You are not logged in.
There is a pressing need to determine property rights of celestial bodies. The Outer Space Treaty does not allow for property claims. This document, ratified by the US and Russia, establishes the moon and other bodies as being pristine territory that cannot be claimed (similar to Antarctica.) This agreement does quite nicely for the scientific exploration of these bodies.
The Outer Space Treaty reaches the end of its usefulness when people begin to use the moon and other bodies for profit. The UN thus drafted the Moon Treaty, which would allow the UN to manage profits derived from celestial bodies. Neither the Americans nor the Russians nor any other space faring nation has ratified this treaty, and it looks to be a non-starter.
The Moon Treaty needs to be replaced once the moon and Mars are explored by humans. I do not believe that we should establish a single, eternal policy regarding celestial bodies. The policy should change as societal values change. But the policy should ensure that no country monopolizes the moon, and that space-faring nations not be excessively hindered by the desires of non space-faring nations.
What I propose for the near term is legal recognition to property claims extending a certain radius from a landing site. This radius would be equal to the exploration radius of a lunar rover, but that distance may change as future needs dictate. Whenever possible, natural features should be used to determine the boundary of a claim.
In the interests of psychological health and group dynamics, it would be best to send a crew equally divided between men and women. The crew would ideally consist of married couples, although a 50-50 split among single astronauts would also be tolerable.
Sorry if I seemed a little cranky and off-topic about my GCNR rant... i've been putting too much effort and emotional energy into the futility of trying to argue against anti-nuclear activists.
Don't waste your energy fighting the anti-nuclear movement. Public opinion is slowly shifting in the pro-nuclear direction, especially among the generation that grew up after TMI. As long as we have a pro-nuclear President and Energy Secretary and NASA administrator, we will work on nuclear spacecraft.
A comprehensive moon-Mars initiative would use similar vehicles and systems, such as how Zubrin's Mars Direct could be used as Moon Direct. The vehicles would have to differ in many ways, but the JSF program has shown that similar vehicles can be build in a modular fashion that allows for variation. A Moon Direct vehicle could be made less robust than a Mars Direct vehicle, so this would translate into an added safety margin for the lunar hardware.
I think we should go-ahead with both a lifting body OSP and a capsule, using the capsule as part of Moon/Mars Semi Direct (as I think NASA's studies have shown this to be safer and more productive than Moon/Mars Direct.) ISS should be used in a support role of some kind for these Moon/Mars initiatives, and lunar exploration should eventually be privatized as Mars exploration becomes NASA's primary focus.
The pro-space segment of the public would gladly accept a lunar return. Most people have become bored with the standard Shuttle / ISS missions, and long for something bold again. The post-1972 gnerations read about the moon in textbooks and wonder why anybody would want to abandon it. Scientists have seen a renewed interest in the moon within the past decade. Seeing as how we used to have the capability to send humans to the moon, it would make sense to use those capabilities for robust lunar science instead of simplistic robotic missions.
It's true that the moon will only allow limited testing of Martian hardware. But the moon allows us to establish confidence and procedures in deep space exploration. Extended operations on the moon will likely present problems that nobody ever considered. What do we do about injuries on the moon? What about things like broken space suits, or returning to earth after spending so long in reduced G?
Apollo ended far too early, and we've barely scratched the surface of lunar exploration. That's why we need concurrent Mars and moon efforts that will benefit each other rather than having both missions compete for funding.
China's manned lunar program will not happen until they're done sending probes, and that is still several years away. They hope to have a space station by 2008 but I think that date may slip. Any lunar flights will not happen until after the space station is well underway, and after a heavy-lift launcher has been built. China currently has no plans for a booster that can launch 80 tonnes or more.
I'm 100% certain that if the US (with or without Russia) commits to a lunar return during early 2004, they will beat the Chinese there.
China will go to the moon and put an outpost there.
Looks doubtful within the next fifteen to twenty years. I mean, China's next manned spaceflight will be "before the end of 2005." They have the technology, but the political / military leadership behind their program isn't making it a high priority right now. Their efforts will be aimed at space stations and possibly military space efforts.
Space.com article on cargo shuttles
NASA hasn't gone totally deaf to the idea of an SDV (or, as the article says, anything that falls under the generic title "Shuttle-C.") However, it looks like they're more interested in automating the orbiter (something they talked about one year before Columbia.) Both the SDV and autonomous orbiter have their uses (and hopefully they automate the orbiter soon so ISS can get finished.)
This really does sound like SEI all over again. A long-term commitment to space in general instead of one specific destination. As a society, we must share this long-term commitment. The downside is that a president's tenure only lasts 4-8 years, and Congress changes every two years. The people who approved a particular space program could get voted out within two years time and the program gets axed.
The big difference between the upcoming space policy and SEI is that the president's allies enjoy a majority in both houses of congress. Furthermore, the need for ANY new space policy has taken new precedence ever since the loss of Columbia on an inconsequential science mission. So I do expect this policy to be implemented, and I hope that we can give Jim Lovell one last shot at the moon.
The total delta V to go to the moon and back is greater than TMI, but I would expect a lunar flyby to use less fuel than TMI. A touch down on the lunar surface would be nonsensical for a Mars mission, but there are many who want to use a Lagrange point to assemble a Mars bound spacecraft.
In James A. Michener's excellent "Space," a solar flare spells disaster for the fictional Apollo 18 mission. Just something we should consider while planning to send humans past LEO and to the moon and beyond.
In the history of NASA, there has never been a time when two different manned, orbital space projects overlapped with each other. There were always operational gaps between Mercury and Gemini, Gemini and Apollo, and Apollo and Shuttle.
NASA's plan is to operate two manned systems, shuttle and OSP, at the same time for approximately five years. The past history of NASA suggests that it's not possible to cough up the $11 billion for OSP and then operate it alongside the shuttle for five years. Some have suggested pausing NASA missions between shuttle and either OSP or a lunar return.
This pause would have to wait until the ATV is operating and the shuttle has launched the international components of ISS. At that stage, it's conceivable that Soyuz could be used exclusively for crew transfer until OSP came down the pipeline. This stand down would probably last for two to four years, so it would not be as drastic as the 1975-1981 stand-down.
In the Nov. 6 Aviation Week, there are some interesting tidbits about OSP that I'd like to share.
First, it was determined that a capsule would need additional fuel in order to meet the requirement that injured crew be taken to the hospital within 24 hours. The mass of this additional fuel makes the capsule just as heavy as the winged vehicle.
Second, the ESA believes that a capsule is better for crew rescue, but a winged spacecraft gives more room for growth and is a better vehicle for crew transfer. Some crew rescue capability will be needed by 2009, when the ISS is up to six people. The shuttle will probably be retired by 2013.
Third--does anybody remember Hermes, or feel a sense that OSP was much like a reincarnation of Hermes? Well, ESA is proposing a scaled down Hermes to become the new OSP. Part of the new Hermes is an ejectable crew cabin, which could be rushed into service as a stand-alone crew rescue vehicle by 2008. By 2012, the CRV would be the cabin of the new OSP. It's an interesting (and probably impractical) two-step solution to NASA's needs.
Environmental problems: none.
It's funny you should mention that. In Dennis Jenkins's awesome Space Shuttle book, he summarizes an environmental impact study done on the Shuttle & Titan solid rocket boosters. This study revealed that it would take thirty Titan launches and 44 shuttle launches per year to cause any detectable environmental impact. The most dangerous thing about the SRBs (aside from the single Shuttle SRB failure) is the toxicity of the propellant when it is being poured into the propellant segments.
I think that enthusiasm over space has everything to do with the motivations behind Columbus, Magellan, Cook, and the other great explorers. They had unstoppable curiousity.
Whether we're pusing the bounds of technology or knowledge or survival, mankind will always be curious to know what's out there and how far we can stretch the envelope. Colonization and space enterprise are great, but humans will continue to explore no matter how impractical the colonization and resource utilization become.
Would a man have ever been sent to the moon with the military running the show? Doubtful!
Just as a "Star Wars" component (favorite plaything of the Republican military-industrial compex) will prevent a manned Mars mission from ever flying. What's needed is an effort annpunced where adventure and exploration are the ultimate criteria (as JFK did).
Have you ever looked at the Army and Air Force plans to put men on the moon? Project Horizon? Lunex? As long as DoD was convinced you could observe the Soviets from the moon (or that the Soviets would gain the upper hand by militarizing space first,) the DoD would have gone to the moon.
And SDIO actually had a stimulating effect on the development of space travel. Familiar with DC-X? It's original purpose was to pave the way for cheap, rapid-response RLV's that would launch the hundreds of "Brilliant Pebbles" satellites that were needed for the near-term SDI system. The child of the DC-X line of thought is RASCAL, another DoD initiative to build a rapid response, highly-reusable launcher.
I wouldn't say that aerobraking is foolproof. In reference to Mars Climate Orbiter (which took a dive through Mars atmosphere because its software couldn't correct from English to metric units,) it was actually trying a propulsive capture. Aerobraking has been used to lower the apoapsis of spacecraft in orbit around Mars, but it has never been used to capture into Mars orbit. This is why I'm wary of aerobraking and why it should be demonstrated first before we start thinking about it for our Mars mission.
The "Gingrich Model," or Mars Prize, is discussed near the end of "Case For Mars." The government would offer cash prizes and assurances of cooperation for teams competing for the prize. The mission would be broken up into several smaller feats leading up to the mission (building an HLLV, demonstrating a closed loop life support system, etc.) and smaller prizes would be awarded for these milestones. All these events lead to the Mars Mission, with a payout of around $ 20 million when it is successful.
The biggest hurdle to the plan is that the company would have to put up the $20-50 million for the mission upfront and wait nearly three years to see if the mission succeeds and the prize is won. What kind of money lender would loan a company $50 mil to put humans on Mars? The X-Prize had enough trouble getting funded as it is!
Reverse-engineering? I wouldn't say that would be the case with a revived Saturn. You'd keep it as close as possible, and make substitutions for materials and for parts that aren't available. When the blueprints are already available to you (don't believe the myth that the Saturn blueprints were destroyed,) it's far easier than disassembling something and copying it. And even in the case of reverse-engineering, it is doable--just as the Soviets did with the B-29.
I don't agree with reviving the Saturn, but I think the Saturn should be an inspiration for a third generation HLLV (the Saturn V being the 1st generation and Energia & SDV being the 2nd.)
In a nutshell, this is how Washington handles space policy: All politicians will pay lip service to NASA from time to time, but few are willing to take a risk and challenge the NASA status quo. When Bush 41 tried it in 1989, his initiative was squashed and it was a big embarassment. Now you see why the status quo was maintained for the most part (except for the "Faster, cheaper, better" mentality) during the Clinton years.
The current President Bush probably shares the same vision as his dad, but he knew (at least until Feb. 1, 2003,) that there was no Congressional support for changing NASA. The Bush space policy has been laid out piece meal, such as setting aside money for Promethius and JIMO so the nuclear-electric rockets will exist when Congress does adopt the cause of deep space exploration.
The loss of Columbia has made a lot of politicians realize that Americans will support space exploration so long as it's genuine "exploration" and not the banal "science" that has been conducted on the shuttle, Mir, and ISS. It probably doesn't hurt that "The Governator" needs help, and a new direction for the space program will bring jobs to California.
The president will soon reveal the new national space policy. Will it succeed spectacularly like Apollo, or languish like SEI? My guess is that it will survive so long as President Bush remains president and his allies control Congress.
Once a new administration comes in, will they share resident Bush's resolve to see the program through? This is a problem that Zubrin saw with Mars Direct, and that's part of the reason why he and former speaker Gingrich proposed a private initiative to explore Mars.
If some sort of private-public partnership isn't reached, the space program will continue to be the plaything of politicians. It's budget may be raided to pay for new programs, such as Howard Dean's nationalized health care plan. Ambitious projects like Apollo would be killed to finance the Vietnam War and the "Great" Society.
Ernst Stuhlinger argues for an improved Saturn V to return humans to the moon
"The logical thing to do is build an improved Saturn V, and it could take advantage of lighter, improved materials," Stuhlinger said. "Von Braun and his coworkers thought all the time that Saturn V would be just one milestone along the path of space exploration. ... The Saturn V wasn't supposed to be the last large rocket."
A professor of mine suggested the same thing when I asked him about a possible lunar return. My feeling is that an updated Saturn V would be an entirely new animal, with lighter tankage and sigificantly redesigned (or even all-new) main engines. At least the SDV with 5-segment SRBs would use the shuttle facilities and keep the shuttle workforce employed. Likewise, a revived Energia would take advantage of the remants of its infrastructure. However, the Saturn V was the more capable booster, and it still had room for growth when production was terminated.
Lunar solar power makes plenty of sense, as Dr. David Criswell (a leading proponent of the idea) recently testified before Congress. Solar panels would be manufactured from lunar materials because lugging the massive amount of solar panels to earth orbit (as seen in those fanciful space solar ower drawings) would be cost prohibitive. The power generated on the moon would be transmitted to earth in microwaves. Satellites orbiting the earth and moon could deflect some of these microwaves when the side of the night side of earth needs power.
Dr. David Criswell's testimony
The Industrial Physicist, a magazine that has printed articles on Lunar Solar Power
The buzz among all of the media outlets that follow space exploration has been that a return to the moon is imminent. For the supporters of Robert Zubrin, the moon is anathema to their cause, a siren on the way to Mars. I happen to feel differently.
Humans have not ventured beyond earth orbit since 1972. In the years since then, only three of the many attempted landings on Mars have been totally successful. The human spaceflight endurance record was extended to 438 consecutive days, but this was only possible with the aid of supply ships to the Mir space station. Can we confidently say that we can land humans to Mars and have them survive the 910 day excursion? Losing Columbia and the 1999 Mars Probes gives me reason to pause.
The moon is a place where humans can work in reduced gravity, test life support systems that are truly closed, andbe within one to three days of home at all times. Perhaps Mars Direct, in the form of "Moon Direct," will enable a truly in-depth exploration of the moon. Successful moon missions will validate essential parts of Mars Direct or whatever method is chosen for going to Mars.
The moon holds the keys to the future of mankind's survival on earth. When the population reaches 10 billion by 2050, the moon's minerals will be ever more important. Further, the solar power collected on the moon will be vital to meeting the energy needs of mankind.
Mars fanatics, don't lose faith. The moon is not a detour, but a stepping stone to Mars in mankind's eventual colonization of space.
Has Howard Dean said anything about his feelings on commercial space? This is predominantly viewed as more of a "Republican idea" versus a "Democratic idea," but it would not be impossible for Dean or some other Democrat to support it. And space is likely to become a hot-button issue during the campaign, especially if President Bush announces some grand new goal for NASA.
In most of the NTR schemes for getting to Mars, the crew and the reactor / engine are separated by the propellant tanks, which should provide sufficient distance and shielding. As for aerobraking, most NTR plans dispense with this and use a propulsive capture at Mars.
I know some people who are working on the Kepler prize ERV contest. For what they've told me, they think Zubrin was far too optimistic when he came up with Mars Direct, and that NASA had the better plan with the original Semi-Direct (DRM 1.) Somebody said that 80% of the delta-V for getting from Mars to earth will be spent getting to Mars orbit, hence NASA's insistence on an orbiting ERV that's fully fuelled. I can't say that the 80% number is accurate, but I'm sure that a Mars orbit rendezvous will still preserve most benefits of in-situ propellant production.