Comments on: Surrendering in Space

By: Paul Spudis

Paul Spudis — Fri, 16 May 2014 15:33:22 +0000

Low lunar orbit is not significantly different than the L-points (couple hundred m/sec). The lunar surface from orbit is 1600 m/sec, but the surface will be our source for supplies (including propellant), so that’s a penalty we simply have to learn how to adapt to.

By: Ken Lundermann

Ken Lundermann — Fri, 16 May 2014 11:06:26 +0000

But the moon itself — either low orbit or its surface — is not energetically equivalent. Is there something you want to do at the L-points that does not involve going to the moon itself?

By: JohnG

JohnG — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 21:11:19 +0000

Three cheers for Charles Krauthammer for telling like it is! The Obama Administration’s handling of NASA is abysmal. Isn’t that where you go during a decline, the abyss? Several have already pointed out his quote that the decline is “choice not a condition”, Obama’s choice. But some of his other quotes were spot on. In regards to Trippi’s use of Obama’s speaking points of going to an asteroid in 2025 (which we’re not even doing anymore, update your script Joe!) and Mars by 2030 (which should be “sometime in the 2030’s” -read the script right Joe), Charles was very accurate in saying “It’s not a plan, it was an announcement. There is nothing that is going to produce any of that in our lifetime.” Before both of the President Bush strategic speeches on human space exploration (SEI in 1989 and VSE in 2004), technical NASA working groups and space committees worked for over a year in defining an incremental approach to exploration beyond LEO that made sense (though NASA’s implementation of both programs is certainly questionable). Obama’s announcement in Florida came out of nowhere, a royal decree indeed. Stunning even NASA. Driven by nothing more than pure politics, mainly – Bush talked about the Moon, Bush is bad, therefore the Moon is bad. Krauthammer also mentioned how America’s space program is a “matter of will & leadership”, neither of which the Obama administration has, and how “it is truly a national tragedy” what has happened to our nation’s human spaceflight program. His final quote may turn out to be quite prophetic, “the only footprints that will be absent on the Moon are going to be American ones.” Sad but very true if we stay on the Obama path to nowhere. Asteroid stunts are not a strategic plan.

While Kirsten Powers was not as much as an Obama puppet as Trippi, it was incredible that she said our space program’s decline was due to a lack of money. We have certainly increased our spending on food stamps, $80 billion and rising! She said we are just taking a “pause”, true, but it is not because of lack of money, the pause is purely due the Obama Administration’s naive and politically driven handling of the space program.

Thank God for Congress continuing with SLS and Orion, workhorses that will be needed to reopen the cis-lunar frontier for America. Both Russia, and China have announce plans for heavy launch vehicles. I’m all for international cooperation and commercial participation, but I hope we have learned our lesson on being dependent on a foreign government to get our astronauts into space and beyond LEO.

By: Michael Wright

Michael Wright — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:24:15 +0000

I don’t think was using O’Neill to commend Elon. At least for me I was commenting that 40 years ago there were considerable studies about space settlements that included mining the moon. Much of this assumed Shuttle will be low-cost reusable as a first step but in reality this was not so. SpaceX comes into this discussion because it is lower cost than previous rockets and they are working on another attempt at reusable where everything else is not (i.e. SLS, Soyuz, Ariane). But then when a lowcost reusable means to LEO becomes reality, then maybe some actual stuff can be done instead of PPT and ranting on the forums.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:16:34 +0000

Agreed.

If lunar resources are not to be used, it would make no sense to go to the moon; then take off again to go to the satellite location. If lunar resources are to be used it makes great sense.

It is a matter of capital investment. If your concept of future use of space assets is what we do now or less (apparently the current administrations real position, in spite of some inconsistent rhetoric to the contrary), then it is not worth it to develop lunar resources. If your concept of future use of space assets is one where the capabilities (military, civilian, exploration) should all grow and become more reliable and efficient, then it is imperative to develop lunar resources.

This brings us back to the news program that caused the initiation of this conversation and Charles Krauthammer’s comment that “decline is a choice not a condition.”

By: Marcel Williams

Marcel Williams — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:44:57 +0000

Plus you could use lunar vehicles that are totally reusable and could be refueled from lunar resources.

Marcel

By: Marcel Williams

Marcel Williams — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:41:26 +0000

That’s why silly statements from Bolden that he’s not concerned if China goes to the Moon and Americans don’t– is so naive and dangerous.

Fear of Chinese Dominance of Moon Underlies Some Opposition to Obama Plan

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/02/08/fear-chinese-dominance-moon-underlies-opposition-obama-plan/

Marcel F. Williams

By: Marcel Williams

Marcel Williams — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:22:55 +0000

“Given a blank check book”

I guess you could say the same thing about the Spanish government financing the voyages of Columbus.

But the role of government is to do those things deemed necessary for national interest that private industry either cannot do, or has no interest in doing, or cannot do as efficiently as the government can.

And in the long run, the principal economic beneficiaries of such efforts is usually– private industry!

Space X and other commercial crew companies wouldn’t even be a possibility if it wasn’t for the huge investment in space technology by the tax payers. And companies like Space X continue to utilize technologies and infrastructure originally financed by the tax payers. Space X even pockets tax payer money to develop their own space technology with no obligation to return those dollars back to the tax payers.

So private industry loves government and loves getting their hands on tax payer money to fund their private efforts. Just ask Elon:-)

Marcel

By: Wednesday / 2 April 2014 | Lunar Enterprise Daily

Wednesday / 2 April 2014 | Lunar Enterprise Daily — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:58:04 +0000

[…] Redirection Mission Is Only Way To Advance USA Human Spaceflight Within Budgetary Constraints; Paul Spudis Points Out National Security Implications Of USA Retreat From Space, Notes Cislunar Space Is The ‘Space Theater’ Of Future, Warns […]

By: Paul Spudis

Paul Spudis — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:28:55 +0000

The national security rationale for a Moon base is fairly straightforward but no one likes to talk about it I have, I do and I will.