No more American manned spaceflights

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by RN7

…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.

Originally Posted by RN7

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.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

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.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Firefly fan?

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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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/articl...id=625683&vId=

[RN7]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by RN7

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/...ra/aurora2.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/5079044.stm
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/aurora.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rmation.usnews
http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/aurora.shtml
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/aurora.htm
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/...-aircraft.html

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

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/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_...paceplane.html

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[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.