NEWS - Bush May Announce Return To Moon At Kitty Hawk - Space Daily

(ed kyle) wrote

There would be one nagging concern: the new KT-series rocket China is developing will be the world's most powerful rocket...

That would be CZ-5xx, not KT. KT-1 is quite interesting in itself,
but it is a Start-class vehicle, perhaps somewhat upgradable by adding
strap-ons and things.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/lonmarch.htm

Ami Silberman wrote:

The Bush Administration seems to apply bistromathics to everything.




I'd spell it not bistromathics- but B.S.

Pat

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Pat Flannery posted at Thu,
30 Oct 2003 04:09:19 :-

The thing that's missing from all this is a rational reason to return to
the Moon- it's lifeless, and we already know a fair amount about its
geology; we can't afford a permanent manned lunar base because of the
supply problem that such an endeavor would pose, and spending billions
of dollars to get some more rocks is a vast waste of money. At least
with Mars, we would get an inherently more interesting place to visit.


The USA, using 1960's technology, needed under 7.5 years to go from
Glenn-in-Mercury to Moon-Landing, with a delay of ?? caused by Apollo I.

It is plausibly said that, without the sort of crash programme that was
politically possible in those days, the USA could not possibly do it
again, starting from now, in much less time.

The Chinese have launched a 3-man vehicle, albeit containing only one
man; its capabilities must be at least those of Gemini, first launched
three years after Glenn. There must be a possibility of their reaching
the Moon in this decade or soon after.

Forty-Three may have in mind, therefore, that in order to be sure of not
being beaten by the Chinese for the next Moon trip, it may well be
necessary for the USA to start during Forty-Three Part I or II; and
being beaten would be deeply embarrassing, and not something that he
would wish to be seen as being responsible for.

After all, he may be hoping that Forty-Four is in office 2009-2017, and
is also Son of Forty-One.

And he will be aware that, starting now, the PowerPoint engineering
necessary before 2 Tue Nov '04 will be relatively cheap, easy, and safe;
and a real effort before Nov '08 will only be needed if the Chinese are
making progress enough to concern the average voter.


Or, of course, there could be a more subtle plot behind it, intended to
embarrass a Forty-Four who happens to be Mrs. Forty-Two.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Dick Morris
m posted at Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:00:09 :-

We certainly can't afford to build a lunar base with expendable HLLV's,

You cannot maintain and build a Lunar Base without maintaining a "fleet"
of suitable LVs; and since you cannot build indestructible LVs, you
therefore can only do it if maintaining an LV construction capability.

Such a capability can only be maintained if it is used.

Therefore, the LVs *must* be expendable; and expended.

That does not, however, mean that they must be single-shot.

The vehicles, as far as practical, should be designed for a half-integer
number of round trips; in other words, at end of full flight-worthiness,
they should become Lunar resources rather than Earth junk.

And a re-usable booster, when because of age no longer man-rated, can
still be used as a launcher for inexpensive material.

A quick test shows that a tonne of material which would currently (AIUI)
be most welcome (suitably packaged) on ISS at present can be obtained
merely by turning a kitchen tap on for an hour or so; and there must be
much other material whose value in orbit is almost entirely the cost of
putting it there, but which can be inadvertently launched into the
Atlantic without much recrimination.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

(Mark Whittington) wrote in message om...
Depending on the details (in which the Devil always lies) this might
just be the sort of thing that will jump start the moribund US space
effort. It will make some people mad, including the Mars or Bust
crowd, the "let's abolish NASA" crowd, and of course liberal
Democrats.

For those who are a bit cynical and remember Bush the Elder's SEI,
remember that things are different now.

First, Bush the Younger is not his dad.
Second, the liberal Democrats don't run Congress.
Third, Sean O'Keefe runs NASA, not Dick Truly.

Also the plan is not a five hundred billion dollar monstersity, but
contemplates a 7-10% annual increase in NASA's budget, which is
doable. And there's every chance that the new initiative will have
some free market aspects to it. Probably not enough for some, but then
no one gets everything they want.


Gees, Mark! I'm willing to support a return to the Moon(I'm most of
the time a liberal Democrat)and the "Mars or Bust crowd"? You working
toward being a politician of something? The Mars Society is like any
group of space fans about 55% of them would go for a return to the
Moon.

--Chris Vancil

On 30 Oct 2003 14:44:56 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(CL Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

For those who are a bit cynical and remember Bush the Elder's SEI,
remember that things are different now.

First, Bush the Younger is not his dad.
Second, the liberal Democrats don't run Congress.
Third, Sean O'Keefe runs NASA, not Dick Truly.

Also the plan is not a five hundred billion dollar monstersity, but
contemplates a 7-10% annual increase in NASA's budget, which is
doable.

How can you know that? We haven't even seen a plan. If it costs them
thirteen billion to develop an "orbital space plane" I can't wait to
see the price tag for a lunar mission.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:59:48 GMT, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On 30 Oct 2003 14:44:56 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(CL Vancil) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

For those who are a bit cynical and remember Bush the Elder's SEI,
remember that things are different now.

First, Bush the Younger is not his dad.
Second, the liberal Democrats don't run Congress.
Third, Sean O'Keefe runs NASA, not Dick Truly.

Also the plan is not a five hundred billion dollar monstersity, but
contemplates a 7-10% annual increase in NASA's budget, which is
doable.

How can you know that? We haven't even seen a plan. If it costs them
thirteen billion to develop an "orbital space plane" I can't wait to
see the price tag for a lunar mission.

Sorry, that was to Mark, not Chris...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Well the ice would come as a surprise for the crew at Arecibo, and none
was seen after Lunar Prospector crash dove into the area it was supposed
to be in. It could be there of course, but it's far from a sure thing.

Ice is uncertain, but hydrogen is not -- the neutron spectra are pretty
clear that there's plenty of slightly-buried hydrogen there. Precisely
what form it is in, they don't tell us, but ice seems likely.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

Dave O'Neill dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com wrote:
A Proton/Ariane5/etc... size launcher can soft land around 6,000kg
of cargo on the surface at a reasonable cost for supply purposes.

Six tons?

Could you document that and/or provide numbers?

I've been working on lunar missions for some time and get
payloads around three tons off a Proton, A5, D-IV etc.


-george william herbert

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:46:19 -0500, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:


And then the bulk of the new money will be promised for the out years, and
the first years funding will be delayed until FY 05,

Er, we're already in FY04, so FY05 is a no-brainer.

Brian