This is interesting...

This is interesting:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4272721

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too. Which I think is rather odd
considering that the ESA has no manned spacecraft,
the ESA has yet to land *anything* on another planetary
body succesfully (even the Moon) and the ESA has a
grand total of two (2) sucessful interplanetary
missions (Giotto and Mars Express). Add to that the
fact that the ESA is always in a budget crunch and
it leaves you scratching your head. NASA, at least,
can afford to spend a couple billion a year on
manned spaceflight because it *already* is spending
a couple billion a year on manned spaceflight.
Granted, 2030 is plenty of time to get caught up, but
they certainly do have a lot of catching up to do!

I found these quotes to be rather amusing:

[excerpt]
"The plans are more precise than the broad U.S. goals
of sending a man back to the moon by 2020 and to Mars
by 2030, revealed last month by President Bush."
[/excerpt]

Following that is a *vague* description of how it may
be "technically feasible" to have a manned moon mission
between 2020 and 2025. Which is so much more precise
than Bush's broad 2015-2020 timeline for going back to
the Moon.

[excerpt]
"We need to go back to the moon before we can go to
Mars," he told an audience of space scientists,
academics and industrialists.
[/excerpt]

Yeah, well, there's one tiny problem with that. You
guys didn't go to the Moon, NASA did. You aren't
going "back" to the Moon, you haven't even sent
unmanned probes there for cryin' out loud. The ESA
wasn't even created until well after the last man
left lunar orbit. "Back" indeed!

There's also a bunch of stuff about an ambitious
Mars sample return program, which would bring back
material in 2014. Again, considering how much
ground work the ESA needs to do that sounds pretty
optimistic, but I'll give them the benefit of the
doubt.


My take on this is pretty simple, Reuters blew it.
This is not really an official ESA goal as yet but
merely a pie in the sky "if only" statement akin
to the same stuff that NASA, the RSA, and even the
ESA have routinely spelled out before. The
tell tale for me is the simple fact that the ESA
cannot simply increase it's own budget, that would
require the consent of the heads of state of the
member nations. So put this in the "maybe" column,
for now.

Plans are one thing, execution is another - neither idea is feasible due to
the time frame. If they (politicians with the purse strings) really want to
go the the Moon (first, then Mars), they'd give their respective agencies
(ESA or NASA) a challenge as was done in 1961 - say, five years. That's not
out of the question considering what was done during Apollo - design and
development of not just a spacecraft, but also the launch vehicle and the C3
(Command, Control, Communications) systems to boot.

These days, it would be somewhat easier as existing equipment could be used
for much of what is needed.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
om...
This is interesting:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4272721

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too. Which I think is rather odd
considering that the ESA has no manned spacecraft,
the ESA has yet to land *anything* on another planetary
body succesfully (even the Moon) and the ESA has a
grand total of two (2) sucessful interplanetary
missions (Giotto and Mars Express). Add to that the
fact that the ESA is always in a budget crunch and
it leaves you scratching your head. NASA, at least,
can afford to spend a couple billion a year on
manned spaceflight because it *already* is spending
a couple billion a year on manned spaceflight.
Granted, 2030 is plenty of time to get caught up, but
they certainly do have a lot of catching up to do!

I found these quotes to be rather amusing:

[excerpt]
"The plans are more precise than the broad U.S. goals
of sending a man back to the moon by 2020 and to Mars
by 2030, revealed last month by President Bush."
[/excerpt]

Following that is a *vague* description of how it may
be "technically feasible" to have a manned moon mission
between 2020 and 2025. Which is so much more precise
than Bush's broad 2015-2020 timeline for going back to
the Moon.

[excerpt]
"We need to go back to the moon before we can go to
Mars," he told an audience of space scientists,
academics and industrialists.
[/excerpt]

Yeah, well, there's one tiny problem with that. You
guys didn't go to the Moon, NASA did. You aren't
going "back" to the Moon, you haven't even sent
unmanned probes there for cryin' out loud. The ESA
wasn't even created until well after the last man
left lunar orbit. "Back" indeed!

There's also a bunch of stuff about an ambitious
Mars sample return program, which would bring back
material in 2014. Again, considering how much
ground work the ESA needs to do that sounds pretty
optimistic, but I'll give them the benefit of the
doubt.


My take on this is pretty simple, Reuters blew it.
This is not really an official ESA goal as yet but
merely a pie in the sky "if only" statement akin
to the same stuff that NASA, the RSA, and even the
ESA have routinely spelled out before. The
tell tale for me is the simple fact that the ESA
cannot simply increase it's own budget, that would
require the consent of the heads of state of the
member nations. So put this in the "maybe" column,
for now.

Plans are one thing, execution is another - neither idea is feasible due to
the time frame. If they (politicians with the purse strings) really want to
go the the Moon (first, then Mars), they'd give their respective agencies
(ESA or NASA) a challenge as was done in 1961 - say, five years. That's not
out of the question considering what was done during Apollo - design and
development of not just a spacecraft, but also the launch vehicle and the C3
(Command, Control, Communications) systems to boot.

These days, it would be somewhat easier as existing equipment could be used
for much of what is needed.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
om...
This is interesting:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4272721

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too. Which I think is rather odd
considering that the ESA has no manned spacecraft,
the ESA has yet to land *anything* on another planetary
body succesfully (even the Moon) and the ESA has a
grand total of two (2) sucessful interplanetary
missions (Giotto and Mars Express). Add to that the
fact that the ESA is always in a budget crunch and
it leaves you scratching your head. NASA, at least,
can afford to spend a couple billion a year on
manned spaceflight because it *already* is spending
a couple billion a year on manned spaceflight.
Granted, 2030 is plenty of time to get caught up, but
they certainly do have a lot of catching up to do!

I found these quotes to be rather amusing:

[excerpt]
"The plans are more precise than the broad U.S. goals
of sending a man back to the moon by 2020 and to Mars
by 2030, revealed last month by President Bush."
[/excerpt]

Following that is a *vague* description of how it may
be "technically feasible" to have a manned moon mission
between 2020 and 2025. Which is so much more precise
than Bush's broad 2015-2020 timeline for going back to
the Moon.

[excerpt]
"We need to go back to the moon before we can go to
Mars," he told an audience of space scientists,
academics and industrialists.
[/excerpt]

Yeah, well, there's one tiny problem with that. You
guys didn't go to the Moon, NASA did. You aren't
going "back" to the Moon, you haven't even sent
unmanned probes there for cryin' out loud. The ESA
wasn't even created until well after the last man
left lunar orbit. "Back" indeed!

There's also a bunch of stuff about an ambitious
Mars sample return program, which would bring back
material in 2014. Again, considering how much
ground work the ESA needs to do that sounds pretty
optimistic, but I'll give them the benefit of the
doubt.


My take on this is pretty simple, Reuters blew it.
This is not really an official ESA goal as yet but
merely a pie in the sky "if only" statement akin
to the same stuff that NASA, the RSA, and even the
ESA have routinely spelled out before. The
tell tale for me is the simple fact that the ESA
cannot simply increase it's own budget, that would
require the consent of the heads of state of the
member nations. So put this in the "maybe" column,
for now.

It's not just Reuters blowing it. I've said this many times, but the
language coming out of the EU portraying anything EU-related versus its
American counterpart reminds me very much of reading the People's Daily as
it describes Chinese projects. This at one time was mostly confined to
lesser-covered meetings and panels of Eurocrats, but it's increasingly
(rapidly) becoming par for the course in all things that are remotely
related to EU prestige. The journalist may have blowing around, but he
wasn't the source of the wind.

It's not just Reuters blowing it. I've said this many times, but the
language coming out of the EU portraying anything EU-related versus its
American counterpart reminds me very much of reading the People's Daily as
it describes Chinese projects. This at one time was mostly confined to
lesser-covered meetings and panels of Eurocrats, but it's increasingly
(rapidly) becoming par for the course in all things that are remotely
related to EU prestige. The journalist may have blowing around, but he
wasn't the source of the wind.

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote in message . com...
This is interesting:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4272721

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too. Which I think is rather odd
considering that the ESA has no manned spacecraft,
the ESA has yet to land *anything* on another planetary
body succesfully (even the Moon) and the ESA has a
grand total of two (2) sucessful interplanetary
missions (Giotto and Mars Express).

Ulysses does not count as an interplanetary mission?
Not to forget Rosetta launches this month.

On 3 Feb 2004 22:17:46 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too ....

That is interesting; if the ESA works with us, it could be very
interesting indeed.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

Yeah, well, there's one tiny problem with that. You
guys didn't go to the Moon, NASA did. You aren't
going "back" to the Moon, you haven't even sent
unmanned probes there for cryin' out loud.

They've sent SMART-1 on its way.


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

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote in message . com...
This is interesting:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4272721

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too. Which I think is rather odd
considering that the ESA has no manned spacecraft,
the ESA has yet to land *anything* on another planetary
body succesfully (even the Moon) and the ESA has a
grand total of two (2) sucessful interplanetary
missions (Giotto and Mars Express). Add to that the
fact that the ESA is always in a budget crunch and
it leaves you scratching your head. NASA, at least,
can afford to spend a couple billion a year on
manned spaceflight because it *already* is spending
a couple billion a year on manned spaceflight.
Granted, 2030 is plenty of time to get caught up, but
they certainly do have a lot of catching up to do!

I found these quotes to be rather amusing:

[excerpt]
"The plans are more precise than the broad U.S. goals
of sending a man back to the moon by 2020 and to Mars
by 2030, revealed last month by President Bush."
[/excerpt]

My own plans

(at least for the moon - the transport element is he
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?dq...ing.google.com)

are even more precise than either ESA's or NASA's. Now all I need is
$20 billion. If I were ESA, that would be $40 billion. If I were NASA,
that would be $60 billion. Of the three, only NASA is going to spend
its amount.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
(Christopher M. Jones) wrote in message
. com...
This is interesting:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4272721

Hot on the heels of Bush's new long term plan for NASA
manned spaceflight, the ESA says they're going to the
Moon and Mars too. Which I think is rather odd
considering that the ESA has no manned spacecraft,
the ESA has yet to land *anything* on another planetary
body succesfully (even the Moon) and the ESA has a
grand total of two (2) sucessful interplanetary
missions (Giotto and Mars Express). Add to that the
fact that the ESA is always in a budget crunch and
it leaves you scratching your head. NASA, at least,
can afford to spend a couple billion a year on
manned spaceflight because it *already* is spending
a couple billion a year on manned spaceflight.
Granted, 2030 is plenty of time to get caught up, but
they certainly do have a lot of catching up to do!

I found these quotes to be rather amusing:

[excerpt]
"The plans are more precise than the broad U.S. goals
of sending a man back to the moon by 2020 and to Mars
by 2030, revealed last month by President Bush."
[/excerpt]

My own plans

(at least for the moon - the transport element is he

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?dq...ing.google.com)

are even more precise than either ESA's or NASA's. Now all I need is
$20 billion. If I were ESA, that would be $40 billion. If I were NASA,
that would be $60 billion. Of the three, only NASA is going to spend
its amount.

LOL! Yes, but at least we'll have more than some pipe dream.