, wasting money like that. The only USEFUL part was the rock collection, which could have been accomplished using a probe.

Now, about this upcoming base on the moon. What you effectively asserted was that we are going to send astronauts to the moon to breathe, to make gas to with perhaps come back (that one is especially funny), and to open up oppertunities for science, tourism and commercial mining. The lack of purpose in the first two reasons speak for themselves, but let us examine the science, tourism and commercial mining further.

NASA has attemted to advance scientific research with human utilization in space several times, and they failed miserably. They put up Skylab. That was a wreck. They have been trying to put up the ISS (dragging other countries into funding it, kicking and screaming), and it is just going to get dumped in a few years anyway. But the biggest disappointment was the Hubble Space Telescope. After they fixed it (we won't go there, but it is just more ammunition for my point), it yielded such stunning and USEFUL pictures of the cosmos. Then its equipment began to fail, and its orbit began to decay. But due to the Colubia accident, NASA plans to just let such a USEFUL tool burn up in the atmosphere. This is were my shuttle argument comes in. Notice what we have been saying thus far: NASA likes funding pointless projects, and SCREWS-OVER the USEFUL projects! With a new shuttle, that can too reach higher orbits to service other USEFUL things, we would be able to preserve USEFUL tools like the Hubble Space Telescope. Then again, NASA cannot seem to take political pressure without screwing up BADLY (especially when it comes to shuttles), so it would seem that NASA is flat-out incompetent at everything. There is one exception, however. Notice how I said "scientific research with human utilization." NASA's probes have done good work, so I would encourage them to continue with that.

And now to space tourism. DO NOT THINK OF GOING THERE! NASA uses devices built by the lowest bidder on a government contract. No sane person walks on board a vessel that says "NASA" on it (that's right, the astronauts are just asking to be killed). I recall having a few nightmares in which I was being forced onto a NASA flight for civilians (har har, not really). The devices are cheap and flimsy, and then there is that factor of political pressure, which has this tendency to KILL people when utilized by government monopolies. Do NOT get me started with all of THAT! NO SPACE TOURISM FOR NASA!

Finally, commercialization would not involve NASA beyond perhaps joint research, by definition (NASA isn't a business). And NASA has no USEFUL reason to mine on the moon.

So, we have established that NASA has never planned to do anything useful on the moon, and should not get involved with science research in space, space tourism (PLEASE!), and commercial mining. They should make a better shuttle (if they REALLY feel up to it), and continue with unmanned probe missions. We must use the evidence provided to aid us in making better decisions regarding space projects in the future.

P.S. Thank you for allowing me an oppertunity to practice my unified essay-writing skills.

John Creighton · 2005-09-23 03:48:08

Wow, that was quite a rant.

The word of the day: USEFUL
Let us ask, what did we do on the moon during the Apollo program? We walked around, put up a flag, saluted, drove around, collected some rocks, and HIT TWO GOLF BALLS INTO A CRATER. You think that this is HONORABLE? NASA should be ashamed of themselves, wasting money like that. The only USEFUL part was the rock collection, which could have been accomplished using a probe.

You so easily criticize the leading edge of engineering 40 years ago. Yes they could of done more and could of done things better but we say that now with 40 years of hindsight. Despite you demeaning of the lunar missions far more science was accomplished as a result of those human missions then all the probes ever sent to the moon combined.

We say we don’t want another Apollo but Apollo was the brightest point in the history of space exploration. What we really mean is we want to go beyond Apollo. We want to do more then visit we want to stay to learn and not to yield.

Now, about this upcoming base on the moon. What you effectively asserted was that we are going to send astronauts to the moon to breathe, to make gas to with perhaps come back (that one is especially funny), and to open up oppertunities for science, tourism and commercial mining. The lack of purpose in the first two reasons speak for themselves, but let us examine the science, tourism and commercial mining further.
NASA has attemted to advance scientific research with human utilization in space several times, and they failed miserably. They put up Skylab. That was a wreck. They have been trying to put up the ISS (dragging other countries into funding it, kicking and screaming), and it is just going to get dumped in a few years anyway.

Trying to say the entire human exploration program is a failure because of a few choices you believe are misguided shows an ignorance to what has been learned and accomplished as a result of human space activity.

I know Skylab wasn’t the best place to do science but I would of though it as a successful program as it was much cheaper then the ISS. Anyway, NASA over the years has developed many technologies over the year as a result of human space exploration. Not only does each of these developments take us one step closer to opening up the new frontier of space but it improvers our living standards by driving advanced engineering techniques which add to the explosion of technological advancements over the recent years that constantly improves our quality of life.

But the biggest disappointment was the Hubble Space Telescope. After they fixed it (we won't go there, but it is just more ammunition for my point), it yielded such stunning and USEFUL pictures of the cosmos. Then its equipment began to fail, and its orbit began to decay. But due to the Colubia accident, NASA plans to just let such a USEFUL tool burn up in the atmosphere. This is were my shuttle argument comes in. Notice what we have been saying thus far: NASA likes funding pointless projects, and SCREWS-OVER the USEFUL projects! With a new shuttle, that can too reach higher orbits to service other USEFUL things, we would be able to preserve USEFUL tools like the Hubble Space Telescope.

Calling the Hubble Space Telescope a disappointment and a “USEFUL project” in the same paragraph shows inconsistencies in your arguments. Hubble was a tremendously successful scientific endeavour that has brought decades of groundbreaking astronomy observations but it is at the end of its design life. The telescope is now outdated and its capabilities are being matched by ground based telescopes especially in the infra red region of the spectrum. The infra red region of the spectrum is more useful because it allows astronomers to more clearly see though the dust that obstructs the view of suns and planets at the centers of solar systems and galaxies.

Not only is the Hubble space telescope outdated but it is actually cheaper to replace it with a new superior telescope then it is to put together a frantic effort to save a dying telescope which was partly created as an excuse to justify the existence of the space shuttle. Although the space shuttle despite claims to be reusable it is the most expensive launch vehicle ever created. It cost about a billion dollars a flight and has only a marginally expectable level of reliability.

Then again, NASA cannot seem to take political pressure without screwing up BADLY (especially when it comes to shuttles), so it would seem that NASA is flat-out incompetent at everything.

Generally when people try to write a good essays they start with a claim and try to back it up though the essay, rather then throw in the middle of the essay unsubstantiated claims and unjustified insults without writing a sound argument to support that position. Such bad form in your righting points to a clear lack of sophistication in your thought process.

There is one exception, however. Notice how I said "scientific research with human utilization." NASA's probes have done good work, so I would encourage them to continue with that.

But a robot is no where as capable as a human when it comes to doing science on a per dollar basis.

And now to space tourism. DO NOT THINK OF GOING THERE! NASA uses devices build by the lowest bidder on a government contract. No sane person walks on board a vessel that says "NASA" on it (that's right, the astronauts are just asking to be killed). I recall having a few nightmares in which I was being forced onto a NASA flight for civilians (har har, not really). The devices are cheap and flimsy, and then there is that factor of political pressure, which has this tendency to KILL people when utilized by government monopolies. Do NOT get me started with all of THAT! NO SPACE TOURISM FOR NASA!

The point of NASA is not to become the industry but to lay the necessary ground work in science and engineering so one day markets will be opened up for industry. It is possible that NASA could support minimal tourism to the moon as Russia did to MIR. However, such tourism will be minimal and a side not of the larger efforts in science, exploration and engineering that will pave the way for industry to follow.

Finally, commercialization would not involve NASA beyond perhaps joint research, by definition (NASA isn't a business). And NASA has no USEFUL reason to mine on the moon.

In-situ resource utilization (ISRU) is essential to lower the cost of human exploration of the solar system. Given the immense cost to bring everything from earth it is clear that vast savings will be gained from using local resources such as lunar oxygen or solar panels made on the moon. Thus NASA has two important reasons to mine the moon. The first is to do the initial research that will pave the way for commercial mining efforts to follow. The second is to develop cheaper methodologies for NASA to explore in space both for humans and robots.

So, we have established that NASA has never planned to do anything useful on the moon,

Have we?

and should not get involved with science research in space, [/qutoe]
Not even the hubble and the robotic program? Doesn’t this contradict what you said earlier?
space tourism (PLEASE!), and commercial mining. They should make a better shuttle (if they REALLY feel up to it), and continue with unmanned probe missions. We must use the evidence provided to aid us in making better decisions regarding space projects in the future.
P.S. Thank you for allowing me an oppertunity to practice my unified essay-writing skills.
A reusable launch vehicle is only price effective if it makes many flights in a year. To justify all this traffic you would need a bigger space station and you wouldn’t necessarily reduce the costs of the program or accomplish anything else useful in space. The moon provides a place to go which has resources that don’t have to be brought from earth and is a source of a lot of interesting science which include questions about the make up of the moon and radio astronomy on the far side of the moon. With out such a destination it is questionable if we are really that much further ahead even if we have a RLV.

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-09-21 19:55:51

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#52 2005-09-21 20:29:24

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#53 2005-09-21 20:38:21

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#54 2005-09-21 21:06:33

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#55 2005-09-21 21:07:09

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#56 2005-09-21 22:02:11

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#57 2005-09-21 22:07:55

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#58 2005-09-22 01:48:12

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#59 2005-09-22 02:34:16

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#60 2005-09-22 05:02:04

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#61 2005-09-22 06:07:13

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#62 2005-09-22 08:17:46

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#63 2005-09-22 09:26:16

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#64 2005-09-22 10:43:20

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#65 2005-09-22 11:37:25

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#66 2005-09-22 17:24:58

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#67 2005-09-22 19:46:26

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#68 2005-09-22 20:24:11

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#69 2005-09-22 21:57:12

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#70 2005-09-22 22:00:48

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#71 2005-09-22 22:07:37

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#72 2005-09-22 22:08:38

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#73 2005-09-22 22:38:20

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#74 2005-09-23 02:09:23

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#75 2005-09-23 03:48:08

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

Board footer