Updated: New NASA and CR Original Proposals

[rrdd...@aol.com]

              Updated: New NASA and Citizen Reporter original Proposals 

                                        by Richard DePersio                                                                                     (groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic, /group/sri-philosophy-chapter) 

        There are members of NASA and of Congress who are proposing

modifying Ares 1/Orion by combining it with a new version of the Space Shuttle. Like the present Space Shuttle the new version would have two solid booster rockets and the large external fuel tank but upgraded with a modest amount of cutting-edge technology(Ares 1:     no tank, no boosters, Orion atop multi-stage Ares 1) Instead of the space plane portion, it would have a cylinder (one stage Ares)) with an Orion spacecraft  on top. The smaller     version Orion would likely carry 3 astronauts instead of 4 as would the Altair Moon Lander      if New Moon Program isn't canceled. The proposal also calls for the Ares 5 Heavy-Lifter or      a version of it to place large propulsion system in earth orbit to take Orion and Mars-Version Altair to visit Mars or an asteroid. The Mars Orion would carry 5 instead of 6 as originally planned. The 3-man version could dock with Space Station.Both crafts would be about one-third smaller then originally planned but one-third larger then Apollo and LM.   

We at CR believe that this would be acceptable to us Ares 1 and 5 proponents. There is a major drawback though - there always is: It won't be operational for 4 to 6. Again, we

insist that present Shuttle with improvements being made while still operational. Each            of which, in present form, have been certified flight-capable for over  75 more flights 

apiece be extended for  4 years. Alternative: Humiliation; NASA grounded for 4 years

or more. We would be dependent on Russia (who we beat in the Moon Race) and/or

China (our Banker) to talk us to our Space Station - we paid bulk of the cost - on their

schedule - - to add insult to injury, Russia has already made it clear that they are going to

charge us an astronomical price tag! Obama doesn't care about U.S. embarrassment

and is hell-bent on laying off Shuttle, Orion, Ares and Altair workers. Subsidizing is   socialistic. Obama is subsidizing more and more, including, SpaceX's Falcon 9. Don't subsidize and don't pay Russia - use money for extending the life of the Space Shuttle.

We stated previously that we were willing to forgo Moon Base due to price tag and offered

original proposals. Three moon missions each lasting 5 to 7 weeks visiting lunar arctic

and antarctic; 4 to 7 follow-up missions if justified by the 3 missions. One of the reasons,

President Bush wanted Americans to return to the moon (2020) was to test components,

equipment, experiments and procedures (as well as, tests on the ground, in earth orbit,

en route to moon) for a Mars mission in 2035. We can still do that and without a base.

We can do it during 3 or more moon missions. Hopefully, lunar mining will be encouraged

by what's learned during those missions. We shouldn't muck-up a pristine area for mining

(this is for the sake of environmental wackos, of course, they'll demand no mining). Joint

Project: NASA and Private Sector beginning in 2025 (if missions between 2020-2023 justify

it), geologists, metallurgists, surveyors and support teams explore an area scientifically and

for the purpose of determining if it is a potentially economically viable area for mining. The

private sector takes it from there, including, full costs. They will construct mining camps.

Additional Proposal: We might do the above plus built a small NASA Base if practical to     use moon water for service module  portion of Orion and Transfer system (rocket engine       or, if you prefer, propulsion system): water for drinking,  splitting water

for oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for nuclear thermal rocket engine (propulsion     system; present  plan uses less-efficient, no cutting-edge technology, more costly, smaller thrust and longer timespan to get to Mars and back chemical propulsion). Launching Orion with it's service module and propulsion system from lunar orbit and lifting water from moon to

moon orbit would be a lot cheaper then launching from earth's stronger gravitational field.     We            propose that The Heavy-Lifter might  be smaller (save money)  to bring transfer module  with just enough hydrogen  to lunar orbit  where the Orion Command and Service Modules is already in lunar orbit. Altair and unmanned crafts can bring water to service module and transfer module    from lunar surface - cheaper then lifting it from earth's surface.

The transfer module can use Ares 5 or smaller, less powerful version (upgraded Ares 1) for Moon and Mars missions or just Mars missions. and 2 boosters and tank for missions to   and from Space Station - Ares 1/Orion/Shuttle combo discussed at genesis of article.

We also proposed a mini-Orion or/and a declassified operational-version of AF X-37B -       both of which would be easier to move and maneuver from the ground then as regular   satellite - using heavy-lifter or smaller-version to park it near our GPSs to temporarily move them if they became a target during a war or replace them when necessary as a backup.

Or, Obama Plan to place "NASA in a Casket," give SpaceX unrealistic timetable and make Russia a super-power again! (Russia orders Obama to shrink Bush Missile Shield, Obama obeys, Russia announces that it has unstoppable missile; Russia declares that it has     fighter jet as good as our best fighter - the F-22, Obama orders production to stop on F-22s).     Contact members of Congress. Just say "NO" to Obama's "NASA in a CASKET!!!

[Al Globus]

I think you've got the problem all wrong.  The problem is that Congress isn't particularly good at designing rockets.  They are good at funneling money to their districts, which is what all these designs are about.

My personal prediction: NASA will never again build a launcher that actually gets anything into orbit.  This is a good thing.  This activity should be undertaken by the private sector and NASA should simply buy launches, and perhaps subsidize development as necessary.  There's plenty of high-end, high-tech space problems for NASA to work on that the private sector isn't ready to touch; and NASA is good at them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to win wars: take on your opponents one at a time,  thoroughly defeating each before turning on the next.

How to lose wars: take on all your opponents at once, don't defeat any thoroughly.  This is exactly how Hitler lost WWII.

Starting a war with Iran before winning in Iraq and Afghanistan is really stupid.

Al Globus

http://alglobus.net

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the position of any organization I'm familiar with.

[G B Leatherwood]

Al,
I think you're right on all counts. The other main issue is the election cycle. Virtually all major projects, especially something as uncertain in the minds of the general public as space development and exploration, are long-term affairs. By "long term" I don't mean the usual business measurement of one or two calendar quarters, but literally years, perhaps decades. Political administrations come and go with each new group promising to "clean up the graft and corruption," "end wasteful spending," etc., etc. etc. Thus what was hot in the previous administration may disappear completely in the new one.
Only when the private sector, i.e., the profit making sector, is fully involved in the long-term success and profitability will space development succeed. Much has been said and proposed here by members of this group to show how much profit there is. The key is demonstrating to at least some of those billionaires that this will be profitable for them in the identifiable future.
"Win" in Iraq and Afghanistan? Never happen. You can't defeat an ideology with uniformed troops heavily armed and easily identified. Ever study the pictures coming back from those two places? Men, mostly young, in their Western clothes, standing around watching our armor plated troops taking fire from across the town square and shooting back at shadows that fade into the civilian population. These are, after all, their countries, their mountains, their villages, their tribes that have been their places for centuries. Guess you can tell what I'd like to see us do. I grieve for the families of service people killed or maimed in these places, but my real grief is that they had to be there in the first place, putting themselves at the ultimate risk, not "for the defense of the American way of life," but for the Iraqi/Afghan/Islamic people, who may or may not even want to be "saved."
Gee, Al, you really rang my bell!
Gail Leatherwood