UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
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


So we build more. Jeez.

Brian Thorn wrote:

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.

I don't consider the AP to be the most reliable news source in the
world, and it is difficult to see how NASA could spend a trillion
dollars going to the Moon AND Mars even if they tried. But press
reports like that make it more difficult to convince people that it can
actually be done for an affordable cost even if they are totally
fabricated.

Brian

In sci.space.policy 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.

no, just returning to LEO would be enough.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy drdoody wrote:

Precicely what how did you imagine going from "ore comes out of mine" to
"and here is a satellite ready to be sent to Jupiter" ?

Oh, I don't know.... Maybe the same way we do it here?

The way we do it down here involves thousands of people working in
hundreds of different factories.


Only without the mammoth levels of ineptitude and government bloat.
Hopefully, at least.


The majority of satellites are not build by or for any government.


This just means you have no idea what "making things" (never mind making
something complex) means.

Why don't you tell me? Better yet, why don't you tell me how NASA is going
to do anything more than futz around with dead end projects without some
sort of assistance? Without some sort of corporate interest in space
exploration, we're not going anywhere.We're just going to continue lobbing
money at NASA in exchange for a few "Gee Whiz"-probes and some nifty
pictures of places we're never going to go.

As a matter of fact, yes you are. Because guess what, taken together, taxpayers
and voters are really stupid. Just observe the number of distinct parties with
more than 5 members in teh US House or Congress.


Doc



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy Kaido Kert wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
There is basicly no benefit to launching a satellite from Earth and then
adding to it a booster that was lifted up from Moon. If you spent even a
fraction of what going to be wasted in this PR excercise on Moon on
developing better propulsion you would get radicaly better results.
You said "there is no benefit ... " hm.. so you already know what the purely
theorethical launch from lunar surface will cost ? You already know how much

Why does it matter? You have to get the sattelite there from Earth and then
launch it again from moon. Preceicely what targets with how large delta/v
do you have in mind that would get a big boost from being re-launched from
Moon?

lunar-produced solar panels will cost ? You already know how capable

Solar panels don't make up a significant percentage of the cost of
satellites nor science missions. There is no evidence that 1/6 g
gravity would make producing solar panels cheaper than doing so on
Earth.

theorethical lunar version of deep-space network will be ?

The lunar version of deep space network will be no more capable than similar
thing on earth orbit - in fact, it has limitations the one in earth orbit
doesn't have.

You already know that "this" is a PR excercise ?

Want to provide any shred of evidence otherwise? Like say past performance by
US presidents making bold big statements for non-PR reasons and NASA promoting
industrial development in space?

You are making quite bold assertions here...


Merely common sense.

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.

And your evidence that there will be any development is what?


-kert



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
You said "there is no benefit ... " hm.. so you already know what the
purely
theorethical launch from lunar surface will cost ? You already know how
much
Why does it matter? You have to get the sattelite there from Earth and
then
launch it again from moon.
Not the entire satellite or spacecraft. You could be launching a _lot less_
mass to the moon, than entire deep-space craft. And it matters because the
final delta-v you can impart on the vehicle could be much bigger than with
any launch from earth. You dont have aerodynamic restrictions on launch,
craft and launcher geometries can be much more relaxed. Perhaps more
importantly, mass budgets would be much more relaxed, also implying more
robust and redundant spacecraft systems. Increased mass means robust
shielding of spacecraft systems, so it could actually withstand solar flares
on longer missions.
Im also quite sure that loading deep space craft with fission reactor fuel
on the moon would cause no significant rampaging mobs (
http://www.google.com/search?q=cassini+nuclear+protest )

lunar-produced solar panels will cost ? You already know how capable
Solar panels don't make up a significant percentage of the cost of
satellites nor science missions. There is no evidence that 1/6 g
gravity would make producing solar panels cheaper than doing so on
Earth.
Solar panels by themselves dont cost much, but launching them costs as much
as any mutlimillion-dollar intricate science instrument you can come up
with. By omitting them, you can simply increase your mass budgets or make
your craft fit on smaller, cheaper launchers.
Plus, count how many spacecraft have failed due to troubles with solar panel
deployment ( just launched Loral Telstar 14 developed a problem,
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2134 ) When launching from the moon, due
to much relaxed launch mass budgets and relaxed spacecraft geometry, you
dont even have to have a separate deployment mechanism, given that the
structure is able to withstand the launch acceleration.

theorethical lunar version of deep-space network will be ?
The lunar version of deep space network will be no more capable than
similar
thing on earth orbit - in fact, it has limitations the one in earth orbit
doesn't have.
Which orbital DSN are you talking about ? How are you going to launch
70-meter antennaes to orbit anytime soon ?

You already know that "this" is a PR excercise ?
Want to provide any shred of evidence otherwise? Like say past performance
by
US presidents making bold big statements for non-PR reasons and NASA
promoting
industrial development in space?
Of course i dont have no evidence otherwise. But neither do you have any
proof that this _is_ JUST a PR excercise, and you made the original claim.

You are making quite bold assertions here...
Merely common sense.
....with limited field-of-vision.

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.
And your evidence that there will be any development is what?
Published info from the likes of XCOR, X-Prize and its contestants, SpaceX,
SpaceHab Inc (SPAB), TransOrbital, SpaceDev ( SPDV.OB ), Space Adventures,
and the existence of two alive and happy space tourists Dennis Tito and Mark
Shuttleworth.

Kaido Kert wrote:
any launch from earth. You dont have aerodynamic restrictions on launch,
craft and launcher geometries can be much more relaxed. Perhaps more
importantly, mass budgets would be much more relaxed, also implying more
robust and redundant spacecraft systems

On the moon, contrary to LEO, you have to contend with a lot of dust
potentially contaminating your systems, connectors etc during outfitting prior
to launch. (unless you build huge "clean" hangars, for which we lack
technology right now).

In article ,
John Doe wrote:

Kaido Kert wrote:
any launch from earth. You dont have aerodynamic restrictions on launch,
craft and launcher geometries can be much more relaxed. Perhaps more
importantly, mass budgets would be much more relaxed, also implying more
robust and redundant spacecraft systems

On the moon, contrary to LEO, you have to contend with a lot of dust
potentially contaminating your systems, connectors etc during outfitting prior
to launch. (unless you build huge "clean" hangars, for which we lack
technology right now).

That's what the lunar lavatubes are usable for, among other things. On
the moon the surface indicators show tubes several hundred meters in
diameter, and several kilometers long. They seem to be the only place on
the Moon where no one yet has expounded on a good transport mechanism to
waft dust inside very far. With clean tubes that have good skylight
entrances the assembly and launnch of devices would be eased
considerably, as wih many lunar operations.

Regards,

Tom Billings

--
Oregon L-5 Society

http://www.oregonl5.org/

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

Pluto is the largest Kuiper belt object. Many such objects have their
orbits deflected into the inner solar system and become comets. Since Pluto
is still within the Kuiper belt, it is more likely to be in a pristine
state. Studying Pluto's atmosphere will give us clues to the composition
and lifecycle of Kuiper belt objects, which will become valuable once we
start trying to exploit near-Earth asteroids, many of which are suspected
to be extinct comets. It may even come in handy trying to figure out how to
deflect such near-Earth objects from collisions with Earth.

You're really reaching. NASA spends just a few million dollars a year
on collision detection and nothing at all on deflection. Planetary
defense specialists have fought hard just to get that. I've never
heard any planetary defense specialist suggest NASA should increase
planetary defense funding to half a billion dollars, then spend 99.9%
of it to study the one Kuiper belt object that's *least* likely to
collide with Earth, while ignoring everything else.

If you want to justify your Pluto mission as planetary defense, then
you should submit it to a panel of planetary defense specialists and
let them peer-review it, along with against all the other planetary
defense proposals. The same with exploiting near-Earth asteroids. I'm
sure any mining geologist who's interested in near-Earth asteroids
would rather spend the money to visit near-Earth asteroids, rather
than visiting Pluto because somehow tell them something that's
distantly related.

(Edward Wright) wrote in
om:

If you want to justify your Pluto mission as planetary defense,

I don't. That's one justifcation, not *the* justification.

then
you should submit it to a panel of planetary defense specialists and
let them peer-review it,

No, I'd let them review the planetary defense *aspects* of the mission,
while other peer review panels (space science, etc) review the rest. The
*combined* score from the panels would determine the priority.

--
JRF

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