Back to the moon?

[Enrique]

Ok

I like the idea of going to the moon and mars, and I share the same concerns just like you all.

But the question is who is going? Yea it sounds like stupid question.

We know for sure that Pilots are going and people who have PHD's Astro Physics,Bio,Chemi, and yea I forgot my self people with Anthropology,Volcanologist,Archaeologist..majorsare going..

I just don't want some one stupid with a nice looking face going to the moon or mars. (no

paris hilton,super models,Jessica, Spears or the Asborns , etc..)F.

. them.

I feel that our politcs are now control by people of the media..is just wrong I wonder what would our founding fathers would say?

And yea I don't want some other country saying hooo america can you please send our little friend to the moon. Just because they want some representation..NO way if they want a part of the cake they need to pay...

And also I don't want to see the Chineese in the moon because they would be able to shoot nukes from the moon..(i don't want that to happen)

Yes I want to go too the moon and I'm not going to be the first but I would be the best.

Just like with girls. You don't have to be the first,at f...

ing you JUST have to BEST at F.

ing.

 

[Enrique]

Ok

I like the idea of going to the moon and mars, and I share the same concerns just like you all.

But the question is who is going? Yea it sounds like stupid question.

We know for sure that Pilots are going and people who have PHD's Astro Physics,Bio,Chemi, and yea I forgot my self people with Anthropology,Volcanologist,Archaeologist..majorsare going..

I just don't want some one stupid with a nice looking face going to the moon or mars. (no

paris hilton,super models,Jessica, Spears or the Asborns , etc..)F.

. them.

I feel that our politcs are now control by people of the media..is just wrong I wonder what would our founding fathers would say?

And yea I don't want some other country saying hooo america can you please send our little friend to the moon. Just because they want some representation..NO way if they want a part of the cake they need to pay...

And also I don't want to see the Chineese in the moon because they would be able to shoot nukes from the moon..(i don't want that to happen)

Yes I want to go too the moon and I'm not going to be the first but I would be the best.

Just like with girls. You don't have to be the first,at f...

ing you JUST have to BEST at F.

ing.

 

[Valion310]

Well, thank god a couple of you who put up the Scrouge posts aren't making policy. Remind me not to take part in combat strike planning with attitudes like some of ya'll.

As for me, Im so inspired by this announcement ... I can't wait to be apart of it. I'm even switching my post-grad plans to Astrodynamics or something related.

All this country needs is a tiny bit of vision ... and it takes bold people like Bush and his announcement to light a fire under the asses of guys like us (aka: Naval Officers, Canidates, Seletee's and Soon-to-be's.)

So while everyone else is whining, Im taking your spot on whatever new shuttle goes up. Have fun ...

Valion310 - "Uncle Sam wants you for space ... Whiners and complainers need not apply!"

 

[rkeveland]

1. The ISS is not solely serviced by the Space shuttles. Contrary to common knowledge, the Russians actually have better rockets for building and supplying the ISS. Their systems may be older but the advantage to that is that each of their launches cost significantly less than ours. 2. Our orbiters are so outdated that Nasa recently went out looking for 7.5 inch floppy disk drives (I'm only old enough to remember the 5 inch floppies.) The computer you're using right now, more than likely has more computing power than all the orbiters combined. We do need new orbiters, but if Clinton couldn't afford it when they had all the money what makes you think we can now. You want to go to the moon, cut the military by half. Then we'll talk. (yeah I'm in the navy)
3. We can't afford to go to the moon, let alone mars. Good ideas, good plans, for when we had a whole lot of excess cash in the budget. Its not something you do simply because China might put a man in orbit and you want to stroke your own ..........uh, er..ego. This actually reminds me of those feminist philosophies that take note of how all those rockets are shaped like dicks.
4. Now, for some cold hard logic, it cost over ten thousand dollars a pound to get something into orbit, so it makes more sense to worry about handling pollution the old fashioned way and making the people who make the mess clean it up as opposed to putting it into orbit.
5. Down with conservatives and what they think is "vision".

 

[kimphil]

"L" stands for "Lagrange," as in Lagrange point.

It's ironic that the USA "won" the space race against the Soviets by putting men on the moon, yet can't even transport its own astronauts without using the "losers" Soyuz rockets to reach the ISS.

The President is free to present whatever "vision" he wants. He doesn't have to pay the bill, Congress and the American people do. He has this annoying habit of coming up with "great" ideas yet not accounting for where the funding should come from. Modest proposals such as "No Child Left Behind," and AIDS funding for Africa aren't given enough funding within the President's own budget. So either Congress has to come up with the extra funds or, as in the case of "No Child Left Behind" they become unfunded mandates that shift to the states the burden to pay for it(and indirectly increases your taxes).

His budget proposal to increase NASA funding means a few billion dollars more over the next few years. That will probably go towards the shuttle's replacement. In fact, NASA will probably have to divert funding from the real science that NASA does successfully now.

Funding for returning to the moon and eventually Mars will have to be found by some future president, not the current one, and that's going to be damn hard to do. To achieve the foreign policy objectives of the US, the size of military is probably going to have to be increased. Let's not forget the President wants a strategic missile defense, which assuming we can make it work (a big if) is going to cost almost as much as putting a man on Mars. Add on prescription drugs for the elderly, homeland security, the oncoming social security shortfall, just to name a few budget priorities, money for a mission to the moon and Mars is just rhetoric.

Oh, we've got to do all this with historic budget deficits growing bigger thanks to tax cuts (with more to come if the President gets his way). The issue isn't that some of us are "Scrouge," the money for an ambitious return to the moon and Mars isn't there.

If the Chinese want the moon and Mars they're welcome to them. There are no beaches or casinos on the moon, so I don't personally find it to be a desirable destination.

BTW, if fiscal conservatism is associated with cowardice, there must be a lot yellow Republicans on this site (at least the ones who are actually conservatives).

 

[Daedalus]

One of the reasons why it is so much cheaper for a Soyuz flight is because its payload capacity is about 1.5 tons while the shuttle capacity (to station orbit) is about 6.5 tons. Also only the shuttle can do the periodic boosts to put the ISS in a higher orbit lest it fall into the ocean. The Soyuz doesn't carry much. The proton is a different story, but most of the ISS components can only be carried (and were designed for) delivery by the shuttle.
The computer I am using now (average desktop) does not have more computing power than any shuttle. The shuttles are constantly being updated (for instance they all have a glass cockpit, the last of which to be fitted was Colombia) and I’m sure that behind any given panel there is more computing power in any EEPROM than my computer.

The reason spacecraft have old electronic parts is not solely the cause of the time it was produced. I have never heard of 7.5 in floppies, but they had 5 inch when they were building Colombia. The reason they use old computer parts is because they are not space qualified. If you have a 2 billion dollar orbiter (and there are only 3 left) are you going to put a Pentium 4 in space without any actual radiation and temp space track record? Or will you use a 486 which is proven for the job? It's a pretty huge gamble, and designers will often go with the workhorse when a mission is already filled with risk. So when they build new spacecraft, even today they will not be using brand new parts no matter how much power they have. Designers will often scrounge around old stocks of spacecraft inventory parts to get parts that are obsolete, because they are proven. This is one reason why spacecraft are so expensive. You can get a Pentium 4 for what 50$ or so? Do you know how much it would cost to buy an entire stock of they only remaining 486 parts that are still qualified for flight? Electronic parts are made for cell phones computers and dvd players, they are rarely made specifically for a flight project, so the market is driven by what sony wants and needs, not by what NASA wants. Therefore it is a lot more difficult to find electronics that can actually be used in space than just picking up something at the mall.

How many times has NASA had a human spacecraft 8/10ths of the way of being finished and scrapped it for shi*&y foresight? The CRV (not the Honda) was all ready to go and they pulled the plug. The linear aerospike engine for venturestar was working and they pulled the plug. If NASA stops funding 10 projects 8/10ths of the way and completes 2 we would be far better off.

Any comments on the space elevator?

 

[Valion310]

I was thinking about some of the various issues last night after some CAP briefings I went too and then while I was laying in bed.

Obviously the cost is an undeniable fact that is going to be the biggest controversy of the whole thing.
Trying to be somewhat of an optimist ... If we could do it with much lower technology in the 60's during the Vietnam war, massive social changes nation wide, an assassination, new administration and countless other events nation and world wide. I believe this country is capable of doing it in this new century. America is the one country in the world with the "Can do!" spirit.

Weight is everything when going to the moon. Keeping weight down is the probably one of the most important factors in sending anything above high earth orbit and sending things to the moon or Mars.

I tend to think they will do something similar to the Command Mod and LEM, Lunar Orbit Rendevious, Earth Orbit Rendevious. With the new composites, microcomputers and everything else that is out now we will be able to pack a lot more into vehicles roughly the same size as the 60's versions.

The Shuttle fleet is here until 2010 and the space station will be done by then. With the political implications that would arise from scrapping the station in the international community, I just don’t see any administration putting the shaft on the French, Japanese and other countries who have hedged their space bets on such a massive project. The Soyuz is a limited platform, but considering how cheap it is to send parts and people up, it’s a good idea for now.

The replacement for the shuttle has to be something that can keep the weight down, perform the same jobs as the shuttle fleet and be flexible enough to carry out moon trips. So its conceivable that it will have to fit on the current launch platform the shuttle uses. Or maybe strapped to the side of a Delta varient with the RCS rockets.

But the President made an interesting point about the Helium3 that is on the Moon. That can be turned into fuel sources, granted getting the equipment up there to do that will be a massive undertaking, a lot of money and massive human work both here on Earth and on the moon. I would like to think dumping the money into the private sectors to construct, developed test and deliver that type of equipment will be popular with the country. But once that is complete in theory the weight factor (thus cost factor) will significantly decrease in standard launch platforms. We'll only need enough to get it into orbit, pop a refueling boom to refuel at the station then head on over to the moon base for whatever.

I don’t have the skills to be an economist. But the payoffs from space to the current date have been repaid time and time again. Giving this country a direction and giving the NASA folks a direction should prove more cost effective then anything currently happening. And honestly, this might be a blind statement, but what is 1Billion per year for five years in the grand scheme of things? For the American economy and budget with the payoffs that will come from this ... its chump change. And the vast majority of funding for the time being will come from the existing budgets for NASA.

If people only want social plans paid for, lets all just go dig a hole and live in it and let Howard Dean and the NAACP run the country. People seem to think the country needs to stop to fix every single problem ... and I'll bet my commission that NO one is ever going to fix all the little problems, pull all the kids out of poverty or get all the bums off the street. That is just a fact of life and its up to the individual person to fix those things in their communities, not the persons responsibility to be totally dependant on the government like they are suck'n off their mom's CENSORED.

Anyway ... I don’t make policy, I follow it. And once I’m commissioned, I'll do the same. I’m excited about this and I have so much faith in the US economy, Aerospace industry and the people who want this to happen ... I’m really excited. I don’t think this is like Bush Sr. back in 1989, I think this is the real-deal holyfield proposal ... and I'll admit I’m naive enough to hope for a bi-partisan vote in Congress to get this pig kicked off. But an election year was probably not the time to do this; cause bi-partisan votes are not likely this time of year.

I dunno ... I wish us all luck in getting up there. Exciting times! ...

Valion310 - "

"

 

[Valion310]

Another intersting point the President made yesterday I just thought about, he invited the world to join us. Its not a race, but a journey he said. Now granted a portion of that is political rehtoric.

But in theory (Im not a politician thank god) ... with the massivly growing Chinese economy, the Japanese, European Space Agency and the Ruskies ... its fair to say the costs of the missions will be split in construction, development and operations of various missions. I think its fair to say the US will carry much of the initial burden finacially which could be hurtful to the deficat ...

But, I think its in an interesting idea and Im very excited to see how it developes. He said the board he put in place must report to him 4 months after their first meeting with a plan of attack. That indicates that atleast some kind of initial word from the international community will be given to him. So hopefully by summer we'll have a much better idea of how this whole thing will be developing.

Another exciting thing I thought about yesterday, in 10 years is the projectiong for landing. Where will we all be in 10 years? I'll be 36, ten years into my commission so probably an O4/5 ... I'll be through my Masters degree and into my Doctorate. Perfect time to start applying for follow on missions.

Where will you all be in 10 years?

Of course John will be Kind on the Moon probably and he'll remake Airwarriors into MoonWarriors ...

Thats an idea!

Val "

"

 

[chazmurr]

"Another exciting thing I thought about yesterday, in 10 years is the projectiong for landing. Where will we all be in 10 years? I'll be 36, ten years into my commission so probably an O4/5 ... I'll be through my Masters degree and into my Doctorate. Perfect time to start applying for follow on missions.

Where will you all be in 10 years?" -VAlion310

Those were my sentiments exactly...I want to be one of those people taking advantage of this foresight. I want to be a second generation pioneer of the moon and beyond. Now is the perfect time to start rallying for this, for those of you that would like to participate in this. It takes time, as we all know, for anything substantial to be achieved by our government. But if we are all persistent and educate others about the benefits of an undertaking this large, it will eventually have to come to fruition.

 

[NeoCortex]

Valion,
not sure if this is what you ment or not but.... Wieght is only impt from Earth to Orbit. We could have a ship that was built in space and was only ment to stay in space, and it would need to be areodynamic of have any real wieght restrictions.

Ben

PS Valion, how long does the background check for CAP take?

 

[PropStop]

For those of you looking for an economic reason to go to the moon, to Mars, and beyond i have but one word - Asteroids (no, not the game!). One asteroid could provide more metal ore than many years of mining here on earth, and it would not need to be refined as much. Someone else mentioned the Helium 3 on the moon, another great resource. Also (someone beat me to this too) space based power with microwave transmission to the surface.

What it takes is that first step. No corporation is going to risk building a whole new space vehicle to get the job done, most simply couldn't afford it. What we need is an ambitious space program that helps us develop the technology that will LATER allow us to mine space. People gripe about the near term costs, which are huge, but the long term benefits far outweigh the short term costs.

One reason the orbiters are so damned expensive is because they're almost unique creatures. When things are produced in greater numbers the costs go down. The necessary technology to safely and economically mine space will come from expensive projects like going back to the moon and beyond.

I don't see how we can afford NOT to do this.

Though I will admit that my views are partially shaped by my desire fly in space - right now a P-3er wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of piloting one of them fancy rides, and I’m not quite ready to settle for mission specialist.

 

[Valion310]

Chaz ... good words, I completely agree with you. You can be my right seater on a mission.

Neo ... I had mine about a year ago, I think it took the FBI roughly 6 weeks to do my background check, but that was with the finger prints being sent in and everything. And in the mean time I got the various training done needed to work with young people legally.

My dad made an interesting comment too me, he said I should subscribe to "Air and Space" and "Aviation Week" magazines. He said they are very pro-military and pro-space. So I thought Id suggest that to those who are hard-charging for space ... there will be TONS written over the next year. Great way to get educated on what is going on.

Just curious if anyone here is a member of "The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics" (AIAA) ? Lots of good info with them too.

Valion310 - "

"

 

[nittany03]

From the time I was knee-high until the time I left the nest I was always stealing my Dad's Air & Space magazines. Just got a subscription myself. It's not just military aviation- and space-related, although those are definitely there. It basically covers anything and everything aviation-related, civil and military and is well worth the subscription for us pilots/FOs/airplane nuts.

 

[Valion310]

I thought these were some intersting articles I found on www.space.com

I think the initial responses by the ESA and Russians are a good sign as to the excitement that can be brought to the program from the international community. Now Im VERY curious as to the responses from China, Japan, India and a few of the smaller countries involved. I think the Israeli response will be interesting as well considering they lost a national hero on the Columbia.

Anyway, thoughts on these articals anyone?

New NASA reorgainization news:
http://www.space.com/news/okeefe_update_040115.html
Some of the initial Russian response:
http://www.space.com/news/russia_bush_040115.html
Some of hte initial ESA response:
http://www.space.com/news/esa_bush_040115.html

 

[caeli]

I just heard that due to Bush's new space plan, the Hubble Telescope isn't gonna be visited by any more Space Shuttle crews, since all those flights are going to building the ISS. This means that the HST will probably just deteriorate until it can't be used anymore.

What do you guys think of this? I think that this shows that Bush actually means business in going to the moon. The Hubble Telescope has given a lot back to science, and to pretty much cut it from the budget is a huge step. But I think it's great that manned spaceflight is getting such a big boost. oh yeah!!