On to the Moon, and to Mars, via von Braun

New York Times ^ | January 14, 2004 | KENNETH CHANG

[OESY]

Once again, it is back to the future for NASA.

In 1952, Wernher von Braun, the German rocket scientist who spearheaded America's first two decades of space efforts, laid out a step-by-step blueprint of space exploration, starting with putting a satellite in orbit around Earth.

The next steps in von Braun's blueprint read like NASA's achievements of the past four decades: launching astronauts into orbit, sending astronauts to the Moon, the space shuttle, a space station. Only the order was changed when President John F. Kennedy made the push for sending people to the Moon. That goal was originally supposed to come after the space shuttle and the space station.

Today, in remarks at NASA headquarters in Washington, President Bush is expected to announce new efforts to complete the last two items on von Braun's list: a permanent Moon base and a mission to Mars.

"It would be the culmination of the von Braun paradigm," said Roger D. Launius, chairman of the division of space history at the National Air and Space Museum and a former chief historian at NASA. "The von Braun paradigm has been played out almost religiously since it was first enunciated in the 1950's. It was very logical. It's easy to grasp."

This will be NASA's third major push for Mars. A couple of months after Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon in 1969, von Braun and NASA advocated an ambitious sequel: a space station in Earth orbit, a fleet of space shuttles, a second space station around the Moon, a base on the Moon, a nuclear-powered shuttle to and from the Moon, and an expedition to Mars as early as the 1980's.

President Richard M. Nixon agreed to only the space shuttle and Skylab, a rudimentary space station that circled Earth in the 1970's.

In 1989, the first President George Bush announced plans for a permanent Moon base and sending astronauts to Mars. But the plans died after NASA estimated it would cost more than $400 billion to get to Mars.

After that costly proposal, engineers at Martin Marietta contended that a Mars mission could be achieved at a fraction of the cost by sending a robot ship first that would manufacture fuel for the return trip.

NASA has since incorporated many of those ideas into a proposal, last updated in 1998, that would cost $50 billion.

[mrsmith]

"the cost of the moon base plus the cost of a mars mission from there would be equal to or greater than the cost of a mars mission from earth. "

Approximately. One way you get just one Mars mission, the other you get one Mars mission and a moonbase which can be used for other missions.

The Mars trip is just "flash" as far as I'm concerned. The moonbase is infrastructure for exploitation not just of the Moon but for near Earth and all of the Solar System.

[Michael81Dus]

Do you have any serious thoughts to offer or is your mission to spread negative views? Have you ever heard that a glass of water can be half-full instead of half-empty?

You don´t need to wear black clothes and sit in a dark room. There´s so much joy and light in life - just open your eyes, and you may get a more positive perception of our planet and the people living on it. [friendly suggestion]

Oh, and the ISS is a project of the ESA, NASA and the Russians. It worked... until Columbia fell apart.

[Orangedog]

How did that old song go...?

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

[Dead Dog]

Or what Von Braun said about the V-2 program. "We were aiming for the moon, but hit London"

[Moonman62]

A moon base would be a cost center not a profit center. Even when not using it, it would still have to be maintained at great cost. The space station was also supposed to be a stepping stone for exploration. It hasn't, but it will end up costing us $100 billion anyway. I'm guessing a moon base will end up costing at least ten times as much, but I doubt if it will go that long before most people realize it's just another political stunt and it gets canned.

[americanbychoice]

Nichael, you seem to be a typical "save the Earth, but under EU control" peacenick.
I am being realistic. NASA, the US sponsored programs only work because enough money is put into R&D. The ESA project that just failed was grossly underfunded and thus failed. If you don't put enough quality into a program you are just wasting your time. From my perspective, not trusting the EU is a half full glass of water.
A joint program would simply mean that the US would provide the majority of funding and the EU would take credit for it.
I like it the way it is.
You always crow about the EU having more population than the US (for the time being)and will be a major competitor, but even with 450 million inhabitants, and shrinking, The gdp and productivity will always be below the US.
I can hear it now: "We don't have the money to contribute", therefore the US will have to pay the greatest part. No thanks, I like for us to go it alone.
.......and don't tell me that the EU wouldn't provide enough paper obstacles to prevent a joint venture, especially if we are talking Nuclear propellants for spaceships? All of Germany would be on the streets protesting that one.

[evets]

Jack 'rocket-man' Parsons bump! +Braun +Parsons +Crowley

[Dead Dog]

Actually, had the ISS been designed as a stepping stone, it would have cost less. Nasa, thanks to Nixon, has been without a mission for the last 30 years. All of the hardware they have now are simply place holders.

IMO, we could have landed humans on Mars and colonized the moon by now..even with Gov. inefficiency, with NASA's budget. However, the OMB has forced them to be penny wise and pound foolish for an entire generation.

[Moonman62]

IMO, we could have landed humans on Mars and colonized the moon by now..even with Gov. inefficiency, with NASA's budget.

I think you underestimate the power of government inefficiency.

[Salgak]

Let's abort the final verse of "Werner Von Braun". . .

"In German, oder English, I know how to count down. . .
And I'm learning Chinese, says Werner von Braun. . . "

[mrsmith]

You know there is no exploitation to be done, that nothing will ever come from the Moon.

LOL! What a Nostradamus you are!

The apt question is when the Moonbase will be profitable.
That depends on how fast exploration and exploitation proceed.

[theFIRMbss]

>Sorry, that was thought about and solved three decades ago. ...

Of course! And people
made mirrors for centuries.
Still, Hubble happened...

[OESY]

Other Quotes by von Braun, US (German-born) rocket engineer

"Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing."

"I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution."

"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming."

[Salgak]

Congress is also a cost center. . . (evil grin)

And to make a moonbase a PROFIT Center ? Start building Solar Power Satellites and mining the Lunar regolith for Helium-3. . .

[Dead Dog]

"and the ISS is a project of the ESA, NASA and the Russians. It worked... until Columbia fell apart"

It worked..kinda. Not to insult the ESA or the Russians, but they didn't bring anything to the table but a pain in the @$$ and political support from our Internationalist politicians. It was a political funding game, and an international welfare scheme. I reality, we would have been better going at it independently.

Working with the Russians especially meant going to a much higher inclination orbit then the shuttle was designed (a huge expense in modifications and reduced performance) not to mention dealing with RSA extortion. I think we damned near paid for the FGB twice.

That hassle of dealing with the metric system alone cost somewhere around $400 million. It also cost us a Mars Probe.

No it was a Nice Nice program for our Socialist Politicians who thing the world should be governed in Geneva.

[Orangedog]

I think my favorite saying from the early days of the US rocket program in the late 50's/early 60's was "When the countdown clock hits zero, something's gonna happen."

[Salgak]

Go ahead, blame the NASA bureaucrats. . . I certainly do.

Failure of management to place elementary programmatic safeguards is a management problem, not a technological problem. Given the laws of physics and nominal SPS designs, the "burn cities with SPS" scenario is PHYSCIALLY impossible.

Like I said, you want a quick, simple method of doing a city? Drop a big rock on it, say 50-100 feet in diameter on it from orbit. . .

[Michael81Dus]

Even your last post has shown the typical black-white-scheme. I thought you would understand that far not all of the EU is bad by nature. Sure, Europe cannot spend as much money on its defense, science, etc like the US. Tell you what? Have you ever heard of Communism? Still, my country suffers from it, and whole Europe pays the price for Stalins expansion of the workers- and farmers party.

Not trusting the EU does not mean "not trusting Brussels" but not trusting Spain, Italy, UK, Germany, Portugal, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece and France, soon to add Malta, Poland, Czech Rep., Slovenia, Slovakia, Lettland, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary and Cyprus. As if Europeans were humans 2nd class.

[Dead Dog]

Very possibly, but NASA didn't become the waste product of the Aerospace industry until the end of Apollo...before that they were a very goal oriented and thinly veiled military program...inefficient, yet still effective.

[Michael81Dus]

Do you´ve any stats about the budget of the ISS?