Bush may announce return to the moon

In article ,
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

"Stephen Souter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:29:57 +0100, "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beyondleo-03a.html

Why not Mars? I guess that the U.S. is figuring it has to get there
before
the Chinese claim it!! Anyway, since it has already been done before
the
chances of success should be very high.

Isn't it amazing what a little bit of competition can do to the
American administration psychic after decades of stagmentation.
Wheather it'll turn out as hollow as his fathers space proclamation we
will just have to wait and see what happens.

Yes, I believe the Chinese aim for the moon certainly has something to
do
with it (although both the White House and NASA will flatly deny this).

What's your evidence for this?

Exhibit a) the Chinese have been openly discussing plans for a manned lunar
base for some time now

When have they been doing that?

The reports I've seen on their future plans in the press, even after
their astronaut (taikonaut?) went into space, seemed very vague as far
as lunar ambitions were concerned.

Exhibit b) the Chinese have demonstrated manned space capabillity and
development of a rocket which will enable moon missions (flyby at the very
least)

When did they announce the "development of a rocket which will enable
moon missions"?

Exhibit c) the U.S., Russia and Europe have previously expressed long-term
plans to go to Mars.

All of which means nothing unless and until somebody actually funds
those plans.

Talking about going to Mars is the easy part. Actually putting that talk
into practice is the harder and more expensive bit.

Russia has problems funding its existing manned space program, let alone
one to go to Mars, Europe has no independent manned space program of its
own (and so will have to use somebody else's hardware just to get an
astronaut off the ground of Earth, never mind all the way to Mars), and
the US Congress famously skewered one attempt some years back to get a
manned Mars mission off the ground.

That does not exactly look promising that anything serious will happen
in any of those places any time soon, although we can but hope.

Anyhow, what have "long-term plans to go to Mars" got to do with going
back to the Moon?

Exhibit d) the U.S. is suddenly focusing on the moon again even though all
previous efforts were directly or indirectly pointing for a manned mission
to Mars (i.e. research on weightlessness, research projects, engine designs
such as nuclear propulsion).

Define "suddenly".

As far as nuclear propulsion is concerned, any renewed interest in it
seems to have largely been an initiative of NASA's new boss, and has
little do with China and its manned space program.

The rest of your "exhibit (d)" seems pretty vague.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:46:45 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Dr. O"
dr.o@xxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

Yes, I believe the Chinese aim for the moon certainly has something to
do
with it (although both the White House and NASA will flatly deny this).

What's your evidence for this?

Exhibit a) the Chinese have been openly discussing plans for a manned lunar
base for some time now
Exhibit b) the Chinese have demonstrated manned space capabillity and
development of a rocket which will enable moon missions (flyby at the very
least)
Exhibit c) the U.S., Russia and Europe have previously expressed long-term
plans to go to Mars.
Exhibit d) the U.S. is suddenly focusing on the moon again even though all
previous efforts were directly or indirectly pointing for a manned mission
to Mars (i.e. research on weightlessness, research projects, engine designs
such as nuclear propulsion).

My conclusion is that the Chinese have ignited a new space race!!!!

Correlation is not causation.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

My guess is that the Russians will claim ISS and turn it into a tourist
attraction for the rich-and-famous.

I doubt that will happen, though it'd certainly be cool if they did.
(How ironic that the country that was once the leader in communism would
now be far ahead of us in capitalism, at least in space!)

Since when would an act of piracy advance the cause of capitalism, least
of all in space?

No piracy was posited. The scenario (which again, I doubt will happen)
is that we abandon ISS and Russian claims it (they have every right to
keep their investment from plunging into the ocean). And then they
demonstrate capitalism by actually making a profit (or at least
deferring their costs) on the damn thing, something which the U.S. seems
vehemently opposed to doing.

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

In article ,
Christopher wrote:
Isn't it amazing what a little bit of competition can do to the
American administration psychic after decades of stagmentation.

That is jumping to conclusions about three levels deep. Any action at all
by the Administration is speculation right now, not fact. Action that is
actually backed up by political capital is a whole different level of
speculation, as witness what happened when Bush Sr. didn't back up *his*
call for action in space. And the idea that Washington is shaking in its
boots at the sight of the Chinese in space, and is doing this as a hasty
response, is ludicrous -- anything that happens here is a response to
Columbia, not Shenzhou.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:
Leadership comes from the top. It's good to see a President being a
leader for a change.

Careful here. We haven't actually seen that yet. And a single speech is
not leadership, as witness SEI.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

In article , Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Exhibit a) the Chinese have been openly discussing plans for a manned lunar
base for some time now

Yes, with about the same level of commitment and urgency that NASA has.
Which is to say, it's been "discussed" as a nice idea that might happen
someday.

Exhibit b) the Chinese have demonstrated manned space capabillity and
development of a rocket which will enable moon missions (flyby at the very
least)

Which is hard to get excited about, since they've been clearly capable of
doing something like this for a long time. And it's "flyby at the most",
not "flyby at the very least".

Exhibit c) the U.S., Russia and Europe have previously expressed long-term
plans to go to Mars.

See item (a). No commitment, no timetable, no funding.

Exhibit d) the U.S. is suddenly focusing on the moon again even though all
previous efforts were directly or indirectly pointing for a manned mission
to Mars (i.e. research on weightlessness, research projects, engine designs
such as nuclear propulsion).

No, quite a few of the "previous efforts" were looking at a return to the
Moon. You're mistaking the headlines for the whole newspaper.

If there has been any change at all -- still an assumption rather than a
known fact -- it's in the selection of the least ambitious goal for a
resumption of manned exploration. Which is not a surprise, if you
postulate an Administration desire to conspicuously set some sort of
official goal -- say, in response to assorted post-Columbia grumbling
about how aimless the US manned space program is -- but not to put any
real effort or major new money into it.

My conclusion is that the Chinese have ignited a new space race!!!!

You're fantasizing. The first space race was about politics, not space.
The politics for a new one just aren't there. The Chinese are not a
threat to the US's international reputation. There is no *need* to beat
the Chinese to whatever space goal they may or may not have in mind.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

Yes! That would be a good place for Bush!

Reguardless, our future is eventually in space. If for no other
reason that in a few hundred million years, the earth will be
seething cauldron since the sun is slowly getting warmer.

It more importantly gives us the option to do one thing no other
sepecies on Earth has been able to accomplish - to finally be
immune to being wiped out by some disaster.

IMO, that potential escape clause(as it were) is critical to our
long-term survival.

Of course, such a place would have to be self-sustainable, so that
would mean decades or hundreds of years of work and building to reach
that point. I see it as a real race against our human nature, nature
itself(worse diseases seem to come along every decade or two lately),
and time. A population of 12-15 billion is projected to be the maximum
sustainable and the point at where the resources start imploding and
wars become rampant. Starting this in 2100 or 2200 may be too late to
make the colony self-supporting before things get ugly and resources
dry up.

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 08:37:20 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Dr. O"
dr.o@xxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

In light of the
enormous deficits being raked up the the Administration at the moment, I
don't think the U.S. will be able to fund another space race or a manned
return to the moon. So cooperation is the only logical alternative, even
though many politicians won't like it. Many the Administration will try to
get the Europeans on board, which will be politically more palatable.

That's utter nonsense. If we decide to go to the Moon, we can easily
afford it by ourselves, and historically, cooperation tends to raise
costs, not reduce them. The problem is that it's not very important,
not that we lack the money.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 04:41:56 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

Reguardless, our future is eventually in space. If for no other
reason that in a few hundred million years, the earth will be
seething cauldron since the sun is slowly getting warmer.

It more importantly gives us the option to do one thing no other
sepecies on Earth has been able to accomplish - to finally be
immune to being wiped out by some disaster.

IMO, that potential escape clause(as it were) is critical to our
long-term survival.

Of course, such a place would have to be self-sustainable, so that
would mean decades or hundreds of years of work and building to reach
that point. I see it as a real race against our human nature, nature
itself(worse diseases seem to come along every decade or two lately),
and time. A population of 12-15 billion is projected to be the maximum
sustainable and the point at where the resources start imploding and
wars become rampant. Starting this in 2100 or 2200 may be too late to
make the colony self-supporting before things get ugly and resources
dry up.

Us here will all be long dead by then though.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill