[meteorite-list] Bush's Space Initiative

From: CMcdon0923_at_aol.com <CMcdon0923_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:32:02 2004
Message-ID: <18.3a45d8f9.2d37873f_at_aol.com>

-------------------------------1074146623
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


As there are quite a few space savvy folks on this list....just asking a
question pertaining to Bush's speech.

He said the moon was the logical place to initiate space exploration
missions. Yet the moon has harsh environmental challenges.....and it seems those
challenges are less on Mars. Only the distance is a problem.

It would seem to me that a space station orbiting Earth would be the better
place to initiate trips to Mars and beyond?
I didn't personally hear the speach, but I assume some of the reasons to use
the Moon would be that you can't really build a launch pad type outpost
floating in space. The surface of the moon would be better, IMHO.

You need places to store parts, assemble the vehicle on firm "ground", house
inhabitants, etc. Expanding the ISS is probably vastly more expensive than
building an outpost on the Moon (once you get there).

Also, I believe they're hoping to manufacture the fuel on the Moon from the
hydrogen in the trapped ice. I believe one of the most expensive parts of any
lauch is the amount of weight (i.e., fuel) needed just to get that same
soon-to-be-consumed fuel off the ground. Being able to send an empty vehicle to the
Moon, fuel it there and then launch it from the reduced gravity of the Moon
would be a tremendous savings of money.

Personally I've felt we needed to make an agressive, long term commitment to
something (!!) for a long time. No offense, but I feel NASA has been
prostituted over the last decade or two and relegated to pandering to the public's
cause du jour. I mean come on....a multi-billion dollar vehicle and all the
associated expenses to study the rain forrests and the "ozone hole". NASA should
be for space exploration, period. We should be looking UP, not DOWN.

Is it gonna be expensive....yep...progress always is.

Is it gonna be dangerous....yep...exploration always is.

Are we going to lose astronauts due to accidents....yes, (unfortunately) we
will.


Craig

-------------------------------1074146623
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUTF-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charse=
t=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As there are quite a few space savvy folks=20=
on this list....just asking a question pertaining to Bush's speech.</FONT></=
DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>He said the moon was the logical place to i=
nitiate space exploration missions.&nbsp; Yet the moon has harsh environment=
al challenges.....and it seems those challenges are less on Mars.&nbsp; Only=
 the distance is a problem.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It would seem to me that a space station or=
biting Earth would be the better place to initiate trips to Mars and beyond?=
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>I didn't personally hear the speach, but I assume some of the reasons t=
o use the Moon would be that you can't really build a launch pad type outpos=
t floating in space.&nbsp; The surface of the moon would be better, IMHO.</D=
IV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>You need places to store parts, assemble the vehicle on firm "ground",=20=
house inhabitants, etc.&nbsp; Expanding the ISS is probably vastly more expe=
nsive than building an outpost on the Moon (once you get there).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Also, I believe they're hoping to manufacture the fuel on the Moon from=
 the hydrogen in the&nbsp;trapped ice.&nbsp; I believe one of the most expen=
sive parts of any lauch is the amount of weight (i.e., fuel)&nbsp;needed jus=
t to get that same&nbsp;soon-to-be-consumed fuel off the ground.&nbsp; Being=
 able to send an empty vehicle to the Moon, fuel it there and then launch it=
 from the reduced gravity of the Moon would be a tremendous savings of money=
.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Personally I've felt we needed to make an agressive, long term commitme=
nt to something (!!) for a long time.&nbsp; No offense, but I feel NASA has=20=
been prostituted over the last decade or two and relegated to pandering to t=
he public's cause du jour. I mean come on....a multi-billion dollar vehicle=20=
and all the associated expenses to study the rain forrests and the "ozone ho=
le".&nbsp; NASA should be for space exploration, period.&nbsp; We should be=20=
looking UP, not DOWN.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Is it gonna be expensive....yep...progress always is.&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Is it gonna be dangerous....yep...exploration always is.&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Are we going to lose astronauts due to accidents....yes, (unfortunately=
) we&nbsp;will.&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Craig</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1074146623--
Received on Thu 15 Jan 2004 01:03:43 AM PST


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb