posted
My interest is peaked by Bush's imminent announcement for the almost total overhaul of NASA priorities, due on Wednesday.
Among the things he wants to do is ditch the space shuttle and head back to the moon and ultimately to Mars. Key to this strategy, many experts say, is to abandon the troubled ISS as soon as possible and focus on putting a permenant station up at L1. Why? An L1 waystation would facilitate trips to the moon, since it's way easier to get people to L1 with one shuttle system and then to the moon with another, than with one ship. Plus, it's also really easy to keep a station floating at L1 in an area of gravitational cancellation, than in low earth orbit where you have to reboost the station to keep it flying.
Following this is a permenant presence on the Moon, which would theorhetically allow for new technologies to be tested out for an ultimate venture to Mars. The Moon could offer other opportunites besides science in the immediate future, such as a solar power source, and a solar or stellar observatory unencumbered by an atmosphere.
As much a fan as I am of the manned space program, I think Bush is nuts for doing this. We've got plenty of stuff to fix on Earth, and I personally think that the ISS still has plenty to offer. IMO, if NASA is to get more money, they should use it to complete and expand the ISS, replace the shuttle, and focus on lots and lots of unmanned probes to the Moon, Mars and Jupiter. The moon is a secondary priority, and Mars is a far-distant third.
In the end though, this announcement, and the potential ADDITIONAL waste of billions of dollars by NASA into cool things that'll get cancelled later by following administrations, comes down to one thing. Stoopid re-election politics.
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: As much a fan as I am of the manned space program, I think Bush is nuts for doing this. We've got plenty of stuff to fix on Earth, and I personally think that the ISS still has plenty to offer.
There'll ALWAYS be stuff that needs fixing on Earth: that's exactly what Kennedy's opponents said about the moon missions. The money's better spent on NASA than on military applications. And it's not like the money's going to spend on public works projects if NASA doesnt get it. Republicans, remember?
If the public gets behind the idea for a new lunar base, the next administration wont shoot it down and the the ones that killed the dream of space exploration.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Hmm, the Star Wars program is starting up again...
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not from the Moon, it's not. I think this is more a case of "America first" than any attempt at space based weapons systems. ...at least initially, anyway.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
As it is one of the few government programs which consistently generates more wealth than it consumes, boosting the space program is good economic policy.
As I've said before, I believe that a good Space policy would include:
Ongoing: Continued planetary exploration. I want every object in the system located and mapped, robot landers and/or minilanders on every moon larger than Amalthea. Development of next-generation space telescopes, interferometers, and other projects designed to detect extrasolar worlds.
#1. We need reliable, reusable systems: for cargo, and for people. A passenger liner and a heavy lifter. They don't necessarily have to be the same system.
#2. Expanded orbital and near-orbital facilities. Including construction facilities to aid in assembly of components for large-scale missions. (this would be the stuff to go into the Lagrange points... In fact, I think we have a space telescope going to the Earth-trailling point at the moment.)
#3. A network of orbital energy stations. We can DO this, I'm convinced. What we really need is for the government to offer a miultibillion-dollar "X-prize" (and a supply contract?) to the first commercial energy supplier to 'beam' a megawatt of energy safely back to Earth. Hey! let's see if Halliburton can do it!
#4. Detailed lunar exploration, including landers. Make certain of ice on Moon, if there is any.
#5 Moonbase, if ice makes it feasible. Otherwise, it might have to be put off until we can get some.
#6 Mars mission. Moderate scale, for now.
#7 Mass drivers. Capture or deflect comets, asteroids. If H20 absent on moon, jump this priority up and drop a couple tiny comets onto the Moon's south pole.
#8 Near-Earth Asteroid capture, and mining facilities.
#9 Larger-scale Mars missions. Terraforming activities (presuming no life is found on Mars). Colonization.
#10 Extrasolar probe missions as soon as feasable. Ion engines will help this along. We need to be able to accelerate and decelerate a Voyager-type probe at high G's to get to nearby stars.
Money worries about going to Mars? PIFFLE! The 2004 federal budget is $2.2 trillion. NASA's is $15.5 billion. Reasonable estimates suggest the space agency's share of the pie would only need to rise gradually to $20 billion within a few years if footprints are to be made in Martian dust within a generation.
The technology that would be developed over the next 20 years, in preparation, along with the medical knowledge gleaned from long-term low-gravity living and exposure to high levels of radiation, will have unknown but surely significant benefits to those who remain on this planet. In medicine alone, NASA spinoff technology has a solid track record, having given us MRI and CAT scanners, among many other benefits.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We can start within the decade by building a small lunar facility for habitation (provided there's ice for water refinment) and the deployment of a spaceborne telescope on the moons's dark side. A telescope there would have 50 times the viewing capacity of Hubble and pretty pictures get people on your side more than even he potential for meical breakthroughs.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Sadly, this will probably be "Americans in Space", instead of "Humans in Space". But of course, it's the Americans who will be electing a new president this year, and not us.
Sorry for being a bit cynical, but Bush doesn't really strike me as someone who gives a rat's ass about the space program.
Anyway, he's speaking now, let's hear what he's got to say.. at least he's already mentioned the Russians.
And he also mentions Lewis and Clarke. UNSS Lewis and Clarke anyone ?
posted
"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to my moonbase!"
Actually, Bush seems a lot like Dr Evil to me!
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The USAF Rescue ship Lewis and Clark was also the ship captained by Morpheus to go and rescue the survivors of the experimental Event Horizon, which had just concluded a 13-year flight to the dimension of EVIL!!!
*ahem*
Okay, I watched Bush's speech today. In a nutshell, he has outlined the following concrete goals:
2008 - Unmanned lunar satellites and landers to pave the way for manned expeditions
2010 - Completion of US commitments to the ISS, and retirement of the space shuttle
2014 - First flight of what he has termed a "Crew Exploration Vehicle", or CEV. This vehicle (not likely a planiform ship, but rather a capsule-based system) will have the ability to take astronauts to destinations in Earth orbit (ISS) and to the moon (Apollo-style, I'd guess).
2015 - CEV returns people to the moon
2020 - Permenant manned lunar presence. This base will develop and test technologies for the inevitable missions to Mars, as well as develop science and commercial applications of the Moon for us down here.
To start, Bush has asked NASA to reallocate about $11B of the $86B given to it over the next five years; he has also marked an additional $1B per year for this duration. NASA is to get back to him in four months with a detailed plan to accomplish all this stuff; it will be overseen by a former USAF general.
posted
Come to think of it, given that this is George W. Bush we're talking about here, chances are that he's doing this because he doesn't want "those durn slant-eyes" landing on the moon if we aren't there to greet them.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"If the public gets behind the idea for a new lunar base, the next administration wont shoot it down and the the ones that killed the dream of space exploration."
Well, that's a pretty big if. Don't forget this is the same public that couldn't even get behind the idea of a manned space station...
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
