China Bids to Join Exclusive Club of Space Powers - could breathe new life into U.S. program

yahoo.comnews ^ | September 29, 2003 | Benjamin Kang Lim, Reuters

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Even Zubrin has come to the realization that it will be Moon first.

All Out Fight Begins for Future of US Space Program Mars Society Calls for Mobilization*** 1. America needs to continue to be nation of pioneers, and space is the frontier.

2. The problem with NASA is not that it has taken risks, but that has taken risks without a goal worthy of those risks.

3. The problem with NASA is not that it has taken risks, but that has taken risks without a goal worthy of those risks.

4. NASA's current policy of trying to make headway in space through miscellaneous technology development programs to spread money around its various internal constituencies is a failure. We are spending 90% of the average 1961-73 NASA budget ($17 billion/year) in real inflation-adjusted dollars, and achieving less than 1% the results. In consequence, we are no closer today to sending humans to Mars then we were 20 years ago. To make progress, NASA needs to be given a goal and a schedule. The goal should be humans to Mars. The schedule should be 10 years.

5. The Shuttle Orbiter is a high-risk vehicle whose use is only rational for a limited class of missions, such as Hubble repair. But the Shuttle launch stack can be readily converted to a heavy lift vehicle capable of lifting 120 tonnes to LEO or throwing 45 tonnes directly to the Moon or Mars by replacing the Orbiter with a payload fairing and rocket stage. That is what should be done, and a coherent set of payload elements developed to enable such direct-launch human exploration expeditions.

6. Back to the Moon in five years as an initial milestone. On to Mars in 10. We can do it. We overcame much greater challenges to reach the Moon a generation and a half ago. Accepting the line of those who say we can't is equivalent to accepting the idea that we have become something less than what we used to be, and that is something we truly cannot afford. ***

[Cincinatus' Wife]

http://www.marssociety.org/news/2003/0909.asp

[boris]

"I understand if Mars is your guiding focus, a return to the Moon would, in your view, slow you down. When in fact, it's the only way you're going to get there."

The point is that lifting tons and tons of infrastructure to the Moon simply cannot pay for itself in cheaper Mars propellant. And--given the political and global terrorist priorities--we are going to do neither (return to the Moon or go to Mars) in my lifetime (or yours, I suspect).

The study was an internal one which involved several experts. We never published the paper; we ran out of money before the study could be "completed"--but the results were very clear.

One can argue on non-economic grounds that we should return to the Moon. One can argue (Zubrin has done so) about the various reasons to go to Mars.

Someday perhaps we will. But not before every terrorist nation is wiped out and every terrorist killed.

--Boris

[Cincinatus' Wife]

If the driving factor is propellent to get to Mars, I agree. But by bootstrapping missions to build an outpost on the Moon, you build an infrastructure and a rationale that addresses military and national security. That does have a funding stream and science will go along for the ride.

[boris]

"If the driving factor is propellent to get to Mars, I agree. But by bootstrapping missions to build an outpost on the Moon, you build an infrastructure and a rationale that addresses military and national security. That does have a funding stream and science will go along for the ride."

Ten thousand dollars per pound FOB LEO. We are talking about building a city on the Moon, or maybe a good-sized town. Figure out the mass. Then the cost follows instantly.

The toilets would be worth more than gold...

Imagine building a medium-sized town on Earth, out of pure gold. That will solifidy what you are talking about.

Again: never in our lifetime.

--Boris

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes the cost will be high (not your gold plated city model) but we need to back. The alternative is handing control of our national security and our economic security to those still interested in building a lunar outpost. The cost and consequences of that shortsightedness is incalculable.

It would seem some would rather go nowhere than go back to the Moon. Sour grapes perhaps?

[boris]

My sour grapes are about joining the space program in 1975, thinking I would help build nuclear rocket engines to send people to Mars.

I have now decided that we should stop developing new boosters and keep using the ones we have. Spend $500 billion over the next, I dunno, 50 years to build space elevators. The only potentially-feasible technology for breaking the $10K per pound bottleneck. Once you can put mass in GEO for ~$1/lb, then we can talk about grandiose plans for lunar colonies etc.

--Boris

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Well, lunar colonies are in the future but an outpost and lab to learn how to live off-planet and develop national and economic technology is feasible and desirable. NASA needs to be relevant and produce. By tying a mission to national security they become a vital player not a budget target.