JohnHunt
07-05-2010, 12:15 AM
I am guessing that NASAs new direction will be as follows:
1) Constellation will largely be terminated,
2) The Space Shuttle program will not be extended,
3) The ISS will be extended for an additional 5 years,
4) Ares I will be continued as an escape capsule for the ISS,
5) Commercial Crew Transport will be fully funded and be successful,
6) Development of a heavy lift vehicle will be initiated earlier than later. The controversy about what form it should take will continue. The development of the heavy lift vehicle will not be entirely according to the new commercial approach,
7) A lot of money will be spent on technology projects which will only modestly improve the entire plan,
8) Manned space flight will be to the ISS initially and then to an asteroid (about 2030) and then to a martian moon (about 2035),
9) A manned Mars mission will happen about 2045,
10) It will take 10 years for a martian base the size of the ISS to be built and it will have to be supported largely from launches from Earth,
11) A self-supporting martian base will be achieved at about 2075.
1) I support the cancellation of Constellation (Ares I, V, & Altair) but I don't support the apparent cancellation of the concept of returning to the Moon. I think that we should. However, I think that it should be funded at a much reduced level than Constellation and that funding should be in the form to incentivize US commercial companies to develop cis-lunar space and the Moon for both commercial and NASAs exploration's purposes.
2) I support the Space Shuttle not being extended (it is expensive, dangerous, and the Russians and SpaceX will adequately replace crew transport).
3) I don't support the extension of the ISS by 5 years. It's expensive. I think that most of the research that we need to do can be accomplished by 2015. Rather, I think that the ISS should be sold to a company or country(ies) in 2015 and possibly be maintained and converted into an orbital hotel and orbital laboratory / manufacturing.
4) I don't support the continued development of Ares I as an escape capsule. I think that this was a political consolation prize. That role can be played by a Soyuz capsule or commercial capsule (e.g. SpaceX's Dragon).
5) I support the full funding of Commercial Crew Transport (CCT). It:
- is a fairly cheap back-up to Russia's Soyuz,
- will open up orbital tourism,
- commercial medium lifters will be essential to cis-lunar development and distant manned missions,
6) I don't support the development of a heavy lift rocket. First, I don't believe that it's actually necessary. We can lift the entire upper stack of an Apollo mission in a Falcon 9 Heavy IF the stack is unfueled and then fuel it in LEO from lunar-sourced rocket fuel.
7) By-in-large, we should avoid politically-correct, environmentally-oriented, or diplomacy projects. Technologic spin-offs should be justified by return-on-investment calculations. Partnering with other countries should be justified by whether such partnerships achieve strategic goals in a cost-effective way. We already spent $100 billion on the ISS and a large part of the motivation to extend the ISS is because we have international partners. Imagine what $120 billion could have done to develop fuel depots, orbital tugs, automated lunar landers, lunar water extraction, etc. Instead we've got an expensive albatross that was originally scheduled to be dispatched into the ocean in something like 5 years.
Yes, there could be some justification for spending money on things like VASIMR, a space nuclear power plant, etc. But we should make very certain that they are actually needed.
8-11) I wish that manned missions to an asteroid and martian moons would not be done. These are very expensive flag planting and boot print exercises which do only a little to get us to where we need to go. More importantly they will take a whole lot of money away from the development of cis-lunar space and so we'll be saddled with having to lift a great deal of fuel to LEO from Earth until 2075 or until some smart Chinese or Russian-speaking nation sells lunar-based rocket-fuel to us for a considerable mark-up.
Yes, Mars is the eventual goal for manned colonization. I just believe that we shouldn't wait until 2075 for an off-Earth self-sufficient base. Rather, I'd like to see one on the Moon by about 2030.
-----
RATHER, I wish that the unnecessary and/or wasteful parts of Constellation and Obama's Flexible Path were eliminated and that the remaining funds largely be used to incentivize commercial companies to develop cis-lunar space and extract resources from the lunar surface. This will develop a cis-lunar market and greatly facilitate all other space goals (including manned missions beyond the Moon and SPSs).
New technologies which I would like to see completed and implemented would be automated lunar landers, ascenders, aerobraking and delivery of lunar resources to LEO. Extraction of lunar water ice (or if impossible) extraction of lunar oxygen in eventual quantities sufficient to fuel Earth Departure Stages. Also, the extraction and purification of metals within cis-lunar space (that includes the lunar surface). Teleoperated robotics (including Robbie the Robonaut) but also including earth movers.
Automated preparation for a manned landing on the Moon including The Moon Society's effort to develop a lunar greenhouse. Robbie could harvest, prep, and dry food material. Sufficient carbon, nitrogen, (and perhaps hydrogen) could easily be delivered (if need be) to the lunar surface via a lunar lander.
A pretty low-mass manned lunar lander. This would be the same lander used to deliver equipment earlier but in a manned configuration. It would require no ascending fuel (that would be provided on the Moon), no duplicated fuel tanks or rockets, and may not even need a shell if a landing pad were constructed.
------
HOWEVER, it seems to me that America MUST have a manned mission and that it must be novel. It appears as though that mission might not be to the Moon. So, even though I think manned missions to an asteroid and a martian moon is an unhelpful waste of money and years, I would be willing to allow that IF there is still at least some NASA financial incentivizing of commercial cis-lunar development. If a heavy lift rocket is developed then there may be no money left over for the commercial development of cis-lunar space.
1) Constellation will largely be terminated,
2) The Space Shuttle program will not be extended,
3) The ISS will be extended for an additional 5 years,
4) Ares I will be continued as an escape capsule for the ISS,
5) Commercial Crew Transport will be fully funded and be successful,
6) Development of a heavy lift vehicle will be initiated earlier than later. The controversy about what form it should take will continue. The development of the heavy lift vehicle will not be entirely according to the new commercial approach,
7) A lot of money will be spent on technology projects which will only modestly improve the entire plan,
8) Manned space flight will be to the ISS initially and then to an asteroid (about 2030) and then to a martian moon (about 2035),
9) A manned Mars mission will happen about 2045,
10) It will take 10 years for a martian base the size of the ISS to be built and it will have to be supported largely from launches from Earth,
11) A self-supporting martian base will be achieved at about 2075.
1) I support the cancellation of Constellation (Ares I, V, & Altair) but I don't support the apparent cancellation of the concept of returning to the Moon. I think that we should. However, I think that it should be funded at a much reduced level than Constellation and that funding should be in the form to incentivize US commercial companies to develop cis-lunar space and the Moon for both commercial and NASAs exploration's purposes.
2) I support the Space Shuttle not being extended (it is expensive, dangerous, and the Russians and SpaceX will adequately replace crew transport).
3) I don't support the extension of the ISS by 5 years. It's expensive. I think that most of the research that we need to do can be accomplished by 2015. Rather, I think that the ISS should be sold to a company or country(ies) in 2015 and possibly be maintained and converted into an orbital hotel and orbital laboratory / manufacturing.
4) I don't support the continued development of Ares I as an escape capsule. I think that this was a political consolation prize. That role can be played by a Soyuz capsule or commercial capsule (e.g. SpaceX's Dragon).
5) I support the full funding of Commercial Crew Transport (CCT). It:
- is a fairly cheap back-up to Russia's Soyuz,
- will open up orbital tourism,
- commercial medium lifters will be essential to cis-lunar development and distant manned missions,
6) I don't support the development of a heavy lift rocket. First, I don't believe that it's actually necessary. We can lift the entire upper stack of an Apollo mission in a Falcon 9 Heavy IF the stack is unfueled and then fuel it in LEO from lunar-sourced rocket fuel.
7) By-in-large, we should avoid politically-correct, environmentally-oriented, or diplomacy projects. Technologic spin-offs should be justified by return-on-investment calculations. Partnering with other countries should be justified by whether such partnerships achieve strategic goals in a cost-effective way. We already spent $100 billion on the ISS and a large part of the motivation to extend the ISS is because we have international partners. Imagine what $120 billion could have done to develop fuel depots, orbital tugs, automated lunar landers, lunar water extraction, etc. Instead we've got an expensive albatross that was originally scheduled to be dispatched into the ocean in something like 5 years.
Yes, there could be some justification for spending money on things like VASIMR, a space nuclear power plant, etc. But we should make very certain that they are actually needed.
8-11) I wish that manned missions to an asteroid and martian moons would not be done. These are very expensive flag planting and boot print exercises which do only a little to get us to where we need to go. More importantly they will take a whole lot of money away from the development of cis-lunar space and so we'll be saddled with having to lift a great deal of fuel to LEO from Earth until 2075 or until some smart Chinese or Russian-speaking nation sells lunar-based rocket-fuel to us for a considerable mark-up.
Yes, Mars is the eventual goal for manned colonization. I just believe that we shouldn't wait until 2075 for an off-Earth self-sufficient base. Rather, I'd like to see one on the Moon by about 2030.
-----
RATHER, I wish that the unnecessary and/or wasteful parts of Constellation and Obama's Flexible Path were eliminated and that the remaining funds largely be used to incentivize commercial companies to develop cis-lunar space and extract resources from the lunar surface. This will develop a cis-lunar market and greatly facilitate all other space goals (including manned missions beyond the Moon and SPSs).
New technologies which I would like to see completed and implemented would be automated lunar landers, ascenders, aerobraking and delivery of lunar resources to LEO. Extraction of lunar water ice (or if impossible) extraction of lunar oxygen in eventual quantities sufficient to fuel Earth Departure Stages. Also, the extraction and purification of metals within cis-lunar space (that includes the lunar surface). Teleoperated robotics (including Robbie the Robonaut) but also including earth movers.
Automated preparation for a manned landing on the Moon including The Moon Society's effort to develop a lunar greenhouse. Robbie could harvest, prep, and dry food material. Sufficient carbon, nitrogen, (and perhaps hydrogen) could easily be delivered (if need be) to the lunar surface via a lunar lander.
A pretty low-mass manned lunar lander. This would be the same lander used to deliver equipment earlier but in a manned configuration. It would require no ascending fuel (that would be provided on the Moon), no duplicated fuel tanks or rockets, and may not even need a shell if a landing pad were constructed.
------
HOWEVER, it seems to me that America MUST have a manned mission and that it must be novel. It appears as though that mission might not be to the Moon. So, even though I think manned missions to an asteroid and a martian moon is an unhelpful waste of money and years, I would be willing to allow that IF there is still at least some NASA financial incentivizing of commercial cis-lunar development. If a heavy lift rocket is developed then there may be no money left over for the commercial development of cis-lunar space.