UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

jeff findley wrote:
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

We need a good inventory of resources available if we're ever to move
business out of earth orbit.

A large number of small probes manufactured on an assembly line would
have a small unit cost. Small enough probes could be bundled two or
three (maybe more) per launch, reducing launch costs. These could show
us where ice and other resources are on the moon and NEOs.

A few more waves of unmanned probes would be a very good investment in
preparation for moving permanently into space.

I fear that more flag and footprint missions without good use of in-situ
resources wouldn't be much different than millions of broken windows.


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

Carlos Santillan wrote:

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


Let's say mining minerals a done deal. How much infra structure would
you need to fabricate a space ship from these minerals?

And even with working mines on the moon, much would still need to be
imported from earth.

It may be better to go straight to your destination than enter and exit
the moon's gravity well.

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

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Let's say mining minerals a done deal. How much infra structure would
you need to fabricate a space ship from these minerals?

And even with working mines on the moon, much would still need to be
imported from earth.

With enough time, support and luck, space exploration would be a side
project of a permanent lunar settlement, not the end result. If the only
goal of space exploration were pure science, then the whole endeavor would
be pointless.

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"

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:

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.

There are no reports that Bush's proposal will cost a trillion dollars.
You're either confused, or making stuff up, or have been deceived by
some trash press which has made stuff up.

But tell you what, let's agree to postpone this until Wednesday when
we'll have (perhaps) an actual proposal instead of just leaks and
rumors. Then we'll see whether Mars is mentioned as more than a broad
generalization "for sometime in the future" sort of thing.

Cheers,
- Joe

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

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Dick Morris wrote:

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.

There are no reports that Bush's proposal will cost a trillion dollars.
You're either confused, or making stuff up, or have been deceived by
some trash press which has made stuff up.

I've seen it on line and also in the Seattle PI, Jan. 9:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...archpagefrom=2


NASA to start from scratch in new effort

By PAUL RECER
AP SCIENCE WRITER

"If NASA returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at Mars, the
agency will have to go back to the drawing board to get the job done.
The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on
lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired.
..
..
..
..
..
"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."


But tell you what, let's agree to postpone this until Wednesday when
we'll have (perhaps) an actual proposal instead of just leaks and
rumors. Then we'll see whether Mars is mentioned as more than a broad
generalization "for sometime in the future" sort of thing.

Agreed.

Cheers,
- Joe

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

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...

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).

And the other challenge will be to actually DO it for less.



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

Joe Strout wrote:
[...]
Frankly, I really don't care all that much how
much dark matter and dark energy there are in the cosmos. But the fact
that the total lunar population is zero, and I couldn't take a vacation
there even if I were a billionaire -- these things I *do* care about.
We need to get off this rock, and to provide abundant clean energy to
the poor saps who are still here. Science projects isn't going to do
either of those, but space development will.


Hmmmm, I think maybe your (great-)grandfather might have made
analogous comments about the photoelectric effect vs settling Alaska
(granted, that was already underway before Einstein was a young man).

Basic research doesn't always have an obvious payoff, but sometimes
the payoff exceeds anything that could have been reached by the state
of development at the time of choosing. (If I could phrase that
simpler, you'd all benefit, but you're going to have to figure it out
as is.)

So far, getting the right balance between the two has been a matter of
luck. Think policy setters will get it right?


/dps

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:50:19 GMT, Dick Morris
wrote:


I've seen it on line and also in the Seattle PI, Jan. 9:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...archpagefrom=2


NASA to start from scratch in new effort

By PAUL RECER
AP SCIENCE WRITER

"If NASA returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at Mars, the
agency will have to go back to the drawing board to get the job done.
The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on
lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired.

Beware...

This is the same article that claims that Apollo and Saturn V plans
are "lost" (they're on microfilm at Marshall Spaceflight Center) and
that Apollo flew "reactors" to the moon (they didn't.)

Fact-checking is obviously not Mr. Recer's specialty.

Brian

Hop David wrote:

A large number of small probes manufactured on an assembly line would
have a small unit cost. Small enough probes could be bundled two or
three (maybe more) per launch, reducing launch costs. These could show
us where ice and other resources are on the moon and NEOs.

You would soon run into the limits of the DSN.

Paul

"drdoody" wrote in message
m...



With enough time, support and luck, space exploration would be a side
project of a permanent lunar settlement, not the end result. If the only
goal of space exploration were pure science, then the whole endeavor would
be pointless.

Doc


Doc has become boring. plonk