UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
news

You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be
launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a
hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never."

So, let me see if I get this straight.


This means launching the stuff required to build them to the Moon,
assembling/building them there and then launching them?

The point of this is what exactly?

You're missing the point entirely. I say get a permanent industrial presence
started on the moon and let corporations take over space exploration from
there. We get them to the moon, they mine it and science hitches a ride to
the stars. Putting a governmental agency in charge of space exploration on
any level higher than what NASA has already accomplished is stupidity. Would
you ride a ship built and flown by the spacefaring equivalent of the US
Postal Service? I wouldn't.

I see future exploration of space happening the same way that exploration of
the Gulf Of Mexico has. Sure, the US government has done some surveys down
there, but most of the mapping has been done by the petrochemical industry.
Why? Because the oil industry are the people who have a vested interest in
what's at the bottom of the Gulf *and* have the funding to go looking for
it. Sure, they're motivated by profit. But there have been several
discoveries made by them that wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Doc

"John Cody" wrote in news:J_nLb.879$ql3.729
@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net:

What exactly would be the point of this? Anyone?

It's an idiot boy policy. The motivations and points apply.

Help get idiot boy reinstalled in office.

Help idiot boy give more public money to his corporate friends.

Help bankrupt the US government sooner so it must shrink down to something
small enough that Grover Norquist can drown it in a bathtub.

Help further American 'full spectrum dominance' efforts by building the
insitutional knowhow and technological base (i.e. heavy lift, nuke
propulsion) necessary for the deployment of a son-of-Star Wars offense
system intended to ensure that American military power cannot be outflanked
from above.

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

Charles Buckley wrote:
Hop David wrote:

(snip) It's been my impression that even if NASA doesn't follow
Zubrin's plan to the letter, they hope to use in situ resources _if_
they do a manned Mars mission.




Mars Reference Mission.

http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/MarsNew...ion_Table.html



Thanks. IIRC years ago NASA gave daddy Bush a half trillion dollar price
tag for going to Mars. And 500 billion is what the hair spray heads on
my TV news were saying.

Am I correct in believing the Mars Reference Mission will be much
cheaper? (I couldn't find any cost guestimates during my quick perusal
of the URL)



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

drdoody wrote:

Personally, I doubt there's anything alive on Mars. Which is good in a way.
I'd be willing to go to Mars for the chance to play in the universe's
biggest Zen rock garden.

Doc


Maybe biggest Zen rock garden in the solar system. But I doubt its the
biggest in the universe.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:


Charles Buckley wrote:

Hop David wrote:


(snip) It's been my impression that even if NASA doesn't follow
Zubrin's plan to the letter, they hope to use in situ resources _if_
they do a manned Mars mission.




Mars Reference Mission.

http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/MarsNew...ion_Table.html




Thanks. IIRC years ago NASA gave daddy Bush a half trillion dollar price
tag for going to Mars. And 500 billion is what the hair spray heads on
my TV news were saying.

Am I correct in believing the Mars Reference Mission will be much
cheaper? (I couldn't find any cost guestimates during my quick perusal
of the URL)


I've seen estimates from $30B to $50B. Certainly more than a 5%
increase in NASAs current budget per year.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:22:55 +0100, "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

A 'true' Mars mission would last up to three years and would therefore
create its own host of problems (logistics). A manned fly-by would
already
take more than a year and would be doable within a decade (my guess is
that
it WILL be done within a decade).

The Project Prometheus nuclear powered engine seems to have a key role
in the Bush deep space proposals. If we get nuclear engines, the time
scales drop radically.

AFAIK Prometheus isn't usable for human space missions, only for deep space
probes. Like I already said: NASA shouldn't fall into the trap of using the
newest a greatest unobtanium technology to accomplish the goals set out by
the President, or the whole program will simply get cancelled due to cost
overrurns.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
news

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes?
What if this means "No more galileos, cassinis and space telescopes
UNTIL"
those can be launched from lunar surface ?

But this is essentialy the same as never, as things stand or are even
projected.

You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be
launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a
hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never."

So, let me see if I get this straight.


This means launching the stuff required to build them to the Moon,
assembling/building them there and then launching them?

The point of this is what exactly?
Build them bigger and more capable than your EELV payload shroud ever would
allow. Load them with tons of in-situ produced rocket fuel ( or at least the
oxidiser ). Test novel nuclear propulsion methods for them, without
environmentalists crying bloody murder.

-kert

"drdoody" wrote in message
m...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
news

You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be
launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a
hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never."

So, let me see if I get this straight.


This means launching the stuff required to build them to the Moon,
assembling/building them there and then launching them?

The point of this is what exactly?

You're missing the point entirely.

Hardly.

I say get a permanent industrial presence
started on the moon and let corporations take over space exploration from
there.

You do realize how many decades this will be before it's true? And how
much mass needs to be launched to the Moon before this becomes a reality?

In the meantime if you can afford to launch that much mass to the Moon
in a cheap enough fashion to be affordable, your cost to launch space probes
becomes low enough as to not make it any more practical to launch than from
Earth.

We get them to the moon, they mine it and science hitches a ride to
the stars. Putting a governmental agency in charge of space exploration on
any level higher than what NASA has already accomplished is stupidity.
Would
you ride a ship built and flown by the spacefaring equivalent of the US
Postal Service? I wouldn't.

I see future exploration of space happening the same way that exploration
of
the Gulf Of Mexico has. Sure, the US government has done some surveys down
there, but most of the mapping has been done by the petrochemical
industry.
Why? Because the oil industry are the people who have a vested interest in
what's at the bottom of the Gulf *and* have the funding to go looking for
it. Sure, they're motivated by profit. But there have been several
discoveries made by them that wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Doc

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

That doesn't seem to be the way it works, though.

Nixon cancelled the last three moon landings.

Not exactly. Please get yur facts straight.



Clinton ignored the Bush I plan to return to the moon.

Clinton ignored it because Congress laughed at it. There was nothing for
Clinton to support.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...


Build them bigger and more capable than your EELV payload shroud ever
would
allow. Load them with tons of in-situ produced rocket fuel ( or at least
the
oxidiser ). Test novel nuclear propulsion methods for them, without
environmentalists crying bloody murder.

Let's see, and this becomes cheaper HOW exactly?

Remember, just to develop the industrial base on the Moon to make this
possible you're going to have to have cheap launch from here on Earth. Once
you have that, you just build things here in existing factories and use EOR
to build them as big as you want.

Sure, someday we'll be launching from the Moon, but not for a LONG time.


-kert