UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but does anyone actually
believe this is going to happen? Given several states, and
without going into any of these in detail--the state of the
economy, the state of world affairs, the state of the deficit,
the state of science in the present day, the multinational
character of today's world economy, the direction that the
American public's interest and imagination has taken since the
'60s--does anyone actually think that we're going to actually see
a moon base happening in the near future?

I mean, sure, it *could* happen, anything's possible, but it's
gonna take more than a glib election-year statement from the
President to convince me that the show's on.

The very first thing that is lacking in this situation, for this
to occur, is idealism. Americans' hearts and minds, speaking in
broad generalities, are not into this as they might have been
back in the '60s.

The second thing that is lacking is--a reason. Back in the '60s,
as we all know, it was reason enough that the Soviets might take
command of space away from the U.S. But today the reason to spend
all this money is . . . ? There is nothing so critical, so
pressing, that the money won't be siphoned to other more pressing
concerns first. Even if there is a good, honest start to the
project, it's so costly that over the time it takes to develop
it, the money will be whittled away slowly, like Congress did to
the space station. The once lofty goals will be constricted
further and further as money is sucked here, there, and
everywhere.

Private enterprise might have a chance--profit is a strong
incentive. But I don't see any private concern willing to invest
all that money without government assistance of some sort, so
we're back to square one.

I mean, we couldn't even really get a working space station in
orbit, at least not in the long-term sustaining way we originally
envisioned it, and we're talking about a moon station? I don't
think so.

Time will tell, and I will be happy to be proved wrong, but--get
real.

In article , Brian Short wrote:

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.

Zubrin cites a NASA estimate of around $30Bn, as I recall; he cites his
estimate of $20Bn for Mars Direct, and then claims if done privately
it'd cost $10Bn. g

Looking at the MRM - I've been trying to find a copy for a while, but
the links I had were broked - it *is* more complex than Zubrin's plan,
which in part would account for the additional cost - rather than
develop an HLV, a hab, and an ERV, you need to develop an HLV, hab,
ERV, MAV, and surface lab. Admittedly, the last is essentially a
specialised refit of the hab, but still; it also calls for half as many
launches again as a Mars Direct baseline.

It does refer to a total cost, but doesn't give it; there is, however,
an estimated cost breakdown, not covering unmnanned precursors or
operations costs.

"The Mars Study Team recognizes that, even with the significant
reduction in the program cost achieved by this Team, the Reference
Mission is probably still too expensive in today's fiscal environment.
More work to further reduce these costs is needed."

[Their subsequent recommendation is delightful - "Seek alternative
solutions or effective approaches to cost reduction in each of the areas
cited above. The efforts may require revolutionary changes throughout
NASA, the aerospace industry, the United States, and the world."]

The HLV seems to account for a quarter of the total cost - is $8-10Bn
enough to develop something with about 200t throw-weight?

--
-Andrew Gray

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

Mars Reference Mission.


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

looks like a great approach, but since the timeline shows launch of the
initial unmanned components in 2007...ain't gonna happen, at least according
to this plan.

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:

"John Cody" wrote:

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.

"Tax cuts for the rich!!" Oogah! Oogah!

Same old playbook...

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.

OK, let's see if I can clarify this further.

**** the probes.

No more hard science at the expense of the American taxpayer. Yeah, the
slide rule-and-pocket-protector set might get off on what happens to flat
worms in 0 Gee, but we don't care. The point of space travel, in the end, is
to enrich the lives of all humanity, not just the scientists working on the
various projects. This is something that NASA has forgotten and of they
don't figure it out soon, there might not be a NASA for much longer. So, in
order to make space profitable, there needs to be industry there. There
needs to be some sort of commercial interest in space aside from near earth
satelites. The moon is a good start. Belt mining would be a better secondary
goal. The point is that once you get the commercial ball rolling in the
direction of space, science can hitch a ride on its coattails, not the other
way around.


Doc

--
"I'm at peace
with my lust.
I can kill because in God I trust.
It's Evolution, baby."


Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution"

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:00:28 -0500, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

Mars Reference Mission.


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

looks like a great approach, but since the timeline shows launch of the
initial unmanned components in 2007...ain't gonna happen, at least according
to this plan.

The plan is valid, you just need to change the starting date. Maybe
2017 instead of 2007.

Brian

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:10:08 -0900, Brian Short
wrote:

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

That's less than what we've spent on Space Station since 1984, so
there is hope.

Brian

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:36:00 -0700, Hop David
wrote:


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.

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.

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)

Yes, much cheaper. While still expensive, the MRM has its feet
grounded in reality somewhat better than SEI did.

Brian

In article ,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

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?

Nope, you don't have it quite straight yet. It means launching the
expensive, complex parts -- like the circuitry -- to the Moon, but the
most massive parts (especially the fuel, and probably also the frame)
would be lunar materials.

In addition to being cheaper (once this lunar infrastructure is in
place), you also have the benefit of a much gentler launch for your
delicate instruments, as well as a more flexible development environment
(i.e. you can build and store the thing in vacuum until launch, if
necessary to avoid oxidizing any components).

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

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:00:28 -0500, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:


"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
.. .


Mars Reference Mission.



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

looks like a great approach, but since the timeline shows launch of the
initial unmanned components in 2007...ain't gonna happen, at least according
to this plan.


The plan is valid, you just need to change the starting date. Maybe
2017 instead of 2007.

Brian



The point to a reference mission is to continually update the
projected project plan for the current status and capability.
The date is *valid* with the caveat that it isn't carved in stone.
It is simply a fairly realistic project plan in terms of delivery
and cost. The Mars Reference plan was adjusted radically in the
mid-1990's when in situ went into vogue.

The problem with references missions is that you really need to
stay on top of the plan and keep updating it. The thing that caught my
eye is that it is fairly trivial to find a Mars Reference Mission
on a NASA website. A google search for a Lunar Reference Mission
gives the usual sort of mix of private groups and universities.
It is also even possible to trace the monthly addendums to the
Mars reference mission that occurred over much of it's life.

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.