"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

I noticed the smiley.

But even then, it is not clear what parts of the post were intended to be
serious and which were intended to be humorous,

If the entire post was intended to be humorous, then here is my response:

"Ha, ha!"


Bingo!

Think spin-dry cycle in your washing machine!

Now for the serious commentary...

I'm not a big fan of the return to moon program, at least as currently
envisioned.

Here are my reasons:

1) It's too much like Apollo. I don't know what science we'd accomplish that
we couldn't do far more cheaply with tele-robotics and sample return.

2) I don't know what extra-planetary experience we'd get on the moon as
training for a Mars mission we could not simulate for far less $$$ here on
Earth.

3) The infrastructure needed to develop a return to the moon program as
currently envisioned won't serve us well for a Mars mission, where
durations in space are far longer. What I'd rather see developed is
something akin to the next version of ISS (or perhaps MIR), but with the
ability to *travel*. First to lunar orbit, where we could conduct test
flights to and from the moon, but using the next-gen SS/orbiter to conduct
surface studies, telerobtic landing site probes, etc. In other words the
next-gen station/orbiter becomes a space habitat that also happens to
travel. I can see where this would be infrastructure that would not only
open up the moon, but would directly scale to eventual planetary
exploration. I think Constellation aka Apollo 2.0 will be good at getting
us back to the moon and back and that's about all.

4) Constellation as currently envisioned, as a program dedicated solely to a
"return to the moon", is a hard sell to a public of the mind of "been
there, done that". Esp. during a time of financial crises. Obama might come
out later this year and cancel the whole thing, I don't think in light of
the current financial crises you'd see much uproar over it.

5) If the focus is a return to the moon, I fear that Constellation will not be
allowed to incorporate technology that might enable further interplanetary
exploration because of budget constraints that force it to focus on primary
task (lunar landing/return) to the exclusion of all else. Hence another
one-off with no life beyond what it was designed to do. But at an enormous
cost.

6) It's totally unclear to me that anything in the political/economic realm is
different enough in my country (USA) to prevent the development of a
program that places a habitat on the moon then abandons it to other
countries to exploit all on my tax $.

7) Regarding infrastructure. We've been re-using and re-using ground hardware
at KSC for nearly 1/2 a century. And we're still doing it with
Constellation. Why isn't anyone taking a good hard look at what we're
spending for ground operations. Maybe its really time to retire that 4
track transporter for a rail system? Maybe the VAB could use another
overhaul? I dunno, I think we over-focus on rocketry to the exlusion of
other things.

But hey, I'm a confirmed idiot. Just shut up and fork over the cash pal, leave
the rocket science to the experts and never mind how much it costs or what it
achieves.

Dave