The unsurprising Luna goal.

First of all I should say how pleased I am to hear about this new Luna
and Mars goal, but I just cannot say that anything here has come as
much of a surprise.

In fact I would also nearly go as far to say that the President was
just playing "NASA's puppet" by saying exactly what NASA wanted him to
say at the pre-set time for him to do so.

My point is that can anyone who has heard of Boeing's RS-84 "Saturn V
class" engines really be surprised by this policy change? After all
NASA would not go about having these very specific engines developed
if they did not have a plan for using them.

So I have little doubt that these, or the rival ones, will be going on
the first stage of this new CEV launcher. I am sure that Boeing must
be happy, even of these reusable engines will get them less money.

Also I see today that the Hubble repair mission has been axed, which
is really no surprise either, when the Shuttle will be going nowhere
beyond the ISS in the future.

Have they even considered paying the Russians to do this? After all
the can do space-walks and it would be cheaper.

This newly axed servicing mission is also financially wise as well,
not just for this fund reallocation, when I have heard it before that
a brand new Hubble could be purchased out of the servicing cost of
each repair mission.

I have also heard it said recently in this group that Hubble is a
"national treasure", which is a view that I believe is unhelpful. As
what Hubble really is about is nothing more than a scientific
instrument, where due to technically advancement Hubble is already
nearly "obsolete".

As sure enough the new James Webb telescope will one day be launched,
if NASA does not axe that project, where sure enough this will put
Hubble to shame.

One thing that I can promise you is that NASA over the next year or
two are going to axe a lot of existing and future projects, when they
reallocate $11 billion from their $86 billion five-year budget.

After all the Shuttle takes up about a third of NASA's budget, from
what I saw recently, which puts about $28 billion out of that $86
billion as unavailable.

So as $11 billion has to be taken from the remaining $58 billion, or
from my estimate about 1/5th or 1/6th of everything will be cut. And
so for NASA "the axe-man cometh", which is about damned time.

I would like to see the actual figures on where this $11 billion is
coming from, when I am sure that my crude calculations are incorrect.

What is most likely to happen is that anything not compatible with
their new manned exploration goal will be cut, where since I am an
extra-solar planet fan I sure don't hope includes Kepler, the Space
Interferometry mission and the Terrestrial Planet finder.

Still after the cheap gits in the EC recently axed ESA's version, then
this would be all part of that conspiracy to prevent the unready
people of this planet from knowing about those alien life bearing
planets.

So I can see that all these types of missions could be in for the axe,
which makes me again believe that NASA should be broken up into two
budget receiving agencies, with one for the manned and robot
exploration stuff and one for all these space telescopes.

Also, finishing up on this funding matter, then I can only see that
NASA will be getting many more tax payer's dollar in the future. As
they are just keeping estimates low now in order to achieve general
acceptance.

The other thing that I have been thinking about is how this series of
Luna missions are going to occur. To begin with I am sure that this
will be little more than a reusable and modern Apollo.

And sure enough, pending congress's approval, you will see an
Apollo-like hop to the Luna surface. That will be nice to see, but of
course all you can get from this is more boring Moon rocks.

The big question is about how to move a whole load of mass in order to
build a Moon base, not to forget the future resupply missions.

Building a Moon base is hardly hard, or really expensive, if NASA
focuses on establishing four wall (not to forget the floor and
ceiling) instead of making another technological monster like the ISS.

In the President's speech he said to only focus on doing one launch at
a time, which is very wise if congress is going to freak at the real
cost of having a Luna base.

So sending up anything useful that the Moon does not already have is a
good thing, when congress should be happy with progress. And having
NASA send up a cheap living box (aka Moon Base) will allow congress to
allocate funds for something more serious.

Getting mass into orbit and to the Moon is the key problem, when it is
all about how to do this the cheapest way possible. I did envision a
system currently being demonstrated by SMART-1, but I believe that
NASA will go on to reuse their new RS-84 based launcher in order to
get their mass directly to the Moon.

How to safely land their "fragile - do not smash into Luna surface"
cargo on the Moon I have yet to fully envision, when that must
certainly include a control system.

Do I envision a Shuttle-like cargo carrying CEV out of this? I
certainly hope that NASA's won't be *that* dumb, when crew and cargo
must certainly use two different craft.

I guess that the most logical solution is to just make a big cargo
container with some rocket control to it in order to achieve a safe
Luna landing.

The great bonus here is that these metal cargo tubes can be used as
the structure for your very Luna base. So you can slot these together
like a lego model and with each resupply mission your base gets
bigger.

That I am sure will make congress happy, when they only pay for the
resupply launches and get a free-ish Luna base out of it. And of
course all the other vital base hardware can be provided in these very
resupply launches.

I wonder if NASA's lackies actually know how to build cheap metal
tubes without a billion dollar price tag? ;-]

Moving on the so-called Crew Exploration Vehicle, then lets face the
fact that this is going to be a top-launched enlarged capsule.

The Apollo system was of course for a Luna Lander and a capsule for
re-entry, but I believe that this time they will make an all-in-one
craft. The reason for this is the word "reusable", when you don't want
to have to throw away half of you manned system each time.

Just give your capsule some legs and rocket motors and it will be just
fine for both Luna landing and Earth re-entry.

I say "Earth re-entry" when the other option is to go to dock with the
ISS and return to Earth in Russian hardware. Due to all the factors
involved I can say that this CEV will be doing the re-entry option.

Lets also face the fact right now that this CEV will be nothing more
than a craft for going to the Moon and maybe an asteroid or two. When
sending a craft to Mars or elsewhere will need a much larger system,
which for just a short hope to the Moon will be wasted mass.

It will also be hard is envision that this craft that will land on the
Moon will ever be landing on Mars, when at most they could hope for,
with massive expansion, is for it to land on Deimos and Phobos, which
is nice enough to make it do-able.

So one day, sure enough, NASA will have to ask congress to build a
craft capable of going to Mars and back, but that won't be for a very
long time yet.

Now what to do on the Moon, except for exploration, then they
certainly need to exploit the Luna resources, where anything leading
to rocket fuel and more importantly water would be great.

So after NASA has their tin-can base, then they will be wanting their
own mini-factory to start turning out end products.

In the long term view, then they could certainly start building Luna
telescopes and parts for their new bigger Mars craft on the Moon.

The final thing that I have been thinking about is about the Shuttle
retirement in 2010. Again, no surprise their, when this thing was as
dead as a duck, when they lost the second one.

I just wish that they did many more Shuttle launches in nearer years
to complete the ISS early, then retire the Shuttle in 2007 instead of
2010. After all the ISS sections are all ready to go, when more
expense now means greater savings in the future.

Due to both lack of funds and lack of desire to be without a NASA
craft for 7 years instead of the projected 4 makes this unlikely, but
the fast track ISS plan is technically a better system.

The only thing that I have been pondering is how much NASA is taking
an axe to the people at their jolly launch center. And from what I
know it may be possible that they will lose most of this entire
expensive overhead and people (does NASA really fire anyone?).

After all any new NASA craft will require much less servicing, but
they will be getting themselves a new large servicing overhead none
the less.

What I am most wondering is if these RS-84 engines will be going on a
private launcher, where NASA contracts out their launch requirements
to a private government-linked company.

I can see that it would be an interesting option, when for one it is
bound to be cheaper, where the safety feature on a new manned craft
would make a rocket glitch much more survivable.

If NASA wants to save money, which seems likely, then that is what
they will do. After all I doubt that it will be any more unsafe than
what NASA can do themselves.

The final thing is that they are going to do, what I said they should
do when I last came here, which is to get rid of these expensive and
useless micro-gravity experiments on the ISS and focus on human
sciences.

Now the one thing that has always annoyed me the most about NASA's
achievements so far is that as we know that lack of gravity is harmful
to their astronauts, then why the hell do they put up with it?

Never once IMO have they tried to technically overcome this problem,
which only requires a spinning tube. Put your astronauts in your
virtual tumble drier overnight on say 0.4G, as they sleep, where sure
enough next morning their bones will be doing well and this has
already achieved much greater results then as with as much exercise as
you want.

You do not need to live in a micro-gravity environment, when since it
is physically harmful, then I don't know why NASA keeps insisting on
harming their space workers.

The other annoying thing is why they do not try growing some plants on
the ISS, then for a little water you get both oxygen and food. Sure
NASA's air in cans system works just as well if not better, but you
won't be getting food, or waste disposal, out of this.

So I would be expecting to see food production on their Luna base at
minimum, when growing food solves a lot of problems and in the end
saves money.

What other "human sciences" they can do on the ISS that they have not
done already is a good question, when I am sure that creating
radiation resistant mutants won't be an option.

Not a lot is the answer to that, which is why NASA will one day cut
their funding for the ISS as well. Kind of unwise if you ask me, when
it could still be useful as a fuel depot or in-orbit construction.

I have always thought that the ISS should be turned over to the
tourists, when only when they have a place to go will private company
launches to LEO be seeing potential profit in putting them there.

Also at this point I should add that until one of these companies
actually wins the X-Prize and gets their craft up there, then I will
not believe that there is yet such a private tourist market.

You can show me all the flashy rocket propelled craft you want, but
what will only impress me is a rocket powerful enough to take it up to
the X-Prize winning height.

So a lot of people go on about their new tourist market for a short
LEO hop, but there has not even been one flight yet. And from what I
have seen there is still some way to go, but I can at least begin to
see real progress on real rockets.

Anyway, it is interesting to see that NASA management now sees the ISS
as a piece of junk, which does not quite reflect it's potential.

The biggest flaw with the ISS is that space is empty, where with empty
space there is no resources to exploit. Further more you cannot
exactly nip outside and go for a walk over the hill to see what is
there.

So a Moon Base is better than the ISS any day, which makes it a shame
that they did not start work on a Moon Base using the Saturn V as a
launcher in 1973. Hell had they done that, then we would be on Mars by
now with an option to go fishing on Europa.

Instead since the ISS is to be abandoned by NASA, where the Shuttle
was designed to build the ISS, then you can conclude that the last 30
years (almost my whole lifetime) was nothing but a mistake.

Oh well, at least NASA is now on the *right* path, where taking these
Luna launches one by one will allow them to go on to do great things.

Sure, Moon Base ideas have been abandoned early in previous years, but
this is a good plan, where as I have a feel for things, then I already
know that it is going to happen.

Kiss goodbye to much of your current space science for the next 10 to
20 years and there will be people living and working on the Moon. Then
you can get your really big space science projects, ideally from an
agency that is not NASA.

Some of you may remember my last visit to this group about a month
after their second Shuttle accident, when I told you what NASA should
be doing then, where here they are actually doing it.

Not to forget back then I was slapped down with statements that NASA
does not need another big launcher, when they have no need for it,
when they will not have a Moon Base anytime soon.

How quickly things change...

Oh yes, to finish up, then I have seen NASA's CEV animation tape on
NASA TV, where that is so not how it is going to happen.

Snip and comment all you want, when extra information will allow me to
better envision how it will all work out.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

What is most likely to happen is that anything not compatible with
their new manned exploration goal will be cut, where since I am an
extra-solar planet fan I sure don't hope includes Kepler, the Space
Interferometry mission and the Terrestrial Planet finder.


The Terrestrial Planet finder is somewhat fundamental, I think it will have a
higher priority than a mission to Pluto. Missions are likely to focus on worlds
were we can send people to in the near future such as the Moon and Mars. The
discovery of an Earthlike planet orbiting another star could give renewed
impetus towards building a Moon base however, since people would like a closer
look and large things would have to be constructed in space, and the helium-3
from the Moon would be useful in a starship. We'll need a base in space to
construct such huge things.

Tom

On 17 Jan 2004 16:44:13 GMT, (TKalbfus) wrote:

What is most likely to happen is that anything not compatible with
their new manned exploration goal will be cut, where since I am an
extra-solar planet fan I sure don't hope includes Kepler, the Space
Interferometry mission and the Terrestrial Planet finder.

The Terrestrial Planet finder is somewhat fundamental,

Yes, where the two that come before it are to make huge gains as well,
but the TPF is the big one. Personally I think that finding a life
bearing planet out there should win the Nobel prize, but that is just
me.

If all goes to plan, then TPF will in operation at about the same time
that Nasa returns to the Moon in 2014.

I think it will have a higher priority than a mission to Pluto.

As one would think, but the EC was only too happy to scrap their first
version on this same route due to budget issues.

Missions are likely to focus on worlds
were we can send people to in the near future such as the Moon and Mars.

Yes, where life bearing planets light-years away are projects that can
be delayed.

The
discovery of an Earthlike planet orbiting another star could give renewed
impetus towards building a Moon base however, since people would like a closer
look and large things would have to be constructed in space,

Yes, where the Moon is the perfect place for constructing some really
large telescopes. And the scientists would really love to have their
huge telescope to peer down on to the continents (if any) of a life
bearing world.

Have they considered the view of society though? As knowing about
planets out there containing life, which is the probable conclusion of
these missions, could freak out a lot of people. As we won't know for
an extremely long time what this life is like.

and the helium-3 from the Moon would be useful in a starship.

That will be going nowhere, when these reactors do not exist yet.

We'll need a base in space to construct such huge things.

With all our technical knowledge it would be possible to send people
on a one way trip to the nearest of these life bearing worlds. Yet
that would take up an entire life-time for the trip, where it would
require a ship bigger and more powerful than ever before seen.

Yes, having TFP finding life bearing planets would help out with a
Moon Base and Mars Base, but you still have to wonder how general
society will react to such news.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote:
First of all I should say how pleased I am to hear about this new Luna
and Mars goal, but I just cannot say that anything here has come as
much of a surprise.


snip
One thing that I can promise you is that NASA over the next year or
two are going to axe a lot of existing and future projects, when they
reallocate $11 billion from their $86 billion five-year budget.

After all the Shuttle takes up about a third of NASA's budget, from
what I saw recently, which puts about $28 billion out of that $86
billion as unavailable.

So as $11 billion has to be taken from the remaining $58 billion, or
from my estimate about 1/5th or 1/6th of everything will be cut. And
so for NASA "the axe-man cometh", which is about damned time.

I would like to see the actual figures on where this $11 billion is
coming from, when I am sure that my crude calculations are incorrect.

What is most likely to happen is that anything not compatible with
their new manned exploration goal will be cut, where since I am an
extra-solar planet fan I sure don't hope includes Kepler, the Space
Interferometry mission and the Terrestrial Planet finder.


Take a closer look at that $28 billion. A much closer look.

There are several facilities and programs that will be slated for the
axe from within the Shuttle program. Pretty much all the tech upgrades
outside the scope of the CAIB are dead. The Maint Facility where they
do the major upgrades will serve no real purpose after they do the
CAIB directed work.

That is probably the largest single source of discretionary funds
over the next 5 years that has been freed up.

and the helium-3 from the Moon would be useful in a starship.

That will be going nowhere, when these reactors do not exist yet.


And just think of the return on the investment of stockpiling a large amount of
Helium-3. Helium-3 is cheaper now than in an era of nuclear fusion. But you are
forgeting, we already know how to trigger nuclear fusion in the form of bombs.
A Helium-3 theromonuclear bomb should be doable in terms of current technology.
One could then build and Orion instead of an Daedalus starship. Asteroids which
have impacted on the Moon could contain some Uranium. Uranium is heavy and not
a voltile so it should have survived the impact and not have traveled far from
the crater. The right kind of uranium can be made into Plutonium and Plutionium
can be used to trigger Helium-3/Deuterium fusion behind an Orion Starship,
controlled nuclear fusion is not needed to propell a starship, and a
traditional fission reactor can power the starship's electrical systems when it
is not accelerating.

Tom

On 17 Jan 2004 18:51:18 GMT, (TKalbfus) wrote:

and the helium-3 from the Moon would be useful in a starship.

That will be going nowhere, when these reactors do not exist yet.

And just think of the return on the investment of stockpiling a large amount of
Helium-3.

I have been through that one before, where it is nice to have your
He3, but it is not exactly a commercial product.

Also you can make He3 in labs on Earth. Just very slowly.

Helium-3 is cheaper now than in an era of nuclear fusion. But you are
forgeting, we already know how to trigger nuclear fusion in the form of bombs.
A Helium-3 theromonuclear bomb should be doable in terms of current technology.

Oh that is a good political idea in this modern era. Lets nuke those
commie/chinese/other *******s with our new He3 bomb.

Working on killing the Moon idea now?

One could then build and Orion instead of an Daedalus starship.

Sure, blowing up nukes in space is an interesting propulsion idea,
which is technically environmental friendly, as long as you don't do
so in Earth orbit.

Not going to happen anytime soon though, when we need to find those
life bearing extra-solar planets first.

Asteroids which
have impacted on the Moon could contain some Uranium. Uranium is heavy and not
a voltile so it should have survived the impact and not have traveled far from
the crater. The right kind of uranium can be made into Plutonium and Plutionium
can be used to trigger Helium-3/Deuterium fusion behind an Orion Starship,
controlled nuclear fusion is not needed to propell a starship, and a
traditional fission reactor can power the starship's electrical systems when it
is not accelerating.

Plenty of Uranium and Plutonium on Earth as well, should you decide to
ship some up into orbit.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:16:45 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

Take a closer look at that $28 billion. A much closer look.

That is not exactly easy, but you can see Sean O'Keefe's budget plan
here...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

The only real fall in Space Shuttle spending seems to occur in the
year 2009, which is not that much, when only from 2010 to 2012 are the
Shuttles and support services scrapped.

Looking at it more closely, then at most you have $2.5 billion from
the Shuttle project between now and 2009. That would leave $8.5
billion to find elsewhere.

Most funding seems to come from the ISS, which is no doubt explained
by NASA's lack of servicing it and the micro-gravity experiments. And
since ESA will be doing a Jules Verne supply thing in later years,
then NASA won't have much to do there beyond building it.

Also it seems that NASA in the long run wishes congress to increase
their budget from about $15 billion to about $23 billion. So US tax
payers could be paying NASA $8 billion more a year from 2020.

Still, it will be nice to see NASA spending $15 billion of that $23
billion a year on human space exploration and construction.

There are several facilities and programs that will be slated for the
axe from within the Shuttle program. Pretty much all the tech upgrades
outside the scope of the CAIB are dead. The Maint Facility where they
do the major upgrades will serve no real purpose after they do the
CAIB directed work.

And again their budget at most can save $2.5 billion from shutting
down all these Shuttle extras within the next 5 years.

That is probably the largest single source of discretionary funds
over the next 5 years that has been freed up.

Apart from the ISS.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:16:45 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:


Take a closer look at that $28 billion. A much closer look.


That is not exactly easy, but you can see Sean O'Keefe's budget plan
here...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

The only real fall in Space Shuttle spending seems to occur in the
year 2009, which is not that much, when only from 2010 to 2012 are the
Shuttles and support services scrapped.

Looking at it more closely, then at most you have $2.5 billion from
the Shuttle project between now and 2009. That would leave $8.5
billion to find elsewhere.

Most funding seems to come from the ISS, which is no doubt explained
by NASA's lack of servicing it and the micro-gravity experiments. And
since ESA will be doing a Jules Verne supply thing in later years,
then NASA won't have much to do there beyond building it.

Also it seems that NASA in the long run wishes congress to increase
their budget from about $15 billion to about $23 billion. So US tax
payers could be paying NASA $8 billion more a year from 2020.

Still, it will be nice to see NASA spending $15 billion of that $23
billion a year on human space exploration and construction.


There are several facilities and programs that will be slated for the
axe from within the Shuttle program. Pretty much all the tech upgrades
outside the scope of the CAIB are dead. The Maint Facility where they
do the major upgrades will serve no real purpose after they do the
CAIB directed work.


And again their budget at most can save $2.5 billion from shutting
down all these Shuttle extras within the next 5 years.




Yes. That's about the same number I reached. Basically what I
was trying to get across was that this is a new ballgame. Shuttle
is not sacred any longer and it's funds are now open for
raiding and I suspect that they are going to start right at
this point.

You're right though. Looking at that budget, it looks like ISS
takes a greater percentage cut as well as a larger cut in real
dollars. Makes sense also as Core Complete will represent a shift
in focus. That should be slightly ahead of Shuttle retirement.

Aeronautics looks like the other big loser. In terms of space science,
I suspect that the funding will stay constant, but change focus.
That 2008 number for robotic will hit the 2005.

I don't really have anything for, or against, the paper projections
at this point.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:21:22 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

Cardman wrote:
And again their budget at most can save $2.5 billion from shutting
down all these Shuttle extras within the next 5 years.

Yes. That's about the same number I reached. Basically what I
was trying to get across was that this is a new ballgame. Shuttle
is not sacred any longer and it's funds are now open for
raiding and I suspect that they are going to start right at
this point.

Yes, where between 2010 and 2012 mostly all Shuttle support systems
will be closed and disposed of. This funding will be moved to pay for
the building of several CEVs it seems.

Most interestingly is that CEVs support according to this plan comes
in at less than $1 billion each year, which is much less than the
Shuttle support costs.

We will have to see if that one turns out to be true.

You're right though. Looking at that budget, it looks like ISS
takes a greater percentage cut as well as a larger cut in real
dollars.

Human science involves studying their astronauts turning into space
bums, when there is little else to do. ;-]

I am surprise that they can take that much funding out of the ISS
though, where all those micro-gravity experiments must have cost a
bit.

Makes sense also as Core Complete will represent a shift
in focus. That should be slightly ahead of Shuttle retirement.

Obviously, where I wonder if any more components will ever be added
after this completion.

Aeronautics looks like the other big loser. In terms of space science,
I suspect that the funding will stay constant, but change focus.

Well there is a drop in funds in the near term, where it will go on to
receive extra funds in the future.

I don't really have anything for, or against, the paper projections
at this point.

Seems that human/robotic technologies will be on the increase, where
it will be interesting to see what that exactly involves. Still, I
have no real issues with the budget plan either.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:21:22 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:


Cardman wrote:

And again their budget at most can save $2.5 billion from shutting
down all these Shuttle extras within the next 5 years.

Yes. That's about the same number I reached. Basically what I
was trying to get across was that this is a new ballgame. Shuttle
is not sacred any longer and it's funds are now open for
raiding and I suspect that they are going to start right at
this point.


Yes, where between 2010 and 2012 mostly all Shuttle support systems
will be closed and disposed of. This funding will be moved to pay for
the building of several CEVs it seems.



There might be some more places sooner. When will the purchase
pipeline dry up for SSME's? At what point do they pull the plug
on SRB refurbishing? I have not really kept track of that sort of
thing, but I would not be surprised to find them start timing
individual orbitor retirements against SSME replacements. Also,
the number of operational spares would start to figure into it.

Most interestingly is that CEVs support according to this plan comes
in at less than $1 billion each year, which is much less than the
Shuttle support costs.

We will have to see if that one turns out to be true.



It might. If you look at the timeline, there is a pretty huge
gap between the initial test flights and when it is operational.
They are going to drag it out for a long time.


You're right though. Looking at that budget, it looks like ISS
takes a greater percentage cut as well as a larger cut in real
dollars.


Human science involves studying their astronauts turning into space
bums, when there is little else to do. ;-]

I am surprise that they can take that much funding out of the ISS
though, where all those micro-gravity experiments must have cost a
bit.


This is as close to an admission that maybe ISS was not
as important to the US space program as it would sold as that
you'll ever see.


Makes sense also as Core Complete will represent a shift
in focus. That should be slightly ahead of Shuttle retirement.


Obviously, where I wonder if any more components will ever be added
after this completion.



Nope. ISS is a dead-end. They could conceivably do something
along the lines of TransHab or some other thing, but I simply
don't see that happening.

Now, the Russians or other partners are free to add to ISS
should they so chose. But, overall, I think we're going to see
a gradual US disengagement from ISS.


Aeronautics looks like the other big loser. In terms of space science,
I suspect that the funding will stay constant, but change focus.


Well there is a drop in funds in the near term, where it will go on to
receive extra funds in the future.


I don't really have anything for, or against, the paper projections
at this point.


Seems that human/robotic technologies will be on the increase, where
it will be interesting to see what that exactly involves. Still, I
have no real issues with the budget plan either.