UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:21:44 +1100, Brett O'Callaghan
wrote:



What exactly would be the point of this? Anyone?

I found this a little odd also. If you want long duration experience,
do you really have to go to Mars orbit to get it?


Where would you go instead?



LEO
L1 (Earth-Sun)
L4 L5 (Earth-Moon)
Geosynchronous orbit
and any place in between the ones listed.

They already have some data about physiological breakdown
over period of about 400 days. We've managed to have people
stay in zero-G for that length of time. I think the real
interest now would be focussed on an LDEF type experiement
for interplanetary space and in specific simulated 1/3 G
experimentation.

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.

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

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes?
What if this means "No more galileos, cassinis and space telescopes
UNTIL"
those can be launched from lunar surface ?

But this is essentialy the same as never, as things stand or are even
projected.

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?

The point of this is what exactly?

Charles Buckley wrote:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._what_s_needed

"For Mars, everything required by a moon voyage would have to be
multiplied, perhaps many fold. Some who have studied Mars exploration
say a manned expedition would last at least three years, with long
voyage out and back, and just a limited stay.

All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried along or
sent ahead on robot craft. The crew size would have to be expanded to
allow for sickness or death that is likely for such a risky expedition."
(snip)

EDITOR'S NOTE - AP Science Writer Paul Recer has covered the U.S. space
program since 1964. "



I wonder if this guy has looked at any of the plans made since 1970..


Indeed. It's been my impression that even if NASA doesn't follow
Zubrin's plan to the letter, they hope to use in situ resources _if_
they do a manned Mars mission.

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

Hop David wrote:


Charles Buckley wrote:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._what_s_needed


"For Mars, everything required by a moon voyage would have to be
multiplied, perhaps many fold. Some who have studied Mars exploration
say a manned expedition would last at least three years, with long
voyage out and back, and just a limited stay.

All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried along or
sent ahead on robot craft. The crew size would have to be expanded to
allow for sickness or death that is likely for such a risky expedition."

(snip)


EDITOR'S NOTE - AP Science Writer Paul Recer has covered the U.S.
space program since 1964. "



I wonder if this guy has looked at any of the plans made since 1970..


Indeed. It's been my impression that even if NASA doesn't follow
Zubrin's plan to the letter, they hope to use in situ resources _if_
they do a manned Mars mission.




Mars Reference Mission.

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

Brian Thorn wrote:

wrote:
What exactly would be the point of this? Anyone?
I found this a little odd also. If you want long duration experience,
do you really have to go to Mars orbit to get it?
Where would you go instead?

I would have thought one bit of inter-planetary space is pretty much
the same as another. Blimey, lingering in lunar orbit for a couple of
years would have to be pretty similar. Still, there's nothing
inherently wrong with a "full up" test to Mars orbit. Just seems odd,
given the time-scales involved.


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message .. .
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Dr. O wrote:

No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes?


That will certainly get the scientific community in a frenzy. OTOH, the
cost
of these missions is likely to be such that there isn't any other way to
do
it, unless the U.S. wants to spend 5% of GDP on space exploration.

So those kinds of missions are cancelled, and the program only costs (say)
4.95% of GDP?

5% of U.S. GDP would be $150 billion a year but NASA's annual budget is only
a tenth of that (so 0.5% of GDP). For that kind of money NASA will very hard
pressed to get anyone on the moon alive and back let alone Mars. So yes, I
believe very few new missions will be funded, if at all. NASA's annual
budget for space exploration these days is, what?, $2 billion a year or so?
Maybe more. That money will be sorely needed to fund the manned Mars
program.

Ummm, no. Your math is completely wonky. US GDP is
circa 10 *TRILLION* dollars a year. 5% of 10e12 is
$500 *billion*. $150 billion is 5% of $3 trillion,
which comes from I have no clue where (it's maybe
kinda sorta in the same ballpark as the US federal
budget though).

$500 billion is about a couple decades worth of current
NASA budgets, and, I think, quite a bit more than was
spent (adjusting for inflation even) on the entire
Apollo program. And this if half a trillion dollars,
*PER* *YEAR*. This is more than the US federal
defense budget, with that much you could start
building freaking *cities* on Mars.

Just 30% of half a trillion dollars, converted into mass
delivered to Mars, using conventional rockets as a cost
basis, would work out to about a thousand *tonnes* of
equipment and supplies sent to Mars *per year*. At
today's prices. Easily that works out to being able to
send dozens of colonists per year to Mars (with enough
supplies to last their entire lives). Every year. At
*today's* prices. At that rate Mars could have a
population of thousands within decades, easily. Yeah,
5% of GDP is rather a lot of money.

Out of curiosity:

With a manned mission to a planet that may potentially have some life/microbes
and will efinitely have some form of atmosphere, what sort of decontamination
protocol would they need for any human or obtect being returned to earth ?

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Out of curiosity:

With a manned mission to a planet that may potentially have some
life/microbes
and will efinitely have some form of atmosphere, what sort of
decontamination
protocol would they need for any human or obtect being returned to earth ?

Gamma irradiation seems to kill pretty much anything. Unfortunately, it
kills humans as well. You could use contact isolation protocols similar to
modern medicine, but those aren't really perfect, either.

Personally, I doubt there's anything alive on Mars. Which is good in a way.
I'd be willing to go to Mars for the chance to play in the universe's
biggest Zen rock garden.

Doc

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:22:51 +0100, Fafnir
wrote:

But if Bush is president in 2005

Well, until Jan 20, 2005 at least.

, I predict that he'll forget all about this plan.

Bush's successor, either in 2005 or 2009, will have the same problems
to solve: International Space Station is now over the funding 'hump'
(pretty much all hardware is built, and is now in testing or awaiting
launch.)

NASA needs a goal to succeed ISS. The CAIB recommended a clear goal be
given to NASA to help alleviate some of the problems that led to the
loss of Columbia.

Bush has evidently given it one. I think it is not terribly unlikely
Gore would also have proposed some new space effort, had he been
President this year.

The plan is designed to get him through the 2004 election.

Politics is universal, of course, but I think the announcement's
timing is largely coincidental to the re-election campaign. There have
been rumors of a new Bush space policy in the works for well over a
year now. Prior to that, NASA was still struggling with the Space
Station budget disaster that Bush had ordered O'Keefe to bring under
control. The Project Prometheus announcement in 2002 was widely seen
as a signal that Bush was satisified the ISS budget was finally under
control, opening the door to post-ISS objectives. The new policy had
been expected in Spring, 2003 until the Columbia was lost. Columbia
delayed everything, and probably forced several changes in the policy
(earlier retirement of the Shuttle fleet, most obviously). In the
aftermath, the new policy would have to await the CAIB report and the
resulting Congressional hearings beginning in September. Finally,
there were several good candidate dates for when Bush would unveil the
new space policy:

- The December 17 centennial celebration of the Wright Bros. first
flight.

- The Spirit or Opportunity landings on Mars.

- The delivery of the president's FY2005 budget to Congress (when the
truth would have come out, whether Bush unveiled the policy or not.)

- The 2004 State of the Union Address

- The first anniversary of the Columbia disaster.

It appears Bush has chosen a combination of the 2nd and 3rd options.
The earliest the announcment could have realistically been made would
have been October, and I doubt there would have been any less "this is
a re-election stunt!" talk then.

Brian