No more American manned spaceflights

[RN7]

With the decommissioning of the Space Shuttle this year American astronauts will have to go into space on Russian rockets at a price of about $40 million. I like Obama but this is not really good for America’s space programme or international image and national prestige. The cancellation of the Orion program was not a good idea and the Shuttles could realistically fly for a few more years. For the first time America Astronauts will become Cosmonauts or god forbid even Taikonauts.

Current Manned Spacecraft
Chinese Shenzou Spacecraft
Launched from Chinese Long March 5 rocket
Russian Soyuz-TMA Spacecraft
Launched from Russian Proton rocket
Soviet/Russian Buran Shuttles
Payload of 35,000-50,000 kg LEO/7,500-11,500 kg GEO
• OK-1K1-Buran (Used for unmanned flights only, destroyed in hanger collapse in 2002)
• OK-1K2-Ptichka (Never used but 97% complete, on display at Baikonur in Kazakhstan)
• OK-2K1-Baikal (Only 30% complete, currently on a barge in the Moskva River)
US Space Shuttles
Payload of 24,400 kg LEO
• Atlantis (Due for decommissioning in 2011, will be displayed at Kennedy Space Center)
• Challenger (Lost in 1986)
• Columbia (Lost in 2003)
• Discovery (Decommissioned in 2011, will be on display at Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia)
• Endeavour (Decommissioned in 2011, will be displayed at California Science Center)
• Enterprise (Never used for orbital flight, on display at Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia, will be moved to the USS Intrepid in New York)

Current and potential launchers
Chinese Long March 5
Payload of 25,000 kg LEO/14,000 kg GEO. Operational
ESA Arian 5
Payload of 21,000 kg LEO/10,050 kg GEO. Operational
Russian Angara 5
Payload of 24,500 kg LEO. Planned for unmanned launches
Russian Angara 7
Payload of 41,000 kg LEO. Planned for unmanned launches
Russian Proton
Payload of 21,600 kg LEO/6,360 kg GEO. Operational
Russian Rus-M
Payload of 35,500-54,000 kg LEO/7,500-11,500 kg GEO. Planned to replace Proton rocket for manned launches
US Atlas V
Payload of 20,050 kg LEO. Operational
US Atlas V HLV
Payload of 29,420 kg LEO/13,000 kg GEO. Under development, could be used for manned flights
US Delta IV Heavy
Payload of 22,950 LEO/12,980 GEO. Operational, used for military launches
US Falcon Heavy
Payload of 53,000 kg LEO/16,000 kg GEO. Under development
US Space Launch System
Derived from parts of Ares I and cancelled Ares V rockets and Shuttle. Payload 70,000 kg LEO. Under development

As a side note the US also has the unmanned vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing Boeing X-37 spaceplane, operated by the USAF for reusable orbital spaceflight missions. The Chinese claim it can be used as a spy satellite or to deliver weapons into space.

There have also been rumors about an operational top secret US military orbital spaceplane for the past decade known as Blackstar. Such a military spaceplane could be used to place small satellites in orbit, launch nuclear weapons from orbit, and serve as a platform for orbit-to-ground hypervelocity weapons. For such an expensive program to exist the cost would have to borne by the US military’s black budget and owned and operated by major aerospace corporations. If Blackstar has become fully operational, it might explain the US Government cancelations of the SR-71 and the USAF satellite-launch programs. If it exists it has been one of the best kept military secrets ever and highly controversial. The British government has also released an extensive report on unexplained aerial phenomena in British airspace, which acknowledged that some unexplained sightings can be attributed to covert aircraft, listing three American programs it is aware of. The first is the SR-71, the other two have had their names withheld and photographs have been altered.

Annual Budget in US $ million
17,600. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
05,650. European Space Agency
03,800. Russian Federal Space Agency
02,460. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
01,470. Indian Space Research Organisation
01,300. China National Space Administration

[ShadoWarrior]

I'm afraid that there is a bit of erroneous info in your post.

The Russians will be charging the US over $50 million per seat. The figure for 2011 is ~ $52 million, and the Russians have said that the price will go up every year. It's expected to be $56 million next year.

One of the rumored UFOs that are occasionally sighted is attributed to the much-discussed, never-acknowledged "Aurora" hypervelocity aircraft. Alleged successor to the SR-71.

[copeab]

The Russians will be charging the US over $50 million per seat. The figure for 2011 is ~ $52 million, and the Russians have said that the price will go up every year. It's expected to be $56 million next year.


It's what we get for not sharing the stargate with then as much as they want.

[ShadoWarrior]

Who needs Russian rockets when you have F-302s? :p

[Fusilier]

I like Obama but this is not really good for America’s space programme or international image and national prestige.

If there is any future in man reaching out into space it will be when nationalistic pride is put aside and countries embrace joint ventures. Future projects like going to Mars will need to be done cooperatively, or not at all.

"Cooperative programs in the long term save money, draw upon the extraordinary scientific and engineering talent distributed over our planet, and provide inspiration about the global future."

If more world leaders would read Pale Blue Dot, we'd be living in better world and with more footprints on non-Earth bodies. A global space community is what we need.

Also, about the decommissioning, the shuttles were only designed with a 100 mission life expectancy anyways. They're time is due.

For the first time America Astronauts will become Cosmonauts.

American astronauts have been in Russian rockets since the 90s too.

[Webstral]

We’ve done a really terrible job of selling the American public on the commercial opportunities of space flight. The shuttle is not a great program in terms of advancing space exploration, though certainly putting someone in space on a regular basis is much better than putting no one in space. NASA and the executive leadership need to acknowledge that private investment is going to be the driving force behind the development of the infrastructure for the purpose of exploiting space resources—i.e., for the purpose of making money. Scientific advancements can piggyback on the commercial infrastructure that capital will pay to create.

Two major sources of lunar wealth are light helium (He-3) and platinum. Given that tokamak fusion seems to be stuck near the break-even point, it’s hard to say when hot fusion will become profitable. However, having a reliable non-polluting fuel source like light helium available will definitely be an incentive to invest in getting the technology to the point at which commercial investors will be willing to take over. Lunar platinum can be the engine that drives the development of an infrastructure for mining on the Moon and returning product to Earth. The continuing need for platinum in fuel cells, combined with the growing affluence of Asian nations, the love for and need for automobiles in modern economies and lifestyles, and the energy picture of the future all point to a need for more platinum than is known to exist in the Earth’s crust. Astonishing as it may seem, it may very well be possible to mine platinum on Luna and return it to Earth profitably in the near future (Wingo, 2004). Of course, if fuel cells get sidelined by battery technology for automobiles, or if a cheap alternative to platinum in fuel cells is discovered, the financial logic for developing the lunar mining infrastructure disappears. Until something changes, though, the future demand for platinum appears to exceed Earth’s known supply by a considerable margin.

Although Luna has not been surveyed for platinum, there is good reason to suppose it exists there in some abundance. While Luna is deficient in heavy metals [relative to Earth] due to the circumstances of its creation (The StarChild Team, 2001), platinum in the crust of Earth and Luna comes from meteorites. All recoverable platinum on Earth is associated with impact craters. A bit of math suffices to give some idea of how much platinum we might expect to find on the surface of the Moon (Wingo, 2001).

Of course, the legal infrastructure for extracting resources from Luna is insufficient. A number of ideas to establish a proper legal framework have been proposed by better minds than mine. I’ve synthesized my favorites into a legal framework that (hopefully) allows for profitable exploitation of lunar resources and the sharing of the benefits of these resources with the owners of space resources: humankind as a whole. Luna needs to have a colonial government established, complete with a charter, governor-general, and so forth. The lunar colonial government, answering to the UN, then issues permits for resource extraction. The colonial government assesses fees and taxes for use of the lunar surface. The fees are used to create additional infrastructure to support ongoing and expanding operations. The taxes then go into a UN fund for distribution among the nation-states of Earth, with some taxes being retained to cover the costs of operating the lunar colonial government on Earth and, ultimately, on Luna herself. Distribution should be bicameral, so to speak. Every nation in the UN receives a uniform disbursement for being a sovereign state in the United Nations. Another portion of the taxes are divided into mills or millionths and awarded based on population. Thus small nations get a guaranteed minimum part of the proceeds, while very populous nations receive proceeds that reflect the greater share of ownership of the common resources of mankind. The corporations that fund such an operation receive no benefit whatsoever from relocating their headquarters to the Cayman Islands because taxes are paid to the lunar colonial government (the UN) regardless of which nation hosts the corporate headquarters or any portion of its administration. As an additional bonus, nations that are found to be out of compliance with human rights, democratic institutions and whatnot can have their part of the proceeds held until appropriate changes are made. Obviously, some sort of procedural safeguards will have to be put into place to minimize abuse.

Once a thriving lunar platinum business has been established, whole new vistas open up. Light helium extraction can exploit the existing infrastructure as soon as tokamak fusion appears profitable. With a permanent base on the Moon sustained by fees and taxes from resource extraction, the scientific community can conduct lunar research at a whole new level by leasing space at private or colonial government facilities (to the degree that these facilities are separate) on an as-needed basis. It’s all very exciting. Right now, though, we’re moving in the wrong direction. We’re treating the Moon as a sort of vacuum-packaged Antarctica suitable only for scientific uses paid for by government agencies. As long as we continue to go down this path, the Moon’s resources and its potential for generating fabulous wealth will go unrealized.



The StarChild Team. (2001). StarChild question of the month for
October, 2001. Retrieved from:
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html.

Wingo, Dennis. (2004). Moonrush: Improving life on Earth with the Moon’s
resources. USA: Collector’s Guide Publishing, Inc.

[ShadoWarrior]

Also, about the decommissioning, the shuttles were only designed with a 100 mission life expectancy anyways. They're time is due.
That's per shuttle, not all combined.

[pmulcahy11b]

If more world leaders would read Pale Blue Dot, we'd be living in better world and with more footprints on non-Earth bodies. A global space community is what we need.

I think Dr Michio Kaku is right -- if we want to survive as a species, we have to get off this planet. Expand our civilization into space. It's only way we're going to avoid running out of living room and resources, and history has shown that civilizations that stagnate die.

[pmulcahy11b]

Also, about the decommissioning, the shuttles were only designed with a 100 mission life expectancy anyways. They're time is due.

The Shuttle was originally supposed to be replaced in the early 2000s by a new design. I remember Reagan talking about it -- he called it the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). At least he funded NASA. Every president and congress since after Reagan, as well as Carter, Nixon, and Ford, has shorted NASA in the budget. That's why we don't have any successor for the Shuttle now, and why the Shuttle isn't the design it was supposed to be. It's why the Apollo program got cut off suddenly after Apollo 17, instead of going to Apollo 21 like it was supposed to. It's why we have no permanent presence on the Moon.

[Fusilier]

That's per shuttle, not all combined.

Yes, you are right - that wasn't very correct of me. What I was still trying to say though is that they're pushing their life expectancy.

The costs of upgrades just for safety measures alone over the years have arguably made it not worthwhile or financially proportional at all to continue with the decades old craft. A replacement has been needed for a while. Talk to retire/replace began in the 90s... almost 20 years ago.

I think Dr Michio Kaku is right -- if we want to survive as a species, we have to get off this planet. Expand our civilization into space. It's only way we're going to avoid running out of living room and resources, and history has shown that civilizations that stagnate die.

Agree 100%. Only through international cooperation will I think that has a chance though. The resources needed are enormous and the government's focus always seems to elsewhere.

To illustrate that, the entire NASA budget is averages out to be only around 3% of the US military budget. And science often takes a backseat whenever it comes time to chopping costs. For example, when the government first cancelled the SETI program's budget, the cost of maintaining the program was that of a single attack helicopter - yet it was cancelled.

[Raellus]

Heard an interview with an author (I'll look up his name later) on NPR last Friday who pointed out that NASA is wasting literally billions of dollars on nonsensical programs. The example that jumps to mind is the huge sum being spent to refurbish the shuttle launch transporter caterpillar (which, with the retirement of the shuttle fleet, is entirely unnecessary).

He said that if all that money was redirected, a manned Mars mission would be plausible.

[Webstral]

The resources needed are enormous and the government's focus always seems to elsewhere.

To illustrate that, the entire NASA budget is averages out to be only around 3% of the US military budget. And science often takes a backseat whenever it comes time to chopping costs. For example, when the government first cancelled the SETI program's budget, the cost of maintaining the program was that of a single attack helicopter - yet it was cancelled.

This is why space has to be profitized in a rational manner that supports humanist goals. Representative government is a fair weather friend to any endeavor that requires a steady commitment of funds. The fate of NASA's plans should illustrate this problem abundantly. Private investors answer only to the call of profits, bounded by whatever regulations apply. Mind, I'm no card-carrying member of the Club for Growth. However, I recognize that there are sharp limitations to what the state can accomplish. The basic R&D needed for the development of lunar resources has been done or can be accomplished with the resources NASA has in hand. Now it's the turn of applied R&D (private R&D) to take over building the machines needed for the further development of the Moon. The primary role of the state is regulation and the construction of public infrastructure for developing the Moon.

I'm in favor of ongoing basic reserach, by the way. Robotic exploration of the solar system is exciting, albeit not as dramatic as manned missions. I'd be willing to see funds allocated for Dr. Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct program. Just as Ferdinand and Isabella paid for Columbus to do his thing, the state has a role in funding primary exploration--which is merely a variant on basic research. However, just as profit-minded parties took over investing in the exploration and exploitation of the New World, profit-minded parties need to build on the basic research conducted by NASA to this point and start getting materials and energy out of the Moon. We can learn from the horrible outcome of the conquest of the Americas for the indigenous inhabitants by ensuring that the state maintains a strong regulatory presence. This is why it's so imporant to create a charter for and staff a lunar colonial government in advance of resource exploitation.

Okay, I'm not very focused here. At the risk of sounding political, there are things the state does well and things capital does well. Ideally, capital and the state each support each other (unwillingly and often unwittingly) by pursuing their own interests. The state--in this case all of the states that harbor spacefaring capability--has failed to create a legal framework that clearly specifies rights of ownership, use, etc. that is an ironclad requisite for private investment on the scale necessary for the development of lunar resources. I would have thought that the US, a capitalist country, would have figured this one out already.

[Targan]

I very much applaud the above posts calling for the internationalisation of space and the sharing of space resources but I'm surpised such views are being openly expressed on this forum. In the not-so-distant past there have been shrill posts decrying UN. I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members) and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

[Fusilier]

I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.

Not everybody listens to Alex Jones I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL17ST243as

[ShadoWarrior]

What I was still trying to say though is that they're pushing their life expectancy.Not even close to it. None of the shuttles is past 40% of their life expectancy based on number of flights per.

[ShadoWarrior]

I very much applaud the above posts calling for the internationalisation of space and the sharing of space resources but I'm surpised such views are being openly expressed on this forum."Internationalization" of space has been a reality for many years. The ISS is just one example. But you're making a serious mistake in thinking that internationalization automatically equates to UN involvement or that it requires the UN to happen. It doesn't. Nor should it.

In the not-so-distant past there have been shrill posts decrying UN. I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.It's not evil. It's inept. The rest of your assertion is essentially correct.

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members)It's that power that blocks the UN from being truly abused by nations with nasty agendas. It helped check the USSR during the Cold War, and it's kept the US from being even more overbearing than it was while Bushes were in office. The problem with the SC isn't the veto power. It's non-democratic regimes having the veto power.

and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.It's precisely the UN why there isn't more commercial development of space. A certain treaty destroys any incentive because individual nations, much less private concerns, cannot lay claim to anything beyond Earth's atmosphere. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it prevented a massive "land grab" years ago. But now that technology, and commercial interest, has advanced to the point where it's feasible to begin tapping the wealth in the rest of the solar system there's no framework that permits it. It's been under discussion in the UN for well over a decade and there's little hope that any agreement will be coming out of the UN anytime in the next decade.

[RN7]

I'm afraid that there is a bit of erroneous info in your post.

One of the rumored UFOs that are occasionally sighted is attributed to the much-discussed, never-acknowledged "Aurora" hypervelocity aircraft. Alleged successor to the SR-71.

Undoubtably Aurora has been one of the aircraft detected over UK airspace, and thats no suprise given the close relations between the US and British militaries and the fact that SR-71s have been frequently based in England, and Aurora and her sonic booms and contrails have been sighted, tracked and detected across the western US since the late 80's. But Blackstar seems to be a different type of aircraft that seems to be specificaly focused on orbital operations, possibly manned but more likely unmanned.

[RN7]

American astronauts have been in Russian rockets since the 90s too.

And they have been on Russian spacecraft since 1975, but the point is that America has had its own space launchers, now they dont have any and have to rely on its traditional competitor in space until a successer to the Space Shuttle is determined. Do you not see the irony of it all?

I'd realy love to know what the surviving Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts realy think of all this.

[Fusilier]

Not even close to it. None of the shuttles is past 40% of their life expectancy based on number of flights per.

Afraid so. It isn't just a matter of counting up the flight time. They're nearly falling apart. There's only so many times they can be refurbished and the parts replaced. The OVs are in bad shape, leading to disproportionate maintenance costs and safety issues. Just look at the budgeting figures, the maintenance costs keep rising as do the failures. It takes on average now no less than 3 months to get a shuttle capable of a subsequent launch. Even NASA stopped defending the STS and sees them as a money pit.

They need to be replaced with a new model with a different mission design. IMO, NASA should takes some lessons from the Europeans. Their agency launches more rockets and with a better success rate and cost than anyone. It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo.

Old age and an expensive cost killed the STS.

I've seen nothing said differently in any journal, but if you have something that shows that they aren't past their time, I'd like to read it.

[Fusilier]

And they have been on Russian spacecraft since 1975, but the point is that America has had its own space launchers, now they dont have any and have to rely on its traditional competitor in space until a successer to the Space Shuttle is determined. Do you not see the irony of it all?

I know what you are getting at, but I disagree to the point that future progress in space is going to require such cooperation and a merging of space programs. That's all.

[Raellus]

One possible near-future route back into space is for NASA to team up with private companies like this one:

http://www.spacex.com/

Apparently, this company can launch 3 Falcon X (or Heavy) rockets for less that it would take NASA to launch one Saturn V rocket (in today's dollars). It would take 3 Falcon's though, to carry the payload of a Saturn V. This according to the author I mentioned earlier.

[RN7]

Heard an interview with an author (I'll look up his name later) on NPR last Friday who pointed out that NASA is wasting literally billions of dollars on nonsensical programs. The example that jumps to mind is the huge sum being spent to refurbish the shuttle launch transporter caterpillar (which, with the retirement of the shuttle fleet, is entirely unnecessary).

He said that if all that money was redirected, a manned Mars mission would be plausible.

This is probably the reason why Obama cancelled the Orion programe, the absolute wastage of resources by NASA. NASA's budget is three times the size of the combined official Russian and Chinese space programe, yet both Russia and China have successful and operational launchers for manned space missions which are cheaper than the Space Shuttle.

Although it has to be stated that there is less distinction between the civilian and military space programmes of Russia and China than the US, and American military space launching capabilities has not been effected as its essentially unmanned (officially), NASA seems to have been punished for bad management and the squandering its resources by the politicians and bureaucracy that runs it, at the expense of its highly capable scientists, engineers and astronauts.

[RN7]

I know what you are getting at, but I disagree to the point that future progress in space is going to require such cooperation and a merging of space programs. That's all.

Well that might depend on the project. A Mars mission might be one a project that requires international cooperation, but it also depends on the country and what its relative technical resources are. Cooperation might work well with the Europeans or smaller space powers, but the US, Russia and China prefer to do things independently or at least have a leadership role.

[Fusilier]

Cooperation might work well with the Europeans or smaller space powers, but the US, Russia and China prefer to do things independently or at least have a leadership role.

My point is that maybe they should, since nobody has stepped foot on any non-Earth object in nearly 40 years.

In fact, it's been nearly 40 years since any human has been beyond Earth's low orbit.

[RN7]

They need to be replaced with a new model with a different mission design. IMO, NASA should takes some lessons from the Europeans. Their agency launches more rockets and with a better success rate and cost than anyone. It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo

This essentially part of the problem with NASA. They had nearly 30 years to come up with a successor or cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, and what they came up with was the Orion/Constellation project which was only formulated in 2005 right towards the end of the Shuttle's life span, and was a hugely ambitious and vastly expensive programe to replace the Space Shuttle with what the Space Shuttle had originally been designed to replace in the first place. The Ares V rocket which was the ultimate launch system of the whole project for a manned moon shot was designed to have a maximum payload capacity of 188 tons to LEO and 71 tons to the Moon, and has variably been described as a Saturn V on steroids.

[Fusilier]

This essentially part of the problem with NASA. They had nearly 30 years to come up with a successor or cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, and what they came up with was the Orion/Constellation project which was only formulated in 2005 right towards the end of the Shuttle's life span, and was a hugely ambitious and vastly expensive programe to replace the Space Shuttle with what the Space Shuttle had originally been designed to replace in the first place. The Ares V rocket which was the ultimate launch system of the whole project for a manned moon shot was designed to have a maximum payload capacity of 188 tons to LEO and 71 tons to the Moon, and has variably been described as a Saturn V on steroids.

I agree.

[Matt Wiser]

Has anyone here read the Augustine Commission report? It's available at nasa.gov (just google it and you'll get the link). They pointed out the painful truth that NASA couldn't do two things at once: operate shuttle and build the successor system. Then there was the problem with the Constellation program: behind schedule, over budget, and underfunded each year by a third, with launch dates slipping, the crew launcher (Ares I) eating up so much money that there wasn't any for either Ares V (heavy-lift) or the lunar lander and surface systems. No lunar landing was felt possible by 2040 with Constellation. Now, NASA leadership under Mike Griffin is responsible for charging ahead, assuming the money would be there when it wasn't, being overoptimistic about milestones and deadlines, and so on.

Augustine rejected the Mars first approach: too many unknowns as yet, more technology R&D needed for things like advanced propulsion systems, closed-loop life support, radiation protection, human biomedical research, etc. They also rejected the Moon first: namely because the other problem with Constellation was that you had to develop everything at once: crew vehicle, crew launcher, heavy-lift, and the lander/surface systems. And delays on one (or more) drive up the costs for all. They offered instead what MIT Professor Ed Crawley offers as the "Flexible Path" (I was a Moon first person myself, but he did a presentation at the Cape last year-try finding it on NASA's youtube channel and sold me on it when I saw the youtube video) in which he outlines a human exploration program based on two things: build things only when you need them, and there's only a handful of objects in the inner solar system that you can land on anyway (Moon, Mars, Mars' moons, and several of the larger asteroids). His approach is this: build the heavy-lift vehicle, build the crew module, and start going places. Get some basic exploration done, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange Points (both Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun), go to an asteroid like a NEO (Near Earth Object) and meet up with it-you would likely EVA over to it instead of landing-coupled with a Venus flyby to get home, and while we're doing that, develop the lunar stuff like the lander and surface systems (rover, spacesuits, etc.) so that in the late 2020s, we're ready to go back. And while lunar exploration is going, keep flying the deep space missions, because we'll need both to prep for a Mars mission. First, do a Mars flyby. Then go into Martian orbit, and land on one of Mars' moons: things like operating a Mars rover from orbit would be possible-and do it in conjunction with sample return. Finally, shoot for the big prize: a human Mars landing. By 2040.

As for LEO (Low Earth Orbit): turn the mission of supporting the ISS (crew rotation and cargo delivery) to the private sector (this was pre-Augustine: the Bush Administration got this going in '06). Every NASA spacecraft launched was designed and built by the private sector with NASA oversight, but NASA was the end user. Instead, let NASA buy seats on a commercially operated vehicle, but with NASA in charge of safety. This would enable a commercial space industry to grow-similar to the government turning air mail over to commercial air carriers back in the 1920s instead of relying on the U.S. Army Air Service-and attract not only government space agencies (ESA, JAXA, Canadian Space Agency), but research institutions, and other countries that would like to fly astronauts, but can't afford a space program of their own. It would also foster space tourism. The three leading companies for this contract are Boeing, Orbital Science, and Space X. NASA would like to choose multiple providers, so that if one runs into trouble and has to stand down (after an accident, say), the other two can pick up the slack. NASA can either handle the LEO mission or the BEO mission: it doesn't have the budget to do both. Handing the LEO mission to contractors frees up NASA resources and funds to go into exploration (that's $2 Billion a year added to the exploration side). Commercial could also support exploration with things like On-orbit propellant depots, where a rocket launched with a big payload could refuel in orbit before going to its final destination (NASA or the other agencies-DOD, the Intelligence community, ESA, JAXA, etc. would be customers: the contractor would own the facility and be responsible for restocking it).

Congress is skeptical of the Commercial sector, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Space X, is his own worst enemy: he's shot his mouth off about "retiring on Mars" and other such nonsense. He comes off as a "Rocket Boy" or "Space Hobbyist" to many. The Commercial Space Foundation last year had a symposium which said in a nutshell: "To silence the skeptics (Congressional and otherwise-count Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, and Jim Lovell among the latter), we need to stop talking and start flying. Repeatedly." Only flying a crew and returning them home will convince the doubters (and I'm one of them-do I think they can handle the mission? Yes. But they need to prove it). Pencil in 2014 or early 2015 for the first commercial crew rotation flight to ISS.

NASA's about to announce their Heavy-Lift vehicle (the Orion capsule from Constellation was announced as the basis for their crew vehicle) in a few days. Pencil in late 2016-early 2017 for first BEO mission.

It'll be a painful few years, but there will be good times coming.

[RN7]

A manned Mars mission or even a Moon shot is unviable at the moment due to the economic problems effecting most of the world. Currently only Russia could send anyone to the Moon and it couldn't even think of affording it, while China has the money and ambition but not the technology.

America with an injection of funding has the technology to develop both Lunar and Mars capable launchers and spacecraft, but the US civilan space programe has been so badly managed that no US administration is going to fund it.

I think a Mars mission is probably a generation away and we are looking at mid 21st century at the very least. By that time its likely that the political and technological field will have changed. I can still see America as one of the leaders, but China may be the main competitor as others fall off or realign themselves. A Joint mission may be on the cards, we might even see two missions with America and China each leading a rival consortium of nations.

[ShadoWarrior]

Afraid so.'Fraid not.

They're nearly falling apart. There's only so many times they can be refurbished and the parts replaced. The OVs are in bad shape, leading to disproportionate maintenance costs and safety issues.You live in Bangkok. I live 20 miles from the shuttle launch pads at Kennedy Space Center. My neighbors and I work at KSC. You seem to know things that those of us who actually work on them don't. The orbiters are no more "falling apart" than commercial airliners with similar flight hours and frame stresses are. And commercial airliners fly for decades, thanks to similar maintenance and periodic refurbishments as the shuttles go through. Actually, a better comparison would be military cargo transports.

BTW, look up when the last B-52 rolled off the assembly line.

It takes on average now no less than 3 months to get a shuttle capable of a subsequent launch.That's mostly due to red tape and massively redundant safety checks in the wake of two disasters. The actual work only takes a couple of weeks.

Even NASA stopped defending the STS and sees them as a money pit.They've always been a money pit. It was a bad design from the get-go.

It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo.You should compare apples to apples. Such as cost to LEO of the Delta or Atlas models comparable to the ESA launchers. The STS is not used to haul commercial sats into space, and the ESA has no booster that can lift the loads the shuttle's been lifting. Hell, there is no in-production booster that can. If there was the shuttle would have been retired years ago.

Old age and an expensive cost killed the STS.No. Bad design, a penny-pinching pound-foolish Congress, bad PR by NASA, and bad program management by NASA (leading to two major disasters) killed the STS.

[RN7]

Matt I think Ed Crawley "Flexible Path" would be the way to go for America's space programe, however I think the US civilian space programe would become a bit chaotic if an unregulated commercial sector started taking charge or having a dominant role in it, not that NASA's hitherto management of it could be called anything but chaotic. The Russian and Chinese space programes, and in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.

[Matt Wiser]

Except for a few fanatics over on spacepolitics.com, there's hardly anyone saying that the Commercial Sector should take over all of HSF. What NASA has in mind is the commercial sector taking over the ISS support mission, first with cargo, then crew rotation. They'd rather spend the money buying the service from American companies rather than the Russians. The Russians aren't happy at the prospect, as you'd expect. Congress views the commercial sector as the least of two bad options (they'd rather have NASA handle the mission, but know the money's not there). NASA would have oversight of commercial flights to ISS re: crew safety, and the FAA would be overseeing other aspects of U.S. commercial space flights-whether it's for NASA, another space agency (NASA is in charge of safety for all NASA-sponsored astronauts-the Japanese, ESA, Canadians, etc.), or a space tourism flight. Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

[Webstral]

Not everybody listens to Alex Jones I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL17ST243as
I’m genuinely at a loss as to whether he believes what he’s saying or whether it’s all part of operating within his niche.

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members) and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

Many of my countrymen take issue with the UN. Some of the given reasons represent very reasonable concerns. Some of the given reasons are pure poppycock. Most of the given reasons have various ratios of legitimacy and poppycockedness. I have some issues the UN, but this isn’t the occasion to go into them. As a vehicle for supporting and managing lunar development, the UN is the best available choice for keeping the Moon from becoming either an Antarctica (a scientific preserve virtually bereft of commercial development) or a Wild West (a virtual free-for-all in which the rule of law frequently is observed through its breach). A lunar Antarctica will not deliver the resources humanity very much needs at this juncture in history, while a lunar Wild West will reward the wealthy and aggressive in the short term and probably lead to the militarization of space as the wealthy players attempt to secure by force of arms what the power of law has failed to secure. If the UN is the agency that authorizes a lunar colonial government, then the big investors who will naturally want to manipulate the system to secure advantages for themselves (and themselves only) will have a much bigger task than corrupting the government of some economically supine banana republic. At the same time, there will be an opportunity for every nation to both participate in creating the charter for the lunar colonial government (LCG) and in receiving the benefits thereof. Every nation will have a chance to have a voice in the formulation of the rules for developing lunar resources. Equal access to lunar resources through the LCG will enable all nations with corporations capable of assembling capital to participate in an orderly lunar gold rush. Nations incapable of participating directly in development of the resources nevertheless will benefit from disbursement of tax revenues and participation in the charter-building and monitoring process. Truculent nations (though wishing to impede the process for a variety of reasons) can be managed by parliamentary procedure. Nations engaging in warfare not sanctioned by the UN, genocide, or crimes against humanity would lose their access to disbursements from the taxation of lunar enterprises.

[ShadoWarrior]

in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning. The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

[Fusilier]

'Fraid not.

Then I guess we won't be agreeing, that's all.

[Webstral]

...NASA seems to have been punished for bad management and the squandering its resources by the politicians and bureaucracy that runs it, at the expense of its highly capable scientists, engineers and astronauts.

Well said. The Apollo program did its job so well that the political support for Apollo withered on the vine. Ever since then, NASA has been run by bureaucrats, not scientists and engineers.

It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nation’s commercial interests in space are “protected” against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

[Matt Wiser]

An armed presence in space is inevitable. Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that? Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.

[Webstral]

An armed presence in space is inevitable.

Space already has been militarized, though I can't comment on the degree to which it has been weaponized. I'm not debating whether there will be an armed presence in space, Matt. You know I'm no peacenik or flower child. But degree matters.

Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that? Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.

The context is different. A tax on international airline flights is a tax on existing operations that are being taxed by national governments already. No one likes new taxes. This is why it's so important to get the legal framework in place before resource exploitation begins. A treaty signed by the various member states is a must. I won't pretend it will be easy--just vital.

And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever.

Goodness knows these sorts of extreme statements are fun to write. However, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. To say that getting international cooperation on such a matter will be a gargantuan task would be reasonable. National soverignty is, after all, the reason Americans tend to give for hating the UN. To say it can never happen is an example of cocksuredness which is rather unlike you, Matt.

[Targan]

And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever.

That's a big assumption. I personally am not opposed to the UN having taxation authority. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't give them carte blanche but I don't write off the idea out of hand.

I think European nations might be willing to consider it, for instance. After all they've already subsumed some of their national sovereignty by joining the EU.

I tend to be wary of making such sweeping statements (not saying I don't occasionally make them though :D).

[Matt Wiser]

I'm not saying that there won't be UN involvement in space, but any new treaty-especially one that sets up some kind of taxation on lunar (or asteroid) resources to fund UN operations, is something that doesn't seem realistic. Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.

You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century. The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others. The UN could serve as a forum for such disputes (and there already is a UN Outer Space Treaty, signed back in '67), where these can be (hopefully) resolved amicably. But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.

[Legbreaker]

Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.

[Targan]

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

[Webstral]

Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.

This is why it’s important to have a colonial government in place for Luna from the start.

You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century.

This is exactly what we need to prevent. I think the danger of this sort of thing is so immediate and so great that we need to take active steps to prevent it. The trick is to convince all of the major players that taking steps to prevent the Moon from becoming the latest Africa is really in everybody’s best interests. I’m aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.

The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others.

And there is the opportunity. In this day and age capital is too mobile to be tied to national sovereignty. The rise of China and the Cayman Islands should illustrate very well indeed that the investors with the kind of money needed to develop Luna won’t be paying taxes in an industrialized nation. The corporate headquarters will all go someplace where the local government can be bribed into accepting rock bottom rates. The US, Europe, Japan, Russia—they’ll all get next to nothing either because the monied interests have removed themselves or have struck extortionate deals to stay in-country. If lunar developers pay into a common till, everybody gets something rather than almost everybody getting nothing. Again, the trick is to convince all of the major players to accept this reality in favor of the version of reality being peddled by the respective PACs.

But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.

All too true. Given that the burden of free will still rests with us, I’ll choose to have the fighting be between a space constabulary and outlaws over an international space war or intercorporate space war any day. Space weapons will be astronomically expensive for everyone. The fewer there are, the less money wasted. Corporations shouldn’t want to spend money on space weapons unless they manufacture them for others. Nations shouldn’t want to spend money on them because lawyers are cheaper than astronauts (although not by much), and in any event the companies whose interests said nations will be fighting to protect will be fighting to avoid paying taxes to fund the weapons. Right now… at the beginning… before large-scale investments have been made… before a de facto arrangement supersedes all our better ideas… is the time to create a legal framework that benefits everybody by encouraging development and peaceful competition for the resources and the markets. Right now, there are no sovereignty issues for the Moon. Therefore, no government has any business getting its panties in a bunch over taxation of resources extracted from sources not owned or controlled by that government. Now if the US or Botswana want to tax light helium or platinum entering their sovereign territory, that’s up to the US or Botswana. However, as it stands the US and Botswana have no legal claim on resources in or under the lunar regolith. Those resources belong to humanity, and it is to humanity that remittances must be made. Of course, the aforegoing is nothing more than idealist claptrap once a few billion private dollars get involved. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, now is the time to sort out a legal framework that will benefit everybody and obviate the need for an expensive militarization of space and the kind ruinous competition that make reading about the Wild West and the colonization of Africa so diverting.

[Legbreaker]

This is exactly what we need to prevent. I think the danger of this sort of thing is so immediate and so great that we need to take active steps to prevent it. The trick is to convince all of the major players that taking steps to prevent the Moon from becoming the latest Africa is really in everybody’s best interests. I’m aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.
There is a precedent - Antarctica.

[Webstral]

Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.
Have faith in capitalism. It's all a matter of cost-benefit ratios. Investors will find $25 billion to invest if they are convinced they can make $100 billion. If you’re interested, I can recommend some reading that lays out the numbers. Once tokamak fusion can be made to be profitable, the energy values of light helium will blow the lid off conventional thinking.
I agree, though, that the advances in technology will be quite profitable. Look at what the world got out of Apollo.

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

That’s a good example of preventing a mad race for resources. I’m glad you re-introduced it to the dialogue. Our challenge is to move beyond creating a scientific preserve and towards development of the resources.

[pmulcahy11b]

An armed presence in space is inevitable.

I forgot who it was, but an SF author once said that when mankind is able to reach the stars and joins the interstellar community, our biggest export to other planets will be mercenaries -- so great is the human capacity and willingness to fight.

[pmulcahy11b]

On a different but related track, a recent PCWorld report says that Internet speeds to Earth are only about the same as dial-up speeds here on Earth. That's something they're working on to speed up; It will be essential before you can have a large civilian presence in Earth orbit. The problem is that the ISS is moving, the Earth is moving, and the ISS constantly has to change tracking stations while it orbits. Those tracking stations weren't designed for Internet traffic.

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

A Canadian astronaut has already tried to play Warcraft from the ISS on his day off and found out the slow internet connection stopped him from effectively doing that.

[Targan]

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

Once again, the technology needs to catch up with the theory. Quantum entanglement theory shows that it is possible to create linked particles. I believe these are the key to FTL communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[pmulcahy11b]

Once again, the technology needs to catch up with the theory. Quantum entanglement theory shows that it is possible to create linked particles. I believe these are the key to FTL communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

That's a long way in the future, though it might be one of the keys to FTL travel as well. Michio Kaku believes that FTL travel may be as little as 200 years away, and will probably be based on time-space warping. Stephen Hawkins does not agree with the timeline (he thinks it's much further off), but agrees that FTL travel will be based on time-space warping.

[RN7]

Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

America has one significant advantage over all its competitors in space with the possible exception of Russia. This would be the size and technological capability of its commercial aerospace and space industry, which to an extent is a legacy of the Cold War and the Military-Industrial Complex. A similar and more politicaly controlled space industry exists in Russia, but if you think America is having a hard time financing its space projects on its own just imagine how hard it is for Russia. Although other countries have space programes, they are to a varying degree politicaly controlled and funded.

[RN7]

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning.

When I stated USAF control would lead to a more ordered civil space programe, I meant it would lead to less showmanship and less bureaucracy and more sense. Also the USAF is a bit more multi-dimensional than NASA in regard to not just having to focus on orbital and space related activities. Is there a comparable air force which does a better job than the USAF?

The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

Which SSTO projects are you refering to?

The Rockwell X-30 was cancelled in 1993 because NASA couldn't design it to cary a crew and a small payload with the US DOD wanted, which I think was quite a reasonable request.

The Lockheed-Martin X-33 was cancelled in 2001 after a long series of technical difficulties and after NASA had invested $922 million and Lockheed Martin another $357 million, which in turn led to the cancellation of Venture Star, as X-33 was a subscale technological demonstrater for the Venture Star project.

Then there is Blackstar which nobody seems to know much about other than claiming it doesn't exist, and its not a NASA project.

[RN7]

I’m genuinely at a loss as to whether he believes what he’s saying or whether it’s all part of operating within his niche.



Many of my countrymen take issue with the UN. Some of the given reasons represent very reasonable concerns. Some of the given reasons are pure poppycock. Most of the given reasons have various ratios of legitimacy and poppycockedness. I have some issues the UN, but this isn’t the occasion to go into them. As a vehicle for supporting and managing lunar development, the UN is the best available choice for keeping the Moon from becoming either an Antarctica (a scientific preserve virtually bereft of commercial development) or a Wild West (a virtual free-for-all in which the rule of law frequently is observed through its breach). A lunar Antarctica will not deliver the resources humanity very much needs at this juncture in history, while a lunar Wild West will reward the wealthy and aggressive in the short term and probably lead to the militarization of space as the wealthy players attempt to secure by force of arms what the power of law has failed to secure. If the UN is the agency that authorizes a lunar colonial government, then the big investors who will naturally want to manipulate the system to secure advantages for themselves (and themselves only) will have a much bigger task than corrupting the government of some economically supine banana republic. At the same time, there will be an opportunity for every nation to both participate in creating the charter for the lunar colonial government (LCG) and in receiving the benefits thereof. Every nation will have a chance to have a voice in the formulation of the rules for developing lunar resources. Equal access to lunar resources through the LCG will enable all nations with corporations capable of assembling capital to participate in an orderly lunar gold rush. Nations incapable of participating directly in development of the resources nevertheless will benefit from disbursement of tax revenues and participation in the charter-building and monitoring process. Truculent nations (though wishing to impede the process for a variety of reasons) can be managed by parliamentary procedure. Nations engaging in warfare not sanctioned by the UN, genocide, or crimes against humanity would lose their access to disbursements from the taxation of lunar enterprises.

The Antarctic model would seem the best way for any future colonisation of the Moon and other heavenly objects, but if private industry gets involved expect trouble.

[RN7]

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nation’s commercial interests in space are “protected” against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

Most if not all countries would consider any facility, colony or instalation in orbit or beyond to be their own soveriegn territory, and are likely to be overtly hostile to any other country or organisation attempting to enter, inspect or take control of it. A commercial facility owned by a large corporation might be a grey area, but if their using the resources or infrastructure of a host country to maintain it then their likely to be considered some countries property. Unfortunately people and countries are territorial, even on Antarctica, and they will retain the right to defend themselves if they think they are being threatened or potentially under some prospect of threat, and the militarisation of space is an inevitability.

[RN7]

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

I think were moving a bit beyond ourselves here, maybe in the next century and I'll be happy discuss it with you all then ;)

[Matt Wiser]

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Asian_national_space_programs

And as for commercial exploitation, there's definitely the belief that there is some very big money to be made, considering the notions put forward in the following article, it's simply a matter for them of creating the technology to exploit the universe.
http://www.physorg.com/news183044315.html

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[pmulcahy11b]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

[Matt Wiser]

The ChiComs have only flown two HSF missions so far, and though some say they're getting ready for a Salyut clone of a space station, they're on a very slow path at present. Want to move up lunar return with people? Confirmation of a Chinese lunar landing program, and that will get Congress on NASA's rear end, because there are members on both sides of the aisle who feel that "NASA was first there, and NASA should be first back."

The people on Spacepolitics.com are fanatical, no doubt about that. A lot of them have the "my way or the highway" mentality.

[Raellus]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

Firefly fan?

[Matt Wiser]

No hard evidence so far of a ChiCom lunar program at present (No heavy-lift vehicle, no lunar lander or surface systems under development, etc.). However, the Chinese have said that they do want to attempt a lunar landing sometime in the 2020s. Want to kick-start NASA into returning to the moon sooner than they currently plan (late 2020s, minimum)? Confirmation of a ChiCom lunar mission in the planning stage. Watch Congress go ape, and direct NASA to "beat the Chinese".

[waiting4something]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

You mean the first man on the moon?;)

[Webstral]

The Antarctic model would seem the best way for any future colonisation of the Moon and other heavenly objects, but if private industry gets involved expect trouble.

Agreed. However, capital brings to the table some things that development of the new frontier needs. The trick will be to create a framework in which the constructive power of capital can be given harnessed and the destructive power of capital managed. No easy task, I know.

…and the militarisation of space is an inevitability.

I don’t believe I have yet disagreed with the prospect of militarization. As I wrote to Matt, I’m neither a peacenik nor a flower child. I also don’t see things in black-and-white. What matters is degree and climate. There is a lot of room between demilitarization and an arms race. Getting back to my spectrum analogy, I think we’ll all be better off by pushing for a level of militarization that is as minimalist as possible.

Most if not all countries would consider any facility, colony or instalation in orbit or beyond to be their own soveriegn territory, and are likely to be overtly hostile to any other country or organisation attempting to enter, inspect or take control of it. A commercial facility owned by a large corporation might be a grey area, but if their using the resources or infrastructure of a host country to maintain it then their likely to be considered some countries property.

Here nuance matters. A US carrier is four acres of US territory. But every little speck of an island belongs to someone, regardless of who is actually standing on it at the moment. A facility in orbit is like a ship at sea. A facility on the Moon is like a base on dry land. If a legitimate colonial government is established ahead of time, then there is effectively no difference between an Italian company building a factory in Eretria. The Italians may legally own the piece of land, but the host nation exercises sovereignty over that land. The same logic applies to the Moon. At the risk of repeating myself until the whole board is tired of reading it, the key is to get the global community to sign on before anyone has vested interests. Once a treaty has been put into place that establishes the charter for the lunar colonial government, the other pieces will fall into place much more easily.

The people on Spacepolitics.com are fanatical, no doubt about that. A lot of them have the "my way or the highway" mentality… For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

That explains the unusual tone in your writing. You’ve been conversing with zealots. I experience the same phenomenon when I engage elsewhere. I’ll have to go see for myself.

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

I very honestly hope so. Math and science teachers will be set until I retire. Also, it will be very entertaining to see the tax-me-not crowd and the flag-waving-patriot crowd, who are customarily in bed together, find a way to make peace with each other after the Chinese landing.

[pmulcahy11b]

Firefly fan?

Yes, but I don't get the reference...I must have missed something.

[Targan]

Yes, but I don't get the reference...I must have missed something.

I think Raellus is referring to the fact that in the Firefly universe the two dominant cultures are American and Chinese. According to Joss Whedon's backstory that was because when humans left the Sol system in slower-than-light generation ships and settled the system that Firefly takes place in, the governments of the USA and China had merged to form a single world government as it was the only way to take on such a massive undertaking. And that's why when characters in Firefly swear they swear in Mandarin or Cantonese.

[copeab]

And, of course, NASA would be having these problem when we may be about to enter a period conducive to space exploration:

http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=625683&vId=

[RN7]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

I'd say China would love to put the next human being on the Moon, and the first on Mars. But if China realy starts getting serious about doing this then expect a major reaction from America and possibly even Russia.

[RN7]

The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens?

Well I think these countries will push ahead with their own space programes, but in regards to manned space programes and putting people on other planets America and Russia have a significant advantage over all others in experience and technology. Despite China's recent Shenzhou manned orbital mission, its manned space programmes has a very long way to go to even match the US and Russia long term life support, orbital habitats and heavy lift rocket launchers, which would be essential for manned missions to the Moon and beyond.

[Matt Wiser]

I'd say China would love to put the next human being on the Moon, and the first on Mars. But if China realy starts getting serious about doing this then expect a major reaction from America and possibly even Russia.

Concur: all that it would take for Mr. Obama's NEO (Near Earth Object) mission to be swapped for a renewed lunar landing program would be confirmation of a Chinese lunar mission in development. The howls of anger from Congress would be very loud, and difficult for the Administration to dismiss.

[RN7]

Do the Aurora and Blackstar aircraft/spacecraft exist?

Aurora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Aurora

http://hubpages.com/hub/War-Weapon-Aurora-Spy-Plane
http://aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm
http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/aircraft/black/aurora/aurora2.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5079044.stm
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/aurora.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jun/24/freedomofinformation.usnews
http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/aurora.shtml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/aurora.htm
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/06/sr-91-aurora-aircraft.html

Blackstar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spacecraft)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/030606p1.xml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11691989/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/24/blackstar/
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/blackstar.htm
http://robotpig.net/__aerospace/tsto.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590674/posts
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Blackstar_Spaceplane.html

[Nowhere Man 1966]

We’ve done a really terrible job of selling the American public on the commercial opportunities of space flight. The shuttle is not a great program in terms of advancing space exploration, though certainly putting someone in space on a regular basis is much better than putting no one in space. NASA and the executive leadership need to acknowledge that private investment is going to be the driving force behind the development of the infrastructure for the purpose of exploiting space resources—i.e., for the purpose of making money. Scientific advancements can piggyback on the commercial infrastructure that capital will pay to create.

Two major sources of lunar wealth are light helium (He-3) and platinum. Given that tokamak fusion seems to be stuck near the break-even point, it’s hard to say when hot fusion will become profitable. However, having a reliable non-polluting fuel source like light helium available will definitely be an incentive to invest in getting the technology to the point at which commercial investors will be willing to take over. Lunar platinum can be the engine that drives the development of an infrastructure for mining on the Moon and returning product to Earth. The continuing need for platinum in fuel cells, combined with the growing affluence of Asian nations, the love for and need for automobiles in modern economies and lifestyles, and the energy picture of the future all point to a need for more platinum than is known to exist in the Earth’s crust. Astonishing as it may seem, it may very well be possible to mine platinum on Luna and return it to Earth profitably in the near future (Wingo, 2004). Of course, if fuel cells get sidelined by battery technology for automobiles, or if a cheap alternative to platinum in fuel cells is discovered, the financial logic for developing the lunar mining infrastructure disappears. Until something changes, though, the future demand for platinum appears to exceed Earth’s known supply by a considerable margin.

Although Luna has not been surveyed for platinum, there is good reason to suppose it exists there in some abundance. While Luna is deficient in heavy metals [relative to Earth] due to the circumstances of its creation (The StarChild Team, 2001), platinum in the crust of Earth and Luna comes from meteorites. All recoverable platinum on Earth is associated with impact craters. A bit of math suffices to give some idea of how much platinum we might expect to find on the surface of the Moon (Wingo, 2001).

Of course, the legal infrastructure for extracting resources from Luna is insufficient. A number of ideas to establish a proper legal framework have been proposed by better minds than mine. I’ve synthesized my favorites into a legal framework that (hopefully) allows for profitable exploitation of lunar resources and the sharing of the benefits of these resources with the owners of space resources: humankind as a whole. Luna needs to have a colonial government established, complete with a charter, governor-general, and so forth. The lunar colonial government, answering to the UN, then issues permits for resource extraction. The colonial government assesses fees and taxes for use of the lunar surface. The fees are used to create additional infrastructure to support ongoing and expanding operations. The taxes then go into a UN fund for distribution among the nation-states of Earth, with some taxes being retained to cover the costs of operating the lunar colonial government on Earth and, ultimately, on Luna herself. Distribution should be bicameral, so to speak. Every nation in the UN receives a uniform disbursement for being a sovereign state in the United Nations. Another portion of the taxes are divided into mills or millionths and awarded based on population. Thus small nations get a guaranteed minimum part of the proceeds, while very populous nations receive proceeds that reflect the greater share of ownership of the common resources of mankind. The corporations that fund such an operation receive no benefit whatsoever from relocating their headquarters to the Cayman Islands because taxes are paid to the lunar colonial government (the UN) regardless of which nation hosts the corporate headquarters or any portion of its administration. As an additional bonus, nations that are found to be out of compliance with human rights, democratic institutions and whatnot can have their part of the proceeds held until appropriate changes are made. Obviously, some sort of procedural safeguards will have to be put into place to minimize abuse.

Once a thriving lunar platinum business has been established, whole new vistas open up. Light helium extraction can exploit the existing infrastructure as soon as tokamak fusion appears profitable. With a permanent base on the Moon sustained by fees and taxes from resource extraction, the scientific community can conduct lunar research at a whole new level by leasing space at private or colonial government facilities (to the degree that these facilities are separate) on an as-needed basis. It’s all very exciting. Right now, though, we’re moving in the wrong direction. We’re treating the Moon as a sort of vacuum-packaged Antarctica suitable only for scientific uses paid for by government agencies. As long as we continue to go down this path, the Moon’s resources and its potential for generating fabulous wealth will go unrealized.



The StarChild Team. (2001). StarChild question of the month for
October, 2001. Retrieved from:
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html.

Wingo, Dennis. (2004). Moonrush: Improving life on Earth with the Moon’s
resources. USA: Collector’s Guide Publishing, Inc.

Exactly, we need to unleash the forces of free market capitalism to access what is on the Moon and bring it to Earth. I do like the private space incentives like Space-X and what Richard Branson is trying to do.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

The Shuttle was originally supposed to be replaced in the early 2000s by a new design. I remember Reagan talking about it -- he called it the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). At least he funded NASA. Every president and congress since after Reagan, as well as Carter, Nixon, and Ford, has shorted NASA in the budget. That's why we don't have any successor for the Shuttle now, and why the Shuttle isn't the design it was supposed to be. It's why the Apollo program got cut off suddenly after Apollo 17, instead of going to Apollo 21 like it was supposed to. It's why we have no permanent presence on the Moon.

BTW, I think there is a writeup of the NASP or one like it in the Dark Conspiracy rules. I was talking to my cousin down on the Space Coast, my uncle Bob worked for NASA from the Mercury days until 2002. I think in some ways the Shuttle was a wrong turn, we should have kept up with Apollo, heck, the replacement for the shuttle for manned flight looks a bit like an updated Apollo. We wasted 30 years. In some ways, the space race was a draw, we won the race to the Moon, but the Russians won in the space station department where long term space flight was simulated.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I think Dr Michio Kaku is right -- if we want to survive as a species, we have to get off this planet. Expand our civilization into space. It's only way we're going to avoid running out of living room and resources, and history has shown that civilizations that stagnate die.

Agreed. I always had the pet theory that once a civilization discovers atomic power and/or something similar in power, the race to space has begun where the civilization makes it there or it stagnates and dies, or at least whimpers out into a dark age for a long time.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Yes, you are right - that wasn't very correct of me. What I was still trying to say though is that they're pushing their life expectancy.

The costs of upgrades just for safety measures alone over the years have arguably made it not worthwhile or financially proportional at all to continue with the decades old craft. A replacement has been needed for a while. Talk to retire/replace began in the 90s... almost 20 years ago.



Agree 100%. Only through international cooperation will I think that has a chance though. The resources needed are enormous and the government's focus always seems to elsewhere.

To illustrate that, the entire NASA budget is averages out to be only around 3% of the US military budget. And science often takes a backseat whenever it comes time to chopping costs. For example, when the government first cancelled the SETI program's budget, the cost of maintaining the program was that of a single attack helicopter - yet it was cancelled.

My cousin told me that NASA budget was similar in size to what it takes to buy and use air conditioning for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I forgot who it was, but an SF author once said that when mankind is able to reach the stars and joins the interstellar community, our biggest export to other planets will be mercenaries -- so great is the human capacity and willingness to fight.

IIRC, one of the Ferengi on DS9, Nok I think, said that if we get really riled up, "humans can have the rage of a Klingon."

[Nowhere Man 1966]

On a different but related track, a recent PCWorld report says that Internet speeds to Earth are only about the same as dial-up speeds here on Earth. That's something they're working on to speed up; It will be essential before you can have a large civilian presence in Earth orbit. The problem is that the ISS is moving, the Earth is moving, and the ISS constantly has to change tracking stations while it orbits. Those tracking stations weren't designed for Internet traffic.

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

A Canadian astronaut has already tried to play Warcraft from the ISS on his day off and found out the slow internet connection stopped him from effectively doing that.

You also have to compensate for the Doppler effect too, which I'm sure would affect internet speeds. As the space station approached you, their radio would be slightly higher in frequency and as they retreat, it goes lower in frequency, you have to compensate for that, either by manually tuning or some sort of automatic frequency control like mane FM radios have. Maybe if you had a wider bandwidth to your signal, you might get a higher speed, I don't know.

I think in a hypothetical situation, a person on Mars cannot play a real time game with someone on Earth, even Earth to Moon would be tough. You might have to have a duplicate server systems on Mars for things like Wikipedia and so on that are updated between the Earth and Mars every night or two, much like the old Fidonet system. So you would need a mirror system on Mars and one on Earth and they would keep on synchronizing as they update.

For Earth to Moon, you might not be able to game in real time but you should be able to surf with a second delay or so. At least you can still surf for porn. :D

[pmulcahy11b]

BTW, I think there is a writeup of the NASP or one like it in the Dark Conspiracy rules. I was talking to my cousin down on the Space Coast, my uncle Bob worked for NASA from the Mercury days until 2002. I think in some ways the Shuttle was a wrong turn, we should have kept up with Apollo, heck, the replacement for the shuttle for manned flight looks a bit like an updated Apollo. We wasted 30 years. In some ways, the space race was a draw, we won the race to the Moon, but the Russians won in the space station department where long term space flight was simulated.

A lot of people at NASA and in the Air Force and Navy were pissed or sick when Kennedy made his challenge about going to the Moon by 1969. It wasn't anyone's plan in the US. The idea was to fly higher and faster until we had functioning spaceplanes -- originally, NASA didn't plan for a moon shot to happen until the late-1970s to early-1980s, when all the ground and orbital support structure would be in place. (These were the plans that Arthur C Clarke based his world of 2001 on.)

[Webstral]

The idea was to fly higher and faster until we had functioning spaceplanes -- originally, NASA didn't plan for a moon shot to happen until the late-1970s to early-1980s, when all the ground and orbital support structure would be in place. (These were the plans that Arthur C Clarke based his world of 2001 on.)

Now that's interesting. Yet another example of how politics can trump other considerations. One wonders how things might have evolved if this plan had unfolded as intended. We'd still be up against the question of why we'd be going back to the Moon again and again, but at least each individual trip would be less expensive with an established and reusable infrastructure in place.

[ShadoWarrior]

To be more accurate, it was Von Braun that pushed for ever-larger rockets. His personal ambition from before the start of WW2 was a very large rocket to the moon. It was the USAF that favored the idea of spaceplanes in the late 50s and early 60s. But when Kennedy set the goal, the USAF said they couldn't do it in the time frame allowed. Von Braun said he could, and so NASA went with rockets. If it hadn't been for Von Braun's influence, NASA probably would have continued developing rocket planes, successors to the X-15.

[Matt Wiser]

Here's my thoughts on this subject, and apologies in advance if they seem longwinded.

First off, Shuttle's the only HSF program I know-though my earliest memory of seeing a launch on TV was the Apollo-Soyuz mission back in '75. So when Atlantis launched, it was bittersweet, and I felt somewhat angry, because we don't have a system ready to go in 2-3 years. I blame the previous administration for starting the Constellation program and not funding it at the level NASA leadership wanted (it was underfunded by a third). If NASA leadership had their way, Ares I and Orion would have their first crewed flight two years from now, under the initial program outline. But delays with Ares I meant that it consumed money needed for Ares V (Heavy-Lift) and Altair (the lunar lander). If you're going to start a program, fund it sufficiently so that it is able to achieve its goal. Then I blame the current administration for not only continuing to underfund Constellation, but then killing it instead of finding the funds to get it back on track. (if we're spending a Billion dollars a day on the Afghan War, we can find the money to fund a first-class HSF program). And I blame the Administration for starting a program in Constellation's place with no defined mission goals, destinations, or deadlines; just a "flexible path" with only vague promises of an NEO mission by 2025 and Mars orbit by 2035. Nothing firm in between or in advance of the NEO mission.

I noted on nasawatch.com a piece back when the initial decision to cancel Constellation in Feb of last year was announced. Within 24 Hours, there were "Save Constellation" web sites, online petitions, Facebook page, youtube video, and so on. The site's author could understand: he worked on the original Space Station Freedom program back in the '80s, before it was morphed into ISS. When the decision to do so was announced, he and his coworkers were angry. A program that they had put their heart and soul into, with nights, weekends, time away from families, etc., was being taken away-unfairly, they felt. They wanted to fight back, but couldn't (no internet then, just a letter-writing campaign that went nowhere). So 95% of their work was boxed up and put into NASA archives, only to be seen by engineers, historians, and grad students. But maybe 5% of their work did make it on orbit, along with something else: the soul of the program. So when they see ISS, they see their goal: a space station manned 24/7/365, with Americans operating it, maintaining it, and controlling it from Houston. Not a U.S.-only project as Freedom was, but, in a way, they got what they wanted.

So, those of us who supported Constellation (like me), and those who were privliged enough to work on it, tried to fight back. We had some Congressional support, and fought the good fight. But, As CDR William Adama said, "This war is over. We lost." Orion survives as the new crew vehicle, the J-2X engine will likely be in the HLV, as will the 5-segment SRBs as Ares V intended, but the sprit of the program will go on. So, as NASA prepares to announce in a few weeks their heavy-lift vehicle that will send astronauts BEO, and in a few years, when that vehicle flies its first human mission to a BEO destination, we can look at it and say, "It's not quite what we wanted, but NASA is flying astronauts BEO. Not yet a lunar program, but that'll come in time." So when NASA does return to the lunar surface, hopefully in 2029 on Apollo 11's 60th Anniversary, then we can watch CNN or the NASA Channel and finally say "We did it. We got what Constellation originally set out to do: return to the lunar surface. And Gene Cernan is no longer the last man on the Moon. And maybe the first woman is stepping out. Now, let's get the hard work done on the Moon so that we can get ready for the big one: Mars."

Again, sorry if it's longwinded, but had to get that off my chest.

[pmulcahy11b]

Shado Warrior -- About your sig: I like the variation a teacher (!) taught me in high school: "Those who beat their plowshares into swords will have someone with a sword grab their plowshares and use them to beat the former plowshare user."

[pmulcahy11b]

My memories of the manned space program go back to Gemini 12, and there was one US manned drought before -- between Skylab and the first shuttle flight, when only Apollo-Soyuz flew in a six-year period. That gives me some hope for the future.

[Matt Wiser]

Not counting the stand-downs post-Challenger and post-Columbia, of course. At least we knew that the program would resume in time. As for Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz, well, they knew that Shuttle was coming along. Now, we still don't have firm details on when we'll be flying, or where, other than the vague promises I mentioned above.