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.

[Moonman62]

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

I'd be more than happy to take a look at your business plan.

[brazucausa]

This sounds realistic. I also am convince that moon station will be use for more then just exploration. Military would be very interesting to explore new weapon technologies and how to protect homeland from hostile states.

[RightWhale]

Do you´ve any stats

You've got a roomful of English grammarians thumbing through their Chomsky with that one.

[Moonman62]

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

I'd be more than happy to see a business plan. Most people don't know what's involved in making a helium-3 fusion reactor. But who cares? We get to spend the government's money. WEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

[Moonman62]

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.

That's the key point. NASA was a new organization when they had their biggest success. They are now bogged down in bureaucratic sclerosis. We need a new organization to be successful.

[americanbychoice]

By my statement I don't trust the EU, I mean I don't trust the upcoming aristocratic Government. There are many laws the EU (from Brussels) has brought forth that are simply mindboggling. Europe, especially Germany, have always loved Paperwork and Buraucracy, they are adding more, not less. You suffer under present Communism? That is silly, unless you perceive your socialism moving toward that. It is a close call. I wonder if you really understand the basic difference?
Europeans are not humans second class, I just get very upset when I watch the citizens get ruled like they are. You always pride yourself of having "Democracy" at it's best in Germany and soon the EU, but you don't understand how little you really have. You are being ruled from the top down rather than people ruling Government from the grassroots up.
I will grant you one thing, all over the world, there is a move for larger Government and less people power. I just hope we can nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand?

[Salgak]

Go look up the L-5 Society. I saw the economic projections and cost/payback plan for SPS alone in 1975. . .

[Dead Dog]

Do you want cost of the Shuttle mods for the higher inclination orbit? I'm betting some of our KSC veterans can provide this.

The $400 Million number comes from a meeting I attend when I worked at JSC. I should have put an "IIRC" flag on it, I'll see what I can find.

Same with the costs occurred with the FGB. RSA would spend the money while their contractor sat idle and starving. As soon as the contractor was paid, seems like NASA paid them directly, they produced serviceable hardware with amazing speed.

However, I'll see if I can get you numbers. It would be an interesting study.

[Dead Dog]

We need a new organization to be successful.

hell yah to that! They need a good case of John Boyds.

[mrsmith]

And I'd be more than happy to look at your figures.

I love a good laugh.

[Dead Dog]

From Space.com regarding the cost of Russian's (specificaly RSA) messing with us:

http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/iss_forum_001204.html

Sensenbrenner took exception with the ISS program being dependent upon Russian hardware.

"Delay and failure by the Russian government to provide critical hardware pieces on time have cost the American taxpayer $5 billion and delayed completion of the station by more than four years," Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) said.


And regrading modifications for higher inclination orbit (I have to guess it exceeds $1 Billion)

From: http://www.nap.edu/html/upgrading/ch1.htm

...Three events in 1993 resulted in additional upgrades to the space shuttle system. A new program in which the shuttle would rendezvous and dock with the Mir space station required several modifications to the orbiter, including the development of a new payload bay airlock/docking system. The ASRM program was canceled, depriving the shuttle of approximately 5,000 kg of additional payload capacity. Finally, the planned orbit for the newly restructured International Space Station (ISS) was moved to a 51.6 degree inclination. The new orbit was compatible with Russian launch facilities but reduced the amount of payload the shuttle could deliver to the ISS by more than 5,000 kg.
In order to address these decrements, the shuttle program embarked on a campaign to improve the shuttle's payload capability significantly so that it could meet the ISS program requirements. The largest upgrade was a super lightweight tank, a $200 million program that increased the payload the shuttle could deliver to the ISS by 3,500 kg. Additional upgrades, including lightweight crew seats, adjustments to trajectory and propellant reserves, and many minor weight reductions throughout the orbiter, increased payload capacity by approximately another 4,000 kg.


Regarding the Cost of using the Metric System (I can't open PDFs on this PC).
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/inspections/g-00-021.pdf

[LibWhacker]

As if Europeans were humans 2nd class.

Yeah, old europe has proven itself to be such a dependable partner in other areas, let's give it veto power over our space program and how we spend a couple of hundred billion dollars of American taxpayer money! Why didn't I think of that?

.

[Dead Dog]

btw, The Shuttle costs about $10K per pound put into orbit. The reduction of roughly 10K lbs in payload losely translates into a cost of $100 Million worth of payload per launch.

[SunkenCiv]

Quite right. The only Mars-related rhetoric is "Mars First" and "Mars Direct". The article at Paul's link did have this -- The phaseout of the discredited shuttles and cash-burning ISS will cause many scientists to heave sighs of relief.

The Shuttle has eaten the space program, and is nothing now but PC PR. The ISS is going to cost a bundle, and may have cost more than $50 billion already, plus it will be dumped into the Pacific within 15 years, having given us nothing.

[SunkenCiv]

Quite right. The only Mars-related rhetoric is "Mars First" and "Mars Direct". The article at Paul's link did have this -- The phaseout of the discredited shuttles and cash-burning ISS will cause many scientists to heave sighs of relief.

The Shuttle has eaten the space program, and is nothing now but PC PR. The ISS is going to cost a bundle, and may have cost more than $50 billion already, plus it will be dumped into the Pacific within 15 years, having given us nothing.

[theFIRMbss]

>Given the laws of physics and nominal SPS designs, the "burn cities with SPS" scenario is PHYSCIALLY impossible.

Of course! And it was
physically impossible
for insulation

to fall and damage
the shuttle. Still, it happened.
Look, my broad point here

is NASA et al
have proven time and again
big mistakes happen.

A big mistake on
a robot probe just loses
a billion dollars

and some robo-junk.
A big mistake managing
insulation risk

throws away billions
and half a dozen people.
But a big mistake

with energy beams
(or rockets with nuclear
materials or

some other grand schemes)
and you have consequences
vastly greater than

the foul-ups NASA
caused so far. Outside grass roots
demand, I don't see

that politicians
should put in motion programs
with consequences

that can be so bad.
Especially when even
if successful they

would still devastate
the country's economy. *
I see no good here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Forty years ago,
the high tech industry was
a domestic biz.

Big ticket science
was corporate welfare, but
the cash trickled down

to to US workers.
Big science was a driver
program for culture.

Now high tech business
is all based in Asia. Now
corporate welfare

will not trickle down
to Americans, it will
get sucked to Asia.

Big ticket science
will be a huge, whirlpool drain
of US dollars.

Asia will get rich.
(Richer.) And Americans
will get TV pics

that look like low-res
special effects shots from a
really dull movie.

[Michael81Dus]

Thanks for your links. But I´ve found nothing regarding the ISS. I see your point regarding the Ruskies. They´ve announced earlier today that they could send a man to Mars within 10 years... I´m curious wether they can feed all their citizens within that period of time, too.

[Michael81Dus]

Excuse my error: I ´ve found nothing regarding the ESA-CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ISS.

[Michael81Dus]

"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. "

You suffer under present Communism?

Where did I wrote that? Of course I meant 40 years of GDR - which has cost us hundreds of billions, and still there´s a huge difference between the West and East. We shouldn´t forget that when thinking of Germanys economy and current budget situation. Sure, politicians made faults, but that´s just half of the truth.

Americans are just formally more free. I can´t see a material difference in freedom. Each society has its certain distinctions to others, and my respect for the sovereignty of other democratic nations forbids me to judge about them.

Our constitution is relative young. When the US was founded, there was no problem with industrialism and resulting poverty. The first US citizens had to deal with oppression by the Brits (government) and wanted liberty. When our constitution was written, there were different times. Our founding fathers called our Republic "social and democratic". And in the 50´s, people had by far not that many legislative rights we have today. There´s no constitutional right for Sozialhilfe, but as long the state can afford it, the government has to pay this sum for the poor. Even though I say that everyone has the right to medical treatment, and noone has to die of hunger in our society, I don´t say that we shouldn´t actively encourage people to work and contribute to our society. In fact, we need more self responsibility, lower and easier taxes and less state regarding the social system.

But still, Germans pay taxes in the country they live in - unlike Americans.

There are differences, and I think we can respect this. Let us discuss differences, and let us find ways to cooperate - to benefit all of us. Jingoistic phrases like "We´re the best and F*** the EU are not appropriate nor do they reflect reality!

[americanbychoice]

Michael, your question where did you write that? "Still my country suffers from it".
"Still germans pay taxes in the country they live in- unlike Americans"
What the heck are you talking about?
One of the problems you have today is mirrored by your Quote: " There is no constitutional right to Sozialhilfe." Try to tell the people that now. They all expect it. Sozialhilfe is ONE of the things that has led to the problems Germany is experiencing now.