The American Astronomical Society urges that a vigorous, focused program of scientific research form the core of the implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration. The President’s initiative for the civilian space program places emphasis on exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond by humans and robots. Science is exploration, whether it involves directly sampling the surface of Mars, or gathering in the faint and ancient light of distant galaxies. Exploration without science is tourism.

The adventure of exploration will capture the hearts of Americans: but the scientific discoveries that come from that exploration will capture their minds. Scientific discoveries from NASA’s new space program will provide its most meaningful legacy. We are learning where we are, where we came from, and we have discovered surprising new features of the way the world works. Based on NASA’s leadership in space science, we see the Earth as one planet among many we can now study, we see the origin of chemical and biological matter as woven into the history of cosmic change, and we have learned the surprising fact that, on the largest scales, our Universe is not organized by the material we can see, but is made mostly of dark matter and governed by the properties of a mysterious dark energy we have only recently discovered. We have much to explore. The Universe holds a great deal of “beyond.”

Science is essential to implement the Vision for Space Exploration. New technologies to implement the Vision for Space Exploration will depend on scientific advances, and, in turn, will afford new opportunities for scientific work. These notions are laid out in the June 2004 report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Exploration Policy and National Research Council’s assessment: Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration. As we learn how to explore, we will create opportunities for better scientific research, for more stimulating science education, and we will contribute toward our nation’s ability to compete in a world based on technology.

We are all explorers whenever we encounter something new. By motivating Exploration for scientific purposes, the Vision for Space Exploration will benefit science and society. The great successes of space science in the past decades arise from a strong partnership between NASA and the scientific community. The astronomical community, through its decadal surveys and other consultations has set priorities, and worked with NASA to make these dreams into reality. The astronomical community embraces the opportunity to continue to work with NASA to implement the Vision for Space Exploration on a sound scientific basis with broad input from the scientific community.

The American Astronomical Society urges that a vigorous, focused program of scientific research form the core of the implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration. The President’s initiative for the civilian space program places emphasis on exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond by humans and robots. Science is exploration, whether it involves directly sampling the surface of Mars, or gathering in the faint and ancient light of distant galaxies. Exploration without science is tourism.

The adventure of exploration will capture the hearts of Americans: but the scientific discoveries that come from that exploration will capture their minds. Scientific discoveries from NASA’s new space program will provide its most meaningful legacy. We are learning where we are, where we came from, and we have discovered surprising new features of the way the world works. Based on NASA’s leadership in space science, we see the Earth as one planet among many we can now study, we see the origin of chemical and biological matter as woven into the history of cosmic change, and we have learned the surprising fact that, on the largest scales, our Universe is not organized by the material we can see, but is made mostly of dark matter and governed by the properties of a mysterious dark energy we have only recently discovered. We have much to explore. The Universe holds a great deal of “beyond.”

Science is essential to implement the Vision for Space Exploration. New technologies to implement the Vision for Space Exploration will depend on scientific advances, and, in turn, will afford new opportunities for scientific work. These notions are laid out in the June 2004 report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Exploration Policy and National Research Council’s assessment: Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration. As we learn how to explore, we will create opportunities for better scientific research, for more stimulating science education, and we will contribute toward our nation’s ability to compete in a world based on technology.

We are all explorers whenever we encounter something new. By motivating Exploration for scientific purposes, the Vision for Space Exploration will benefit science and society. The great successes of space science in the past decades arise from a strong partnership between NASA and the scientific community. The astronomical community, through its decadal surveys and other consultations has set priorities, and worked with NASA to make these dreams into reality. The astronomical community embraces the opportunity to continue to work with NASA to implement the Vision for Space Exploration on a sound scientific basis with broad input from the scientific community.

Right now, the Constellation system is the Constellation capsule. There may or may not be a separate lander — that hasn’t been decided yet. Read Space News for the latest info.

> Your original post referred specifically to the Constellation “capsule”,
> not the entire Constellation system.

The other components of the system — if any — haven’t been defined yet.

Do you have a point? If the capsule alone is unaffordable, how can a capsule and some other expensive components be more affordable?

> You posted “It isn’t possible to do either of those things with Constellation CAPSULES”.

Yes, and I stand by my statement. NASA will also. They aren’t claiming they can mine the Moon and build solar power satellites with Constellation capsules or systems, or whatever nomenclature you prefer. The only people making that claim are a few overenthusiastic cheerleaders.

> The Apollo “capsule” on it’s own was no more capable of reaching the Moon
> than was a Mercury capsule, but adding the Apollo service module, Apollo
> lunar module and the Saturn third stage it could.

With all those things, Apollo still couldn’t mine the Moon or build solar power satellites — unless “mining the Moon” means bringing back a few bags of rocks and a “solar power satellite” means a little solar array they left on the Moon to power experiments.

Doing any real mining, building large solar power satellites, etc. will require *cheap* access to space — not very expensive access to space.

> You still didn’t show where I stated that exploitation was the ONLY
> good reason for man in space.

Exploitation is not the only good reason for man in space, but “none of those [other] things are good arguments for man in space”?

I guess the difference between a reason and an argument is a bit too subtle for me.

It’s not? Which “it” are you talking about now? “It” the Constellation “capsule” or “it” the Constellation system? Your original post referred specifically to the Constellation “capsule”, not the entire Constellation system. You posted “It isn’t possible to do either of those things with Constellation CAPSULES”. The Apollo “capsule” on it’s own was no more capable of reaching the Moon than was a Mercury capsule, but adding the Apollo service module, Apollo lunar module and the Saturn third stage it could. My reply to your post was based on your specific usage of the term “capsule”.

Ed Wright: “I guess you don’t read your words before you post them:”

You still didn’t show where I stated that exploitation was the ONLY good reason for man in space.

No, it’s not. It’s supposed to transport crew all the way to lunar orbit and perhaps to the lunar surface, not just to and from orbit.

You insist that everyone must “support the President’s vision” but you don’t take the time to understand that vision.

It’s not “just” a means, it’s an incredibly expensive means. Costs determine what is economically possible, and with such high-cost systems, almost nothing is possible.

> You completely disregard (in order to make your spurious argument) things like transfer stages,
> landing vehicles and any other number of craft/devices that may be built under the auspices of
> Constellation.

No, Cecil, I don’t “disregard” those things — I understand them.

A certain contractor wants NASA to build a solar-electric propulsion stage, that will cost deliver payloads to lunar orbit “only” $10-20,000 per pound. There’s nothing cheap about that.

When we can’t even get to LEO affordably, it doesn’t matter what kind of fantastic transfer vehicles and lunar landers you have. Trransfer vehicles and lunar landers can’t be cheap when it costs a fortune to launch them, and neither can their cargos.

> I never stated that exploitation was the “only” good reason for man in space.

I guess you don’t read your words before you post them:

>> None of those things are good arguments for man in space (IMHO). How about mining the Moon
>> or NEO’s? Or servicing space based power generation platforms…?

Without that taste the venture capitalists will never invest.

And its then we find out if Humans deserve to last beyond the next century or two, to give us time to solve the other problems we face.

But it should never be static eventually there will be a time for deregulation. What works one decade may not work next. All depends on how smart the people who write the policies are.

Also to consider after the 20 years when the infrasturcture is needed to be upgraded, the patents will be in the public domain.

I just thought up a new name for Bob Park:

Bob “We cannot sterilize a human being” Park

Say it out loud:

Bob “We cannot sterilize a human being” Park

It just rolls off the tongue.

The “capsule” part of Constellation is basically just a means of crew transportation to and from orbit, just as a Shuttle derived HLV would be simply a means of getting mass into orbit. You completely disregard (in order to make your spurious argument) things like transfer stages, landing vehicles and any other number of craft/devices that may be built under the auspices of Constellation.

Edward Wright: “Odd, then, that so many people glom onto the idea that extraction is the only “good” reason for humans in space.”

More of Edward Wright’s legendary twisting of ideas to his liking so he can point out imagined fallacies. I never stated that exploitation was the “only” good reason for man in space.

The point is that this conventional definition of “suborbital” is irrelevant to Sam Dinkin’s strange essay. All he explained was how useful it is to have a non-orbital complement to orbital imagery. Certainly airplanes provide a useful complement to orbital imagery. He didn’t explain any advantage of ballistic sub-orbital imagery over jet aircraft reconnaissance.