There is no evidence that NASA will wait until “launchers are built” and then declare “Oh, what are we gonna do with ‘em?” By your own admission in your last sentence NASA is already working on some things they certainly will not need until 2015 at the earliest, IE in situ utilization of lunar resources.

Don’t be ridiculous.

If we are to return to the Moon and use its resources for new endeavors, then NASA must outwardly start to engage in efforts to:
– design a manned lunar settlement
– understand that settlement as a closed biosphere, where mass is a premium, resupply expensive and recyling necessary to a higher degree than the space station.
– quantify the logistics involved. Mass budgets, energy budgets, cost budgets…It only has to be an estimate to start with, just to figure out if these needs can be met with what we have/plan to have.
– define requirements for transportation and all manner of equipment for lunar construction and operations. Cranes, dirt movers, greenhouses etc.
– assemble a list of the scientific opportunities available, such as from a lunar telescope.

In essence, we need a focused and self-consistent quantitative conceptual design of the whole lunar operation: There needs to be brainstorming, items prioritized and the most important thought through now – we can’t suddenly tackle these issues once the new launchers are built because the gotcha’s that would endanger the program need to be found long before that.

For example how can we plan launchers for resupply when we don’t even know what activities we will be resupplying on the Moon and how often? Sure, we know the resupply rate of a two person space station running janitorial duties – is that what we’re planning for on the Moon? I hope not.

I note that NASA has started some research on how to process regolith into useful materials. I’m most encouraged by this and I very much look forward to the results. It’s also great to hear that Rand’s space glove idea got traction! We need more developments like this.

…and look what happened. At $80,000/kg to the Lunar surface and without a clue of what to do there the program died and we lost the ability to go.”

One has nothing to do with the other. I was speaking to the attitude of some who seem to think that at the ripe old age of ~18 months the VSE should be fully defined down to launch dates and crew names.

I know I would choose the latter… (‘private’ being the keyword, after all I own a Toyota assembled in Mexico…, and my underpants were ‘built’ in the commie china — gasp!?) I have no idea why the *space industry* (as opposed to a *space program*) should be shielded from globalization.

*although, where I come from (the east bay/San Jose area) the average taxpayer wouldn’t give a damn one way or the other as the average taxpaying person’s notion of “space exploration” is delimited by the Star Trek and the Babylon-5 shows.

I was, in hindsight, discussing two issues here. You are right, the shuttle is the only means of completing the ISS. No ELV can do that. With regard to the CEV, I am suggesting using either exlisting launch vehicles such as the Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V to launch the boiler place version. However, in the spirit of Little Joe II which launched the Apollo capsule BP, perhaps using an SRB derivitive with internal guidance might do the initial launches.

…and look what happened. At $80,000/kg to the Lunar surface and without a clue of what to do there the program died and we lost the ability to go.

Buzz Aldrin once said the next time we go anywhere, we should do it in a sustainable way. He’s right. No more one-offs.

There are many ways to use the Moon (including commercially) and NASA needs to plan for them and make them happen – otherwise the next president might think there is no specific reason to continue.

It would be nice if we had missions between the demise of the Shuttle and the arrival of the CEV that would play to the circus that is the public. But, we are hobbled, as we have been for 30 years, by bad decisions made in the 1970’s.

I agree.

A. Young: “The CEV and its launch vehicle should become NASA’s most aggressive program. We could have a boilerplate CEV in 3-4 years if it was pushed and we have the launch vehicles (Delta IV or Atlas V) that would not rely on any shuttle-derived vehicle that would take far longer to build.”

I don’t know if you’re still on the same track as your orginal premise of not liking the idea of depending on the Russians to supply/complete ISS, but ISS cannot be completed using Delta/Atlas derived vehicles. The Shuttle is the only vehicle that can do that. I guess I don’t understand what you propose we do about ISS with your assertion of building the CEV and launch system within 3-4 years?

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: there you go again. I think you’re being a bit overly dramatic here. In 3.5 years Shuttle will have (hopefully) made about a dozen more construction flights to ISS, so neither Shuttle nor ISS will look as they do now. Shuttle will have (again, hopefully) proven itself capable of a few more relatively safe flights, and ISS will be physically changed. A prime contractor will have been picked to build CEV and there will likely have built at least some boilerplate hardware. The HLV plan will be moving along, and again likely some hardware being prepared. It wouldn’t take a Manhattan project like effort to start modifying an ET or SRB for HLV testing purposes. And with the VSE 5 years old it will be more a defined plan, remember that the first time we went to the moon the plan to do so was not born fully mature.

Donald: “Mark, Congress may have endorsed it, but I’ll believe it when the dollars come in year after year after year.”

Well last year the money came through, and it certainly looks like the money will come through… that is technically “year after year”

Donald: “We need to create markets in order to “pull” launch vehicle development, instead of “push” it. Markets first, efficient transportation next…..Government bases first, alt.space next.”

We need both, at the same time. Government and private enterprise have roles; in the more “envelope pushing” aspects government in many cases has to lead the way. But in the long haul private enterprise will be the answer to space development.