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]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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?

[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/...uestion38.html.

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

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by 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/...uestion38.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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

For the first time America Astronauts will become Cosmonauts.

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

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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.

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

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.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.