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

Spaceref via NASA watch ^ | November 30, 2003 | Frank Sietzen, Jr.

[techcor]

Some people call him the space cowboy.

[hopespringseternal]

Read post number 13.

Huh? Maybe I missed it, but I see nothing in there other than a bland acknowledgement that space travel should be more economical. But that doesn't stop him from proposing the shuttle architecture as the basis for a new lunar program?!?

There is nothing that I have found in this topic that suggests that Bush, NASA, or anyone else setting space policy "gets it." Maybe that's a good thing. While they are spinning their wheels spending billions on space boondoggles, some entrepreneur will figure out how to do it right.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Well you do miss it because it draws everything together - economic, military and scientific.

[hopespringseternal]

I am not talking about everything, just launch costs. To propose grandiose schemes in space without addressing launch costs directly is just insane.

And since this guy is talking about using the shuttle, it is obvious he hasn't given launch costs any serious thought. It's like a high school kid dreaming of getting a Ferrari on his sixteenth birthday.

[Gritty]

We need to wish them well, but we need to watch out for (see tagline).

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You're so stuck on the negative you can't see the payback.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

With national security and economic incentive, this will be a winner.

[OXENinFLA]

That's what I heard too.............Cool

[hopespringseternal]

You're so stuck on the negative you can't see the payback.

Qualify that statement.

It's not that I think space exploration is a bad thing, I welcome it.

The problem is that space exploration can not happen on a continuous, sustainable basis until we address the problem of getting to orbit. We are planning a family driving vacation across the country on a scooter.

[RightWhale]

What could be simpler than landing robo-driller near the south pole and proving water or not? Put an end to these speculations.

[RightWhale]

processed into rocket propellant

That would be a waste, and is not needed. The electromagnetic rail is perfect for the moon and uses no reaction mass.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You bootstrap - build on -step by step. It's planned - organized and thought out. A mission is designed toward a goal.

By using off the shelf hardware and a system already in place, you don't run up the huge costs of designing and developing a totally new system. By getting to the Moon you get to the fuel. By mining the fuel you don't have to lift it to orbit. Slowly a transportation network is developed. In time you have fuel to sell.

[RightWhale]

some entrepreneur will figure out how to do it right.

Cavorite, Skylark of Space, mass cancellation. All the trees killed in honor of sci-fi have yet to bear fruit.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I agree this needs to be put to rest. The advantages of returning to the Moon are too great to sit here stewing. The water-ice has everyone's interest and we need to be the first country to exploit these resources.

[RightWhale]

we need to be the first country to exploit these resources

It would simplify everything if it were so. We should survey the potential resources, prove them up so to speak. It's anybody's guess how many survey-bots would be needed for the survey, more than one most likely. But each water-bot need not be expensive. For the cost of one Space Shuttle flight it should be possible to send a dozen water-bots, maybe all on one flight. And if they find significant water, no one would be happier than RightWhale.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Robotic probes need to be sent ASAP!

[hopespringseternal]

By using off the shelf hardware and a system already in place, you don't run up the huge costs of designing and developing a totally new system.

Yes, and you can save a lot of money building a house by skipping the foundation.

Current expendables+shuttle amounts to a very poor foundation to build on. It is expensive, incapable, and likely to suddenly go away when you need it most. (Oops, there goes another shuttle up in smoke, hang on for two or three years while we get over our collective panic attack.)

For forty years we have been going into space without making getting to orbit any cheaper, more reliable or safer. You can't build castles in the air.

NASA and the space industry have come to the realization that they can't build the needed launcher, so they propose going ahead anyway.

[hopespringseternal]

Cavorite, Skylark of Space, mass cancellation. All the trees killed in honor of sci-fi have yet to bear fruit.

Science fiction? WTH are you talking about?

[RightWhale]

The most efficient launcher is the Atlas 5. Delta is also good. They are not the cheapest, the Chinese Long March is the cheapest. You can reduce the structural weight fraction to zero without making the efficiency improvements you want. Don't expect anything revolutionary from Rutans, they also are incrementalists and aren't rocketmen.