Bush to announce new missions to moon

In sci.space.policy Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

Would that be including unmanned programs, both mooted and/or inflight
(eg JIMO, Cassini etc), as well as manned ones?

Yes, it sucks. Its another "science, what science?" approach to well,
space science.

So? Since when did space become about science?

If space science isn't about science but say making footprints, it should
not be claimed to be science, and it budgeting should come out of PR
budget, not science or engineering budgets.


Well, I'll answer that: it became about science towards the end of the
Apollo program, when NASA realized that this huge organization it had
built to put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth needed a
new purpose. Science was chosen as that purpose (and indeed, this was
the outward reason given for the Apollo missions -- mostly lunar
geology). This was a bad choice in retrospect, though perhaps it was
the only choice available. But nothing has come of space science so far
that can justify the huge expenditures involved.

Come out of it? If you want something to come out of it other than science
data and even more science, then you should call it something else, and
it should be getting its money from DARPA, DOE and similar. Oh, and
it would probably getting more money at that.


Now, space *development* -- that's another story. That's worth much
more than what we're putting into it, because it addresses real-world
needs in the near term (such as energy production, protection from
asteroids/comets, etc.).

Except the US has no such thing as a space development program, so
teh point is moot.


The public intuitively knows this -- when people are out there
developing ways to live and work in space, they're interested, but as
soon as it devolves into taking pretty pictures, we get a giant
collective yawn and change to the sports channel.

Unfortunately, we still have this myth rolling around that space is
supposed to be about science. Engineering is certainly required for
space development, and a small bit of science here and there is needed
to support that engineering. But science is not the *reason* for space
development. Attempting to make it so just undermines the whole
enterprise.

Again - if you want space engineering or space engineering research, call
it that and blame DARPA, DOE, the mining and so on depertments for
being damn stupid and not having a space related arm that is organising
missions.


Indeed, to put the cart properly behind the horse: once space
development is further along, then we can build much bigger and better
instruments to answer those cosmology and astronomy questions, much
cheaper than we could today.

So write to your reps in US goverment structures and ask when there
will be space development parts in various deperatments and agencies
that actually deal with development but have been lazing around so far
and not doing anything about space related matters?


Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy jeff findley wrote:
Sander Vesik writes:

Yes, it sucks. Its another "science, what science?" approach to well,
space science.

For years, the science community has complained that all the money
spent on manned space travel could be better spent doing science with
unmanned probes.

The Bush administration is rejecting that and turning it on its head.
They are essentially saying that it is unmanned space science that is
holding back the manned exploration of space.

What use is manned space explorartion as things stand now and considering
that teh same administration hasn't provided even one reason or goal for
said manned explorartion?


Men have not set foot on any planetoid besides the earth for more than
30 years. The Bush administration is saying that it's time to start
manned exploration again. IMHO, going round and round in LEO isn't
exploring much.

What does man setting foot there give us over a robot doing so ?


Jeff

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik writes:

In sci.space.policy jeff findley wrote:
Sander Vesik writes:

Yes, it sucks. Its another "science, what science?" approach to well,
space science.

For years, the science community has complained that all the money
spent on manned space travel could be better spent doing science with
unmanned probes.

The Bush administration is rejecting that and turning it on its head.
They are essentially saying that it is unmanned space science that is
holding back the manned exploration of space.

What use is manned space explorartion as things stand now and considering
that teh same administration hasn't provided even one reason or goal for
said manned explorartion?

The goal is to start a permanent manned presence on the Moon and to
set foot on Mars (and presumably return the crew safely to Earth).
That is a clearly defined goal.

Men have not set foot on any planetoid besides the earth for more than
30 years. The Bush administration is saying that it's time to start
manned exploration again. IMHO, going round and round in LEO isn't
exploring much.

What does man setting foot there give us over a robot doing so ?

This is the same argument the unmanned science community always uses.
The answer is clear, if one has read the history of Apollo. What's
not clear is whether or not the added cost is worth it. Certainly the
added cost isn't worth it in terms of science, but there are other
motivations for exploration besides pure science.

Why do people climb Mt. Everest year after year? It's been done
before. You can read other's journals, look at other's pictures, and
etc.

Why do we have people at the South Pole? Why not make all of that an
unmanned operation?


The fact is that space science and manned space exploration are goals
that aren't very compatible. Bush is setting a clear direction by
saying that manned space exploration comes first, otherwise, we won't
move beyond "exploring" LEO.

I hate to say it, but I tend to agree. Unmanned probes are useful,
but what's the point if we're going to stay on the same rock forever?
Why learn about Mars if we're never going to actually set foot on the
surface? Where's the excitement in exploration by proxy (robot)?

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

For years, the science community has complained that all the money
spent on manned space travel could be better spent doing science with
unmanned probes.

The Bush administration is rejecting that and turning it on its head.
They are essentially saying that it is unmanned space science that is
holding back the manned exploration of space.

What use is manned space explorartion as things stand now and considering
that teh same administration hasn't provided even one reason or goal for
said manned explorartion?

Well, the administration hasn't given us anything yet. They've only
leaked rumors that they're going to be talking about it next week.
Perhaps some reasons will be given then, for those listeners who don't
find the reasons for manned space development (let's not say
"exploration" since that is rather pointless) to be self-evident.

What does man setting foot there give us over a robot doing so ?

Why, it gives us men (and women) there, of course. And that is the
whole point. The only way to get humanity off the Earth is to start
getting humanity off the Earth.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On 9 Jan 2004 17:21:12 GMT, Andrew Gray wrote:

Three brothers, actually. John (Jeb), Neil and Marvin. He also has a sister-
^----!

Well, there's your answer...

I'm not sure I want to know what the question is

Dale

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

So? Since when did space become about science?

If space science isn't about science but say making footprints, it should
not be claimed to be science

I agree. And in fact, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about
"space science" -- I said "space."

and it budgeting should come out of PR
budget, not science or engineering budgets.

No, it has nothing to do with PR, though everything to do with
engineering. NASA has its own budget, as you know, so it's not coming
out of any "science budget" either. What I wonder is, why has so much
science been taken out of the NASA budget, which would be much better
spent on engineering and development? It would be good to have this
corrected. Let the space scientists get their funding from NSF, like
other scientists, and fly their experiments on whatever craft they can
afford to buy or rent. (If that means "none" then clearly the state of
the art needs to advance a bit before those experiments are practical.)

But nothing has come of space science so far
that can justify the huge expenditures involved.

Come out of it? If you want something to come out of it other than science
data and even more science, then you should call it something else, and
it should be getting its money from DARPA, DOE and similar.

You're using "it" to refer to two different things here. Let's review:
I'm claiming that nothing has come out of space science that justifies
the expense. What has come out of it? Why, science data and more
science, just as you say. And I'm saying, that doesn't justify its
expense, therefore we shouldn't be doing it (until it becomes cheaper).

No, I don't expect anything else to come out of space science. I'm
saying, the space science we've been paying for hasn't been worth it.

Now, I think you then switched "it" above to mean space development in
general, and you say that I shouldn't call that science (with which I
agree), and that it should get its money from DARPA, DOE, etc. But NASA
already has its own budge. The "S" in NASA doesn't stand for "science."
I see no need (nor precedent) for one national agency to be getting
money from another. Rather, we need to redefine what it is NASA's
supposed to be doing with the money we give it. You seem to think it
should be doing science, but I see no justification for that.

Now, space *development* -- that's another story. That's worth much
more than what we're putting into it, because it addresses real-world
needs in the near term (such as energy production, protection from
asteroids/comets, etc.).

Except the US has no such thing as a space development program, so
the point is moot.

We have NASA, which was clearly a space development program in the
beginning, and a very successful one at that. After Apollo/Skylab,
things went rather downhill. ISS could have been a useful bit of space
infrastructure, but we're all familiar with the problems it's had. Same
for the shuttle, for that matter. But all the while, there have been
some who have believed that it was all about the science. I don't think
that was ever the case in truth, and it'll be good to have that
clarified so that we can focus more openly on what's important.

Again - if you want space engineering or space engineering research, call
it that and blame DARPA, DOE, the mining and so on depertments for
being damn stupid and not having a space related arm that is organising
missions.

You're still not quite getting it. I don't want space engineering
research, I want space development. And we already have an organization
for that -- NASA.

If you want space science, why don't you have NSF fund it, or even
propose some new National Space Science Administration (NSSA?) which can
have its own budget? Let NASA focus on opening the frontier, and NSSA
(or NSF or whatever) can benefit from this right along with everyone
else. But first things first. Why should the space scientists get to
go before, say, the movie studios?

So write to your reps in US goverment structures and ask when there
will be space development parts in various deperatments and agencies
that actually deal with development but have been lazing around so far
and not doing anything about space related matters?

No, I write to my reps and ask them when NASA is going to quit allowing
space science to distract it from its more important infrastructure
development activities, and really get something useful accomplished,
like a permanent lunar base. And maybe the answer is: "Next Wednesday."

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On 09 Jan 2004 15:44:58 -0500, jeff findley
wrote:

The goal is to start a permanent manned presence on the Moon and to
set foot on Mars (and presumably return the crew safely to Earth).
That is a clearly defined goal.

Not to mention planting the US flag. Wouldn't it be better to make this
a "human" goal, rather than extending nationalism and unilateralism
further out into the solar system?

Oh well, we aren't going to have the money to do it anyway.

Dale

In sci.space.history Joe Strout wrote:
So? Since when did space become about science?

Well, I'll answer that: it became about science towards the end of the
Apollo program, when NASA realized that this huge organization it had
built to put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth needed a
new purpose. Science was chosen as that purpose (and indeed, this was
the outward reason given for the Apollo missions -- mostly lunar
geology). This was a bad choice in retrospect, though perhaps it was
the only choice available. But nothing has come of space science so far
that can justify the huge expenditures involved.

Now, space *development* -- that's another story. That's worth much
more than what we're putting into it, because it addresses real-world
needs in the near term (such as energy production, protection from
asteroids/comets, etc.).


I think one axis is development vs science and the other is manned vs
unmanned. They might not be rigidly related.

Most space development to this day has been unmanned, and that has also
brought the most direct useful stuff to people's lives in the form of
satellite services. (Weather forecasting, data relay, earth observation,
gps)
Then there are those more scientific matters that are also pretty
directly important, like space weather, planetary atmospherical models
etc...

Of the manned missions on the other hand, ISS and the moon missions are
almost the opposite. One is a continued mission which is supposed to
exist almost purely for scientifical purposes and use international
co-operation, while the other was more of a national prestige event,
although it gave also lots of scientific knowledge.
A few more moonflights might have given more, but what I understand,
they were cancelled because they were dangerous and expensive.

Anyway, because of the very fragile nature of man, manned missions
in space tend to be heavy on the technology and engineering side,
which these two examples were/are too, so they've done lots of
infrastructure development as a side product (and thus cost a huge
amount). But i don't think either has given that much direct benefit.

Someone said that after a "flag and footprints"-type mission we're
further from real space development than what we started from.
Apollo was in many ways a "false start", a mega-project that got
us a few people who went to the moon, but what after that?
Ordinary people are still very far from going into space. Not to
talk about any space colonies, we can't get a closed system to work
even on earth.

So, if a few guys go to Mars, what after that? What does it change?
At least it's inspirational and bold, but I wouldn't talk about much
direct practical advances to humanity. Maybe something useful is
invented as a side-product, although that invention might have been
done if the same money had been used with no relation to space at
all. It's reasonable and honest to say that people get motivated
and happier because of the spirit of a Mars mission, and not trying
to find some concrete advances, which are side-effects anyway..

The public intuitively knows this -- when people are out there
developing ways to live and work in space, they're interested, but as
soon as it devolves into taking pretty pictures, we get a giant
collective yawn and change to the sports channel.

On the other hand, Beagle 2 and Spirit have raised more headlines
and interest here than ISS.

Unfortunately, we still have this myth rolling around that space is
supposed to be about science. Engineering is certainly required for
space development, and a small bit of science here and there is needed
to support that engineering. But science is not the *reason* for space
development. Attempting to make it so just undermines the whole
enterprise.

I think space is about science, direct use and inspiration. Manned
space tends to be heavy on the latter, unmanned Mars missions maybe
50/50 former and latter and GPS or weather satellites very much the
middle one.

Indeed, to put the cart properly behind the horse: once space
development is further along, then we can build much bigger and better
instruments to answer those cosmology and astronomy questions, much
cheaper than we could today.

Cheers,
- Joe

Maybe once we get space elevators...
I don't see manned Mars missions doing that (giving bigger and better
instruments), but maybe that is to be pointed out. Big rockets, yes,
but that's just a fraction of the manned Mars expenditure.

I believe unmanned vs manned space is now in practical ways in a
pretty good balance. A "permanent" space station in LEO for people
and then deep-space exploration and science by robots. The space
shuttle just needs replacing/retiring so it doesn't eat so much
money.
In a more spiritual way of course there might be a place for a more
glorious manned mission. I just personally believe that the cost is
too high, axing all the unmanned stuff.
An alternative would be a really glorious but unmanned exploration
mission, or a huge amount of FBC-missions, just group it under one
name and image so that it's easy for people to understand.

--
Valtteri

Joe Strout writes:

The only way to get humanity off the Earth is to start
getting humanity off the Earth.

I like your attitude, Joe, (pure science is not enough payoff for many
taxpayers,) but that statement simply isn't true. We could well spend
a decade or more sending robots ahead to prepare and test safe
habitats and return vehicles, etc.

Doing the moon via "High Standards and Accountability"?

Well folks, what can we have to say about our leadership planning on
returning us to the moon. All that I can say is, there's always a
first time for everything, and/or how about "better late than never",
as opposed to implementing our resident warlord's "so what's the
difference" policy.

Einstein remarked; "Great spirits have always met violent opposition
from mediocre minds".

Thereby, in order to please those "mediocre minds", how about we apply
a little of Yull Brown's well documented and truthful physics
technology, along with a few modern electrolytic zirconium membranes,
just to see if we can't manage to create and/or extract pure h2o2
without getting ourselves blown to bits.

Unlike the dubious Mars fiasco, at least the moon offers us many
things, such as the most bang for the buck, and I'm not even referring
to the he3 sort of bang, as that's an extra bonus for the ones
actually capable of creating the one and only LSE-CM/ISS, which
doesn't much look like our NASA is even in the running.

Don't get yourself into another twit over my apparent disregard to
those Mars missions, as I'll admire those hard scientific numbers that
supposedly are going to be eventually acquired, even though so far
there's been only more of the same, as in spendy photos of those
meteorites and their shards strewn about a very frozen and irradiated
to death Mars. Wait until we actually get something onto the lunar
surface, and see first hand those even greater numbers of meteorites
and shards strewn about the surface, along with a continual influx of
micro-meteorites contributing at a rate of perhaps 1 per m2/day. Of
course, the micro-meteorite (1 mm) influx would take 1e6 days worth
(2,740 years) in order to fully paint a m2 with one such
micro-meteorite layer, although as for to be standing within that m2
in a synthetic moon suit isn't going to cut it, as just the shards
from each and every such nearby impact (we're talking 5+km/s, possibly
10+km/s worth of unobstructed impacts, along with a fewof those
exceeding 30+km/s) is going to represent sufficiently nasty business,
making whatever surface radiation issues rather insignificant.

What seems somewhat more interesting, and of a whole lot more valuable
to humanity, especially if man is going back to the moon, much less
trekking off towards Mars or Venus, since even the likes of Yull
Brown's efforts have essentially confirmed that "energy in = energy
out" (that which created his 2h2o2), if we continued along the lines
of what this original process created as Brown's Gas, how hard could
it possibly be for safely obtaining just plain old h2o2?

Though there's not all that much raw material to work with on the moon
or even Mars for creating the likes of 2h2o2 or h2o2, there is however
way more than enough to go around here on Earth as well as Venus, in
fact especially Venus. For anything lunar, most all of such mission
energy requirements will need to be imported, especially for extended
expeditions and of surviving those adventures via any LM-1 bus. Again
"energy in = energy out". Although massive solar arrays might be
sufficient for accommodating base camp, there's no way anything mobile
is going to be worth much if limited to whaever PV can contribute,
especially if we're talking about a 25+ tonne LM-1 buss.

If in fact "energy in = energy out" (can't hardly argue with that),
thereby the process of creating, separating and/or improving upon the
purity of h2o2 should be worth the effort. After all, the h2o2
(hydrogen peroxide) by itself is good for go, along with a small
amount of c12h26 (kerosene) should be just the ticket for powering up
the lunar LM-1 exploration bus IRRC engine, or of powering the likes
of a shuttle/airship explorer that could effectively apply extremely
efficient aerodynamics in order to navigate itself through the crystal
clear CO2 ocean of Venus, and even robotically land on an existing
tarmac. Remembering that the Venus retrograde trade winds are those
rotating on your behalf, by merely taking advantage of those currents
at various altitude can sustain a craft in nearly the same
relationship to the sun, thus matching rotation for somewhat nighttime
stationkeeping and/or migrating in relationship to the planet, while
staying within their season of nighttime.

Flying an airship/shuttle craft through the Venus atmosphere is almost
like operating a submarine here on Earth, in places at nearly 1/12th
the density of what water is, where the task of flying below those
clouds and through the mostly CO2 crystal clear ocean of Venus is
technically a done deal, certainly within the existing technology of
what we now have to work with. Doing such within the Venus season of
nighttime that isn't nearly as dark and gloomy as reported (at least
not to any 0.01 lux UV camera), nor even nearly as hot and nasty
unless you're planning on flying through and perhaps landing in their
version of death valley, though why do that when there's lots to see
and do that's residing 5+km above most of the hot and nasty stuff, and
of a rather major territory that's 10+km and having nearby 17+km
mountains.

In either lunar or the Venus environments, the energy derived by the
IRRC engine(s) would offer an efficient on-demand energy extraction
solution that's relatively clean burning, while obtaining a good deal
of energy density, a key element in doing business in such
environments.

This page is partly about the applications of such energy for a good
cause, and/or as a result of achieving contact with others we need to
be aware of:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

Whereas these following links offer a bit more on the LM-1
application:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-irrce.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm

This ongoing report is having mostly to do with the reasons why we
need to apply such good mechanical energy solutions for accessing
lunar he3, preferably before others do:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-he3.htm

This unfortunate page is mostly about what went so terribly wrong:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm

The final chapter on what we're going to have to do about our resident
warlord isn't finished, and may never get that far if push comes down
to shove. Though this would be a perfectly good and justified place
for implementing his "high standards and accountability" that
supposedly applied to our educational system, by fessing up to the
truth, then implementing his "so what's the difference" policy once
the world learns of how snookered they've all been. At least then we
could get ourselves down to business without having to spend yet
another hundred billion on sustaining the ruse/sting of the century.