On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:16:32 +0000 (UTC), Steven James
Forsberg wrote:



: [The one piece of space hardware we do not have is a
: transfer vehicle that would take us to the Moon and back to
: Earth. But with the hardware developed for the space
: station, and with a heavy-lift launch vehicle to put
: propellants in orbit, it should not be too hard or expensive
: to get an orbital transfer vehicle up and running.]

"not too hard or expensive" -- I can't help but chuckle.



I can't blame you, based on past experience with NASA and
the way they do things. They can turn a simple project into
a monstrosity, the International space station being one
example. For what they will end up spending on ISS, we
could have had a space station, a Moonbase, and the
beginnings of a Marsbase.



: No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal
: discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly
: $1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was.

: [That is a ridiculous figure. Eighty billion or less is
: closer for a Mars base. The trillion dollar figure was
: derived using the space shuttle as the cargo carrier.
: That's why using the space shuttle to launch cargo is the
: road to failure. The project wouldn't even get off the
: drawing board because of the costs.]

When talking about spending, most of the time the government
lowballs. From local coverage here in Houston/JSC, there is already buzzing
about "stripping the cupboard" to pay for this new initiative. They aren't
too worried locally, cuz if it's manned JSC will be a major player -- but
a lot of people working on 'peripheral' (i.e. not manned) projects are
getting edgy. What about the big plans to explore the solar system (most
importantly probes to distant planets)? And suddenly a space station
doesn't seem important?
I agree with incremental improvements in manned systems, but I
don't think we've yet reached the limitations on much cheaper/safer/faster
unmanned missions that can expand our knowledge where we need it most
(including everywhere other than the moon and mars). I don't see any point
in sending people up to do work that could be done by machine -- and let's
face it in this day and age machines can do a *lot*. In 1969 just carrying
back a moon rock was phenomenal -- but we are past that now. The sophisticated
gear and vast data volumes are not likely to be analyzed by a space crew in
any case -- their role is mainly to make sure the gear is working and the
recorders are going. If you can automate that.... Specifically, if a man
landed on Mars, what could he/she do that the current rover can not or could
not do? Why pay an extra XXX billion just so a human can hold the camera?
It's a controversial subject, I know, but I believe that the heart
of exploration is gaining knowledge/data. Actual physical presence is just
a sometimes needed (sometimes not) adjunct. Of course, no plans are really
far enough along to criticize, but I don't think I'll be happy with just
sending someone there to "plant a flag" until we've exhausted our other
options.

regards,
----------------------------------------------------------




You certainly have a point, but I think our destiny and
our salvation is in space, in the greater universe, where
unlimited resources await us, and where we won't have all
our Earth eggs in one basket, and I think we should get
started as soon as possible.

We are now picking up where we left off in 1972. Let's
not wait another 30 years to get busy. It *can* be done at
a "reasonable" cost, even by NASA standards, if we do it
properly.

And I do think robotic missions are vital. We need both
robotic and human missions in our move into space.


TA