Comments on: Space policy is no political stunt

By: Perry A. Noriega

Perry A. Noriega — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 04:22:16 +0000

I personally don’t trust Kofi Annan, and his gang of UN goons one whit. I wouldn’t personally mind if we either modified the Outer Space Treaty, or decided it was outmoded, and not in the interest of private property rights in space. And staking a claim out in the solar system is something I favor and support by any proper means necessary.

I also am a political pragmatist, and tend to do favor not what’s (perceived to be) wrong, nor what’s (perceived to be) right, but do favor what works in the real world.

I am reading and researching Wayne White’s work on space property rights, then onto Alan Wasser’s works, and so on till I finish all current thinking on space property rights. When I have reviewed all of the information, I will have much more to say about it. Until then, I merely state I believe in private property rights in space, and believe they are integral to doing anything significant in space development and settlement.

Finally, the STS/Station combination were born back in the Twentieth Century, and reflect Twentieth Century thinking. It might be wise to acknowledge this, try and make the best use of the well over one hundred billion dollar investment in these two systems, do what we can with them, then cut our losses, and move on.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:45:49 +0000

“Do that and none of America’s ISS partners will want to cooperate with us again for the next several decades. Is that acceptable?”

Not just acceptable, but desirable. But that’s just me…

Rand, need I ask your opinion on tihs?

http://www.space.com/news/igy_space_040719.html

Antartica as a model for lunar exploration? Apparently a new poll says 70% or more of Americans agree we need to go beyond LEO. That part is not political.

But what we do when we get there. Now that will be political.

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:55:20 +0000

An article about a recent poll on space exploration shows that space exploration isn’t a drag on the President but rather the President is a drag on a new vision.

http://www.space.com/news/space_poll_040719.html

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:42:42 +0000

“Do that and none of America’s ISS partners will want to cooperate with us again for the next several decades. Is that acceptable?”

Not just acceptable, but desirable. But that’s just me…

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:19:54 +0000

The president’s announcement wasn’t a surprise and I think the timing was because fixing our space program was one of his priorities. It seems the general media was the first to suggest it was a political move and than the democrats picked up on that and ran with it. I find it difficult to filter out the junk from media reports about subjects in which I have knowledge and it’s impossible to know the truth behind a subject from the general media that you know little. There are many new media outlets that are very focus on one subject and the facts around it. Everyone quotes the media from time to time including the media itself and it’s a roll of the dice on its validity.

Growing up, I would get a magazine called Countdown which I loved because it was published by someone who really had a love for human spaceflight. Dixon P. Otto, thank you for a great magazine wherever you are today.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:39:55 +0000

Speaking of in the news Plans for Space Station Call for an Expansion of Research from the NYTimes. Not to long ago Nasa was trying to shorten how long it would support the Iss but to lower how many modules out of the remaining to bring up by a shuttle. This was all being done in an effort to recoupe money for the CEV and for the Moon to Mars vision.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:19:14 +0000

More news on the Return to the moon conference.
http://www.space.com/news/moon_vegas_040717.html

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:51:48 +0000

While all of Bill’s open concept thoughts are great. Even if the shuttle is stopped dead as a door nail from further repairs and or upgrades. The stumbling points still are cash flow for development and timeline for deployment. There is no additional money in the budget and if you count the cost of even three shuttle flights of refurbishment as savings it is only on paper. It is quickly absorbed by other operation cost overruns elsewhere within NASA. These same points can be made in regards to the CEV. Much discussion can be found on the Projectconstellation.us/news/ site with thoughts on both the shuttle and of the CEV. These have been on going since the presidential announcement in late January of this year.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:44:24 +0000

The Bush plan is VERY political. Something had to be done about orbiter after Columbia disaster and the President called for a bold new initiative to go to the Moon, Mars and Beyond but only after he leaves office.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:10:37 +0000

Dwayne,

Can the orbiter possibly finish ISS by 2010 or before something else breaks? 25 flights in 5 years? Do we extend STS as needed to finish ISS?

What if we spend 5 or 6 years working on ISS and still fail to finish it?

What if an orbiter needs to take refuge at ISS and we cannot get rescue vessels up in time? We lose the orbiter AND we lose the ISS since the life support on ISS will be totally trashed and we lack the heavy lift to repair/replace those modules.

Using the ISS as a safe haven might itself doom ISS as a functional station even if the crew survives.

If we lose one more orbiter, ISS is impossile to finish unless we look to Proton/Shuttle B and if we can do that then, why not now?

Bottom line? Why should we believe STS actually can finish ISS no matter what our intentions are?

= = =

So what do we do?

Finish ISS another way using Proton or Shuttle B.

Attach an Orbital Recoveries style station keeping module to each ISS component and use that module to maintain attitude control and keep station at 51 degrees until a Progress shows up to push the module the last mile to ISS.

Delta IVH might be used for the lighter ISS modules. Shuttle B (Swap SSMEs for RS-68s and add 5 segment SRBs) can lift TWO ISS payloads per shot (and carry additional supplies as well).

Deploy SDV by 2008 and fly 12 shuttle B by 2010 and that is the same as 24 ISS payloads. Shuttle B is a necessary evolutioanry step to Ares since Ares is in fact a shuttle B with a cryogenic upper stage.

= = =

Option Two. Build ISS-2 at 28 degrees using Bigelow’s Transhabs. Attach all ISS partner modules now on the ground to the new station.

Orbiter is NOT used for construction of ISS-2.

= = =

Option Three. Offer the ISS partners a suitable consolation prize. Cancel ISS/STS and go to the Moon much much sooner. Carry along some Japanese, French, Canadian and Russian astronauts free of charge as compensation for ISS cancellation.

Apologize profusely and make Colin Powell earn his pay.