Let me ask you this: What exactly is the purpose of spending billions so that maybe a dozen people a year can go spend a week on the lunar surface, starting 15 years from now?
- Status
Because it is the training wheels for our interplanetary human spaceflight program. We must walk before we run, and we must crawl before we walk. The tasks before us are impossibly difficult, and that kind of difficulty demands a great deal of patience.<br /><br />If we waited to embark upon the seas until we had an armada of rowboats able to venture within sight range of the coast, then we wouldn't have ever gotten anywhere. What we did do was make a small number of cross oceanic voyages that truly opened the horizons. And although few in number their impact upon the world today is indisputable.
Those dozens will take the rest of us - in spirit!<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>
HERE, HERE, COLONEL!!! Well said. Some of these comedians haven't got a clue between what they want and the reality of what Congress will allow.<br /><br />They moan because the new concepts don't have SSTO:<br /><br />NOT GOING TO HAPPEN...<br /><br />They moan because it doesn't have fancy nuclear or ion propulsion systems:<br /><br />NOT GOING TO HAPPEN...<br /><br />They moan because it doesn't use huge inflatable modules, space elevators, lifting bodies, private industry, re-usable landers/tankers, robot tugs and a rocket derived from a pipsqueak (20 ton-or-less) or fancy unflown rocket that isn't even man-rated.<br /><br />NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!<br /><br />That above stuff, though worthy in another context, is spacetech jerkoff fantasies. It's doo-doo!!<br /><br />They've gotta get their sci-fi obsessed heads out of their a55es and learn what's real and what isn't given budgetary realities and the fact that manned spaceflight has powerful, ignorant, namby-pamby enemies out there who would b1tch if this whole thing cost $50 bucks, let alone $100 billion!!!<br /><br />To the naysayers: stop wishing for pie in the sky paper spaceships and unrealities. Learn something about Astronautics, history and economics and stop the damaging, blunderbuss negativity that could yet kill manned Moon & Marsflights. The big, fat mouths of ignorance and negativity might even be viewed as a conspiracy, given slightly different circumstances.<br /><br />What are you no-hopers triying to prove, trying to achieve? Get rid of Nasa and replace it with what?!<br /><br />NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!<br /><br />If Michael Griffin can't pull this off because enemies of manned space use your negative words to pad their twisted agendas, then the naysayers just may have shot themselves in the foot to a tragic, ironic level.<br /><br />Let's not damn Griffin's architecture with faint praise: Let's venerate it as a good place to start. And damn the torpedo lies of those who want to stop manned spaceflight.<br /><br />Time for a li <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!! LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
<font color="yellow">Let's venerate it as a good place to start.</font><br /><br />Bingo. That’s what needs to happen.<br /><br />How hard is it to agree to that much? If you want more out of space development – and who among us doesn’t? – can’t you at least agree that you have to start somewhere? And that this start could be much worse, and maybe even it’s not half bad? 
<br /><br />It seems to me, just an impression, I could be wrong, that the folks who do not want to get behind this program are at the particular stage of space advocacy where that is the natural, logical conclusion. Been there, done that. Many of those calling for us all to rally around this plan have, I suspect, gone thru the same phase.<br /><br />We simply have to take what we get or we risk getting nothing. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.<br /><br />Having said that, I have been working on a “loophole” that will allow us all to get what we want. Just so you know, that effort is ongoing and a grand opening date will be announced within a few weeks. But back to NASA . . .<br /><br />Here are some reasons why this in fact IS a good start and not just something that we have to grudgingly accept as such. In fact, didn’t somebody pose some questions? Ah, here they are . . . <br /><br /><font color="yellow">How does this open up the commercialization of space? </font><br /><br />Excellent question. In and of itself, it does little. BUT please try to understand this program in a larger context.<br /><br />For years, I have been screaming at NASA to “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way!” Lo and behold! They are doing the two best of those three with this plan. <br /><br />They are leading us to the Moon and they are getting out of the way in LEO. They choose not to follow and that of course is as it should be.<br /><br />It’s not so much what this plan *does* that’s important; it’s the stage it sets. Let’s look at the calendar while CEV is developed. Is alt.space going to sit back and watch NASA g <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /><br />It seems to me, just an impression, I could be wrong, that the folks who do not want to get behind this program are at the particular stage of space advocacy where that is the natural, logical conclusion. Been there, done that. Many of those calling for us all to rally around this plan have, I suspect, gone thru the same phase.<br /><br />We simply have to take what we get or we risk getting nothing. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.<br /><br />Having said that, I have been working on a “loophole” that will allow us all to get what we want. Just so you know, that effort is ongoing and a grand opening date will be announced within a few weeks. But back to NASA . . .<br /><br />Here are some reasons why this in fact IS a good start and not just something that we have to grudgingly accept as such. In fact, didn’t somebody pose some questions? Ah, here they are . . . <br /><br /><font color="yellow">How does this open up the commercialization of space? </font><br /><br />Excellent question. In and of itself, it does little. BUT please try to understand this program in a larger context.<br /><br />For years, I have been screaming at NASA to “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way!” Lo and behold! They are doing the two best of those three with this plan. <br /><br />They are leading us to the Moon and they are getting out of the way in LEO. They choose not to follow and that of course is as it should be.<br /><br />It’s not so much what this plan *does* that’s important; it’s the stage it sets. Let’s look at the calendar while CEV is developed. Is alt.space going to sit back and watch NASA g <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><i>" Its 2005 and this plan is for 2018. The plan will be "upgraded" many times before then."</i><br /><br />How often does that happen with aerospace projects? Virtually every time, goals are scaled back, schedules are lengthened, and cost overruns are the norm.
Colonel, Mattblack, Spacestar (and SOME of the rest of you), well said. The more I look at this, the more I can see that it is NOT an Apollo retread. We are going to trade in a very cranky delivery van for a Land Rover, followed by a Kenilworth. That is with all due respect to the people who've kept the Shuttle flying in spite of the flaws caused by the politicians and bureaucrats. We can nickle and dime this thing to death (and I'm as guilty as anyone), but at least somebody at NASA is moving! <br />For those of us who are not scientists, engineers or politicians, yet would like to contribute, may I suggest that we all watch our local papers for the inevitable whining for the "more money for welfare" crowd, and write some letters taking the high ground as to why the American people should support this? And watch for polls, like the CNN one. Vote in them! Any other suggestions?
You said it! Well done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!! LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
"A $100b vacation for four that is."<br /><br />Not more than the shuttle is just a vacation for seven.<br /><br />If you think space exploration is just a vacation for a lucky few, I can understand why you don't want any space exploration at all. But I strongly disagree that it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
Well let us hope that they do some exploring then. I'd like to see them test new technologies, extraction methods that private industry can learn from and use.
I would endorse this program if its goal were the creation of a permanent base on the Moon.<br />Alas, that's not even mentioned <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would endorse this program if its goal were the creation of a permanent base on the Moon.<br />Alas, that's not even mentioned <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A reasonably large permanent base probably won't be mantioned by NASA for a long time, unless it's a plan by an international consortium or private industry and doesn't use many taxpayer dollars.<br /><br />I can see NASA eventually developing a small lunar base, though, for testing technology and techniques for an eventual Mars mission (especially for things like resource processing, radiation protection, and dealing with dust contamination problems).<br />
<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A reasonably large permanent base probably won't be mantioned by NASA for a long time, unless it's a plan by an international consortium or private industry and doesn't use many taxpayer dollars.<br /><br />I can see NASA eventually developing a small lunar base, though, for testing technology and techniques for an eventual Mars mission (especially for things like resource processing, radiation protection, and dealing with dust contamination problems).<br />that would not be a *permanent* base! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
You were expecting a permanent base to be established before a part-time base?<br /><br />Where is the public support for a permanent base?<br /><br />Maybe, if space advocates support it, a part-time base could be established first, leading to a full-time one.<br /><br />I see quite a few statements about what the plan does not do, but in many cases I have to conclude that the plan was read with a very jaundiced eye.<br /><br />IOW, the plan mentions lots of future possibilities, but they seem to be dismissed by those who want more. I want more, of course I want more. But I'll take what we get and try to build on it.<br /><br />It is time for folks to realize that NASA cannot do everything by itself, and more importantly, realize that acceptance does not have to mean internationalization. (Not that I'm against international efforts per se, that's another discussion)<br /><br />America has many other ways to advance in space without putting the entire burden on NASA.<br /><br />When a housing development goes in, the government takes care of many of the infrstructure needs; they don't build the houses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
We don't yet know if there is ice in craters at the poles of the Moon and you want a fully formed plan for a permanent Moon base already? Wait for the results of the first exploration visits then take what you know and build a Moon base.
I'm rubbish with things like Geology...but what would ice on the Moon look like. Will it be below the surface, or be as you'd expect on Earth as such?
I don't think there is an answer to that yet. I would expect something like very dirty frost/snow/ice but I don't really know.
But it looks like they're still planning to use two J2S engines for lunar insertion. They'll be attached to the hardware housing the lunar lander, riding up on the heavy-lifter.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
<font color="yellow">Any ice exposed to a vacuum would have sublimated long ago. The ice must be below the surface. </font><br /><br />True, but that surface may be little more than a few inches or feet of regolith.<br /><br />My guess is that the ice in the everdark craters will be in a form unlike anything we've ever seen.<br /><br />We need to go take a look, we need to go prospect for an ore body of water ice. The sooner the better, so we can make plans.<br /><br />Not-so-rhetorical questions: Does NASA have to be the first to go take a look? Isn't this more of a commercial endeavor, mining and refining ice? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
what is the length of each lunar expedition going to be?<br />why haven't we seen a proposal for landers that can remain on the surface of the moon as long duration habitats? (no ascent stage)<br />where's the ISRU plant?<br />if those things are not included in the initial draft, be sure that this project will follow the Apollo pathways-i.e. a few short missions and then cancellation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><font color="yellow">"Does NASA have to be the first to go take a look? Isn't this more of a commercial endeavor, mining and refining ice?"</font><br /><br />Anyone with the money, the will, and the know how can do it. It looks like right now NASA is the only organization with all three.<br /><br />What kind of commercial endeavor would it be to go to the Moon to make ice when you are based on Earth -- the "water planet"? You are REALLY out of touch with reality if you think that would be a money-making proposition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">"why haven't we seen a proposal for... long duration habitats? <br />where's the ISRU plant?"</font><br /><br />SHOW ME THE MONEY!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram