You could also build a skylab-sized can and send some ‘big brother’ contestants to mars on a free-return trajectory.

All this could still be cheaper and quicker than the Orion/Ares project, have a similar feel-good factor as well as rate well on TV…

The more correct answer to Congress’ question might be something like this:

Establishing a long-term base at one good location, like we’ve had in Antarctica for decades, is justified on a scientific basis alone – Antarctica. But in addition, we know we have to learn to live off the land in space to afford to stay there, and a place only three days away is the best place to do that. Plus showing we can live, work, learn, and reduce the cost of staying there over time is exactly the type of experience we need to show you in Congress and the American people we can go beyond the moon.

This sort of rationale means you don’t put ISRU in the back seat for years- you put it closer to the front. You use scenarios that already exist, like Antarctica; and you also make it clear that we know we won’t get permission or funds to go beyond the moon unless we prove to Congress et al that we can sustainability stay on the moon – and get something out of it in the process. And once we establish a base, others will, too. Commercially (for tourism, first), as well as bases by other nations – again, like Antarctica.

However, if we can’t have, establish, and then operate in a way we can afford to own a simple Antarctic-style station on the moon, then we won’t be able to sustain anything more grandiose beyond it. The moon – and I would maintain even more so, NEOs, with their potential danger and great resources – presents not just technical and operational learning experiences we need; but the needed demos for economic and political sustainability as well.

Of course this needn’t be true, even for sortie missions…

http://www.tallgeorge.com/projectconstellation.php#The%20Altair%20Moon%20Lander:2007%20Lockheed%20Martin%20Proposal

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/04/lockheed-studies-centaur-applications-for-lunar-lander-concepts/

http://www.slideshare.net/niceguyted/reusable-lunar-lander-1308693

…but in an architecture that doesn’t use Earth orbital assembly and/or refueling (and/or RLVs), it may be unavoidable.

If reusability isn’t designed in at the start, it’s no surprise that it’s not there at the end. Sorties *and* outpost building can only benefit from it.

I appreciate your passion on issues in regard to the Hubble mission, but please keep this forum for on-topic comments and discussion. Thank you.

Paul

Mr. Krukin latest post raises an interesting question about President Obama’s understanding of the “commercial settlement and development of space”. The 5 points above should be the foundation of dialog between Americans and their president. How do we create this dialog?

When we were working on the first Lunar Architecture Team in late 2006, NASA attempted to gather an international group to help define the rationale for going back to the Moon (publicly called Themes for returning to the Moon). These Themes formed the original basis for the work that we did on the lunar architecture, but later these Themes were increasingly left by the wayside and did not drive the thinking nor the strategic decisions formulating the general shape of the lunar return. As a consequence, lunar architectural decisions were increasingly made based upon hollow strategic and parochial logic as well as cost, and not driven by more specific goals like Paul points out such as “learning to live off-planet”.

Case in point: Orininal need for ISRU investment was strong, and would be strong for a goal or Objective to “Learn to Live Off-Planet”, but subsequent emphasis on it has diminished. Further, instead of forcing NASA to look at local lunar resources for oxydizer for the Lunar Ascent Module, the emphasis now is on hypergolics, which cannot be generated on the Moon.

While NASA does get strategic input and priority for the Science missions, it did not receive this on the human missions, and we have been suffering because of this lack for 25 years.

The best thing that someone can do is advocate to this Administration that Strategic Objectives need to be provided to NASA, not just a general framework, since significant decisions will be relegated to short term cost or parochial interests.

tony

Oh, and to gaetano… No one will read your funny site if every other word is in red. Why not go whole hog and have the entire text blinking on and off?