UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Kaido Kert" wrote:

As there is no pressing need or particular hurry to get those
close-up photos of Plutos surface, deferring such "missions" say ..
a couple of decades should be a no-brainer, if this money is needed
for somewhat more practical developments closer to current
frontier.

It's not the pictures of the surface that are important. Pluto is
moving away from perihelion and its atmosphere will soon freeze out.
Deferring this mission a couple of decades means we won't get
measurements of Pluto's atmosphere until the next perihelion, which
is over 200 years away.

Hasn't Pluto's atmosphere already partially frozen out? Pluto's orbit
was inside Neptune's orbit from 1979-1999, so it is already headed
outward further from the Sun.

It hasn't frozen yet; there's a little lag due to heating rate:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/09pluto/


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john doe wrote:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
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.

And more importantly, have a way to return to earth the ore that you
have
mined on the Moon, and all of this should be cheaper than the ore that
is
mined on earth.

Um, no. The point of mining stuff in space is not to ship it to the
Earth. Except for energy, that makes no sense. The point of mining
stuff in space is so you can use it in space, without having to ship it
up *from* the Earth.
Generally true, but there will obviously be some other stuff besides the
energy that will be worth shipping back to earth, once your in-space
infrastructure is sufficiently developed. Platinum group metals are
definitely of interest, some collector stuff will also make sense. Some rare
isotopes, like He-3 as well, which btw has some current uses, even without
fusion reactors.

-kert

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:

No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions
have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending
on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again,
would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface.

There IS NO proposal for a Mars expedition. The rumored proposal is to
focus on a permanent lunar presence. This can be explained to Mars
fanatics as a precursor to an eventual Mars mission, if it makes them
feel better. But the real point is to start developing our closest
offworld resource base, and this is as it should be.

If there is anything at all to that $1 trillion figure it won't matter.
It'll be laughed to death before Bush utters a word.

No, because while there is something to that $1 trillion figure, it's
not anything that has anything to do with what Bush is rumored to
propose. Let's go over it again: the expert quoted above says a Mars
mission now would cost $1 trillion. Nobody is proposing a Mars mission
now. Therefore the estimated cost of it is irrelevant.

Every news report I have seen includes manned Mars missions.

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

Brian Thorn writes:

NASA's $400G (not $500G) estimate for SEI was an "everything including
the kitchen sink" project that included new Saturn V-class boosters,
Shuttle II, an additional Space Station for orbital assembly, lunar
exploration and bases, and a full base on Mars, not just exploration
missions. Truly basically went to Capitol Hill and asked that
everything on NASA's wish list since 1972 be funded. Predictably, he
didn't get far on Capitol Hill, and Truly shortly thereafter was gone
from NASA.

The long term damage is that the "experts" in the press still think
that it will cost "1/2 a trillion dollars" to go to Mars. One of
NASA's biggest challenges will be to prove to Congress and the
administration that they can do this for less (by cut-throat
management saying "No!" to throwing everything in the program that
every field center wants).

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

Charles Buckley writes:
How current is the Lunar Reference Mission? Is there even a Lunar
Reference Mission on file? I know that there are hundreds, if not
thousands, of individual papers about lunar development. But, there
does not be the same sort of cohesive pattern that has emerged for
Mars.

One of the inputs to a reference mission is overall goals. I'd
suspect now that Bush seems to want to emphasize manned exploration
over unmanned science, the reference missions may change a bit.

I think that one of the reason that there is a cohesive pattern for
Mars reference missions is that mission is only a bit more than "flags
and footprints". It's a sustainable mission, but it's not what I'd
call a permanent Mars base or really a permanent manned presence.

The "lunar base" reference mission isn't as clear, because once you
decide you want a lunar base, you have to decide what you're going to
*do* with that base beyond "flags and footprints".

Furthermore, the goal on Mars always seems to be "to determine if Mars
was ever host to live in any way, shape, or form". The Moon is a dead
place, so you have to find other things to do there.

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

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:

No, because while there is something to that $1 trillion figure, it's
not anything that has anything to do with what Bush is rumored to
propose. Let's go over it again: the expert quoted above says a Mars
mission now would cost $1 trillion. Nobody is proposing a Mars mission
now. Therefore the estimated cost of it is irrelevant.

Every news report I have seen includes manned Mars missions.

You must be looking only at the more sensationalistic ones. The early,
and probably most accurate ones, clearly said that the plan was for a
lunar base, which could eventually (read: at some undetermined time in
the future) lead to a manned Mars mission. That's simply a bone thrown
to the Mars crowd to get them on board for the logical next step, which
is the Moon base.

Cheers,
- Joe

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

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:

No, because while there is something to that $1 trillion figure, it's
not anything that has anything to do with what Bush is rumored to
propose. Let's go over it again: the expert quoted above says a Mars
mission now would cost $1 trillion. Nobody is proposing a Mars mission
now. Therefore the estimated cost of it is irrelevant.

Every news report I have seen includes manned Mars missions.

You must be looking only at the more sensationalistic ones. The early,
and probably most accurate ones, clearly said that the plan was for a
lunar base, which could eventually (read: at some undetermined time in
the future) lead to a manned Mars mission. That's simply a bone thrown
to the Mars crowd to get them on board for the logical next step, which
is the Moon base.

Cheers,
- Joe

News reports should be taken with a certain amount of scepticism, of
course, but if that trillion dollar estimate was only for going back to
the Moon to pick up where Apollo left off, then it would be even more
preposterous. Even spending a tenth of that for the Moon AND Mars is
going to be a very tough sell.

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

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:


News reports should be taken with a certain amount of scepticism, of
course, but if that trillion dollar estimate was only for going back to
the Moon to pick up where Apollo left off, then it would be even more
preposterous.

sigh Now we're getting even further from reality. The trillion
dollar estimate was ONE GUY'S estimate of what it would cost to go to
Mars today. This is irrelevant because nobody is proposing to go to
Mars today. It's even less relevant if you're talking about the Moon,
because the estimate wasn't even about the Moon. This number has no
relevance to the rumored plan whatsoever. Let it go already.

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

jeff findley wrote in message ...
Charles Buckley writes:
How current is the Lunar Reference Mission? Is there even a Lunar
Reference Mission on file? I know that there are hundreds, if not
thousands, of individual papers about lunar development. But, there
does not be the same sort of cohesive pattern that has emerged for
Mars.

One of the inputs to a reference mission is overall goals. I'd
suspect now that Bush seems to want to emphasize manned exploration
over unmanned science, the reference missions may change a bit.

I think that one of the reason that there is a cohesive pattern for
Mars reference missions is that mission is only a bit more than "flags
and footprints". It's a sustainable mission, but it's not what I'd
call a permanent Mars base or really a permanent manned presence.

The "lunar base" reference mission isn't as clear, because once you
decide you want a lunar base, you have to decide what you're going to
*do* with that base beyond "flags and footprints".

Furthermore, the goal on Mars always seems to be "to determine if Mars
was ever host to live in any way, shape, or form". The Moon is a dead
place, so you have to find other things to do there.


Astronomy & Radioastrony by starters (on the Dark Side of the Moon),
mining minerals to build the ships that'll explore the Solar Systems,
the first step to the Stars, I can't belive that there be so short
sighted scientits that say "Been there, done that."
Jeff

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:

News reports should be taken with a certain amount of scepticism, of
course, but if that trillion dollar estimate was only for going back to
the Moon to pick up where Apollo left off, then it would be even more
preposterous.

sigh Now we're getting even further from reality. The trillion
dollar estimate was ONE GUY'S estimate of what it would cost to go to
Mars today. This is irrelevant because nobody is proposing to go to
Mars today. It's even less relevant if you're talking about the Moon,
because the estimate wasn't even about the Moon. This number has no
relevance to the rumored plan whatsoever. Let it go already.

The article mentioned "informal discussions", so it's more than just one
guy's opinion. The cost estimates for SEI were more than informal
discussions, so it is logical to assume that the author was referring to
recent discussions. You may have inside information, but all I have is
press reports, all of which mention manned Mars flights. Whatever the
truth of the situation turns out to be, press reports that Bush's
proposal will cost a trillion dollars are NOT irrelevant. If the
public, and the Congress, get it in their heads that that is what it
will cost, then it's all over but the laughter.

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