It's a 16 year project, 31 launches, 88 billion dollar project that will establish a permanent presence in space. It will enable routine access to cis-lunar space without having to launch from the deep gravity well of Earth. This will make future missions much more affordable. Here's a way of thinking of it: it is an interstate highway system to the solar system. It is an infrastructure project in space.
People may recoil at the cost, but remember that it is for a 16 year project. Money will have to be found of course. It may well to remember that the ISS takes up about 3 billion a year, if I am not mistaken. That is about halfway there, but you will have to wait until 2020 to start. That's the year that the ISS program is scheduled to end.
It came to my attention that the shuttle derived system takes up 2 billion a year even if there are no launches. Not only that, but it will take some redesign work to make it off the launch pad. This entails further costs.
Now, what if we used the shuttle derived system to launch those ET's and terminate this system from that point on? You would need only 6 launches ( or less) to put up the tanks. Subsequent missions can be accomplished without this launcher. It can then be retired and the 2 billion can be saved. By the end of the decade, you will have your 5 billion a year and you can start to work on the Moon base.
Well, you don't quite have enough money yet, but if you stretch the program out a few more years, then that will bring it into line.
The ET's can be your deep space platform to go to Mars. It can be refurbed over a long term period that will give you plenty of time to be ready when the Moonbase is operational. When the Moonbase is operational, you will begin work on your Mars and deep space capabilities. This time frame will be around 2040. This is about the time frame the Augustine commission was setting for a Mars mission. So, you are still on schedule.
The ET's will provide plenty of shielding and living space for the crew for its 2 year mission to Mars. It can be spun up in order provide Martian artificial g, so that the crew won't have to recover from weightlessness when they get back from their mission. The spaciousness of the ET's will give the crew plenty of room to operate in.
I'm sure that that will be a welcome addition as opposed to be cramped up in tight spaces for 2 years.
One other thought occurred to me. If the ISS is to end in 2020, why not try to recycle those components along with the ET's? It seems a waste to send the ISS to a fiery death into a reentry in the Earth's atmosphere. With all the room on the ET's, the space station just might fit inside. It will cost money to deorbit the ISS. Why not use that money to recycle it instead?
Update:
I just now recalled that NASA is spending a lot of money to study global warming. That needs to stop. But I am sure that these people will fight that, so here is what I propose in its place. Set up this Moonbase and Deep Space Station, and then you will have the capability to transition out of fossil fuels into solar power from space. Instead of wasting money on studies, actually build something of value. If the money spent on global warming studies is transferred out and spent on this, it will free up the money to accelerate this program and bring a real solution to at least one problem: energy. We need energy.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
How the adult world works
This kid just doesn't get it yet. But he will.
Perhaps this authority figure can explain what the adults have been doing lately.
Perhaps this authority figure can explain what the adults have been doing lately.
Paul Spudis
Asks: Can we afford to return to the Moon? Hmm. It all depends. How much will it cost? Will the money be available? If it is at all possible, then I am all for it. Shoot, I'd be for it even if it wasn't feasible. I'd try to find a way to make it feasible.
He also has a full write up in a pdf file. I am reading it now.
Update:
My prose looks like I drank a little too much eggnog. All fixed now. Hic. 'Scuse me.
Update:
An idea occurred to me. Could it be possible to include in this package a way to recycle those ET's and make a space station? It seems that somewhere I read that there wouldn't be a necessity for a fully fueled ET for the two launch mission to the Moon. One launch isn't enough to get all the hardware up there, but two was too much. There was an excess capacity, if I recall. Is there a way to use that excess capacity to save a few of those tanks?
Update:
3/2/11 approx. 4 am, cst
This was a long pause, but it is necessary to update this a bit since I've gone out on the limb on my Facebook page and said getting back to the moon doesn't have to hard and expensive. That was me, who may not be believable, but this guy may be. That would be Rand Simberg who writes the blog Transterrestrial Musings.
I'm going to put this post on the sidebar. Anybody interested in reading the thread through can find a link to Paul Spudis' moonbase concept on Rand's post linked just above.
He also has a full write up in a pdf file. I am reading it now.
Update:
My prose looks like I drank a little too much eggnog. All fixed now. Hic. 'Scuse me.
Update:
An idea occurred to me. Could it be possible to include in this package a way to recycle those ET's and make a space station? It seems that somewhere I read that there wouldn't be a necessity for a fully fueled ET for the two launch mission to the Moon. One launch isn't enough to get all the hardware up there, but two was too much. There was an excess capacity, if I recall. Is there a way to use that excess capacity to save a few of those tanks?
Update:
3/2/11 approx. 4 am, cst
This was a long pause, but it is necessary to update this a bit since I've gone out on the limb on my Facebook page and said getting back to the moon doesn't have to hard and expensive. That was me, who may not be believable, but this guy may be. That would be Rand Simberg who writes the blog Transterrestrial Musings.
I'm going to put this post on the sidebar. Anybody interested in reading the thread through can find a link to Paul Spudis' moonbase concept on Rand's post linked just above.
Rand Simberg is right
When he says that the heavy lifter without a mission is a solution looking for a problem. Here is a problem to be solved: how to establish a permanent presence in space while at the same time enabling economic development of space.
But there are many lifters available and that seems to be one of the problems. What to do with all these? I think this problem is big enough for all of these to have something to do in order to solve the problem mentioned above.
What if nobody thinks of this as a problem though? What if the question is this "Who cares about being in space?" If all we are talking about is competition for a few satellite launches, then certainly, we don't need all these rocket systems.
It seems to me that the above problem is the one that occupies the minds of most people in this business. It's a competition for limited demand. In cases such as that, you need to eliminate the competition so that you can survive. Anyone else that's around is taking business from you and you just can't have that.
So, the problem could be restated. Create new missions so that there are enough to go around. There are plenty of things to do in space. Plenty for everybody. It just takes some people to realize that and to start looking for ways to get it done.
I think one mission is to exploit space for profit. Impossible you say? Why not look into that as a problem to be solved? Why not see if it can be done? If it can't, then why are there in the first place?
Update:
I just went back and checked the comments. If they can do what they claim, then you don't need the shuttle system after all. I don't have a dog in this hunt. It's no skin off my back. Whatever works best, I say. If the shuttle system is water under the bridge, then it is what it is. Whew! More cliches than you can shake a stick at!
But there are many lifters available and that seems to be one of the problems. What to do with all these? I think this problem is big enough for all of these to have something to do in order to solve the problem mentioned above.
What if nobody thinks of this as a problem though? What if the question is this "Who cares about being in space?" If all we are talking about is competition for a few satellite launches, then certainly, we don't need all these rocket systems.
It seems to me that the above problem is the one that occupies the minds of most people in this business. It's a competition for limited demand. In cases such as that, you need to eliminate the competition so that you can survive. Anyone else that's around is taking business from you and you just can't have that.
So, the problem could be restated. Create new missions so that there are enough to go around. There are plenty of things to do in space. Plenty for everybody. It just takes some people to realize that and to start looking for ways to get it done.
I think one mission is to exploit space for profit. Impossible you say? Why not look into that as a problem to be solved? Why not see if it can be done? If it can't, then why are there in the first place?
Update:
I just went back and checked the comments. If they can do what they claim, then you don't need the shuttle system after all. I don't have a dog in this hunt. It's no skin off my back. Whatever works best, I say. If the shuttle system is water under the bridge, then it is what it is. Whew! More cliches than you can shake a stick at!
Monday, December 20, 2010
Krugman has a convenient memory
If one is to believe Krugman, the government needs to restore highly "progressive" income tax rates and spend like a drunken sailor. If only the government did that, all would be well.
Yet the government did do that and there were still recessions and some of them were bad. Anyone who lived through the 70's can remember that was no cakewalk either. By the end of the decade, double digit inflation was occurring in a recession. This was not supposed to have happened but it did. This was how Reagan got elected. Reagan's deep tax cuts and deregulation appears to have brought the economy back. Or did it? What is Krugman's explanation for that?
No, we are to believe that Bush's tax cuts and Clinton's tax increases were the real test cases that should be shown as examples of failed policy v successful policy. But it is not quite so simple as Krugman is trying to make it. You have to look deeper. If a superficial examination is all that is required, then Krugman could appear to be persuasive. It's a nice try, but I am not drinking the Kool Aid that Krugman has been drinking.
Yet the government did do that and there were still recessions and some of them were bad. Anyone who lived through the 70's can remember that was no cakewalk either. By the end of the decade, double digit inflation was occurring in a recession. This was not supposed to have happened but it did. This was how Reagan got elected. Reagan's deep tax cuts and deregulation appears to have brought the economy back. Or did it? What is Krugman's explanation for that?
No, we are to believe that Bush's tax cuts and Clinton's tax increases were the real test cases that should be shown as examples of failed policy v successful policy. But it is not quite so simple as Krugman is trying to make it. You have to look deeper. If a superficial examination is all that is required, then Krugman could appear to be persuasive. It's a nice try, but I am not drinking the Kool Aid that Krugman has been drinking.
Contest cancelled
The proposed promotional contest has been cancelled. Nobody entered and nobody showed any interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)