Therefore fuel depots should be pursued and perfected first, and in fact that is what is in the current NASA plan – fuel depot testing.

I would assume they happen sequentially because you wouldn’t launch a lunar mission without using the fuel depot. I would also assume the technology is tested in some sort of pilot program before a full scale fuel depot is constructed at EM1. This is why I had a large time frame, because I think of the things you mentioned as part of the process.

You’re not understanding the issue. NASA needs to start perfecting a number of enabling technologies today, fuel depots being one of them

I don’t think I am disagreeing with that. But I would add there is no reason to wait for every problem to be solved before doing any exploration BEO or even developing a plan to get there. If we wait for all the questions to be answered, we will never leave.

What we lack is not the technology, but the reason to go to the Moon. Once we have the reason, the systems and hardware will follow, because then we’ll also know what we’re going to do there.

But some reasons are subjectively more important than others and we might disagree on what would be a “good” reason to return to the Moon.

I’m glad you’re coming around to what many of us have been advocating, hence our support for NASA’s commercial crew funding. NASA saves money by using commercial crew, and the side effect is that (as I’ve already stated) the commercial companies can also market rides to LEO to non-NASA customers like Bigelow.

I’ve never been against commercial crew but it is also interesting to note there would be no commercial crew without NASA or the ISS as a customer, and other customers like Bigelow would not exist if it wasn’t for the technology developed by NASA.

Government plays a big role in planting the seeds for commercial development in space and that trend is likely to continue BEO (especially if it is an overt goal).

With the rise of commercial crew to LEO I would like to see NASA take the next step and focus on transportation BEO. The exact relationship between government and private industry in that process I am open too but government should take the role in shaping the environment.

It’s less than you think. Except for maybe a few, most of the component companies do space work as a segment of their portfolio, not as the majority.

There are many more component providers than there are rocket launchers. Rocket launchers serve the purpose of getting to LEO but component providers can provide products to a fuel depot or a lunar outpost. So, if you are looking at how anything BEO will grow the space economy, just thinking about the rocket launchers wouldn’t be a good way to go.

“Constructing a fuel depot and lunar outpost would probably take 10-20 years.”

Fuel depots can be tested in about 3-5 years, are usable without lunar outposts (i.e. any activity in space), and don’t cost that much. Lunar outposts could be done without fuel depots, but not likely, and not without great expense. Therefore fuel depots should be pursued and perfected first, and in fact that is what is in the current NASA plan – fuel depot testing.

“I could see waiting 5-10 years before launching infrastructure but not starting the planning process.”

You’re not understanding the issue. NASA needs to start perfecting a number of enabling technologies today, fuel depots being one of them, so that they will have the flexibility to go anywhere for less cost, and far quicker (don’t need to design all the infrastructure for each new mission). NASA has always had plans for testing enabling technologies, but things like Constellation took their money away. That is why we’re not ready to attempt the Moon, or even an NEO. Still work to do.

“If the Moon as an actual goal and not a theoretical maybe, it would take away a lot of the uncertainty faced by the companies developing the technology to get us there.”

What we lack is not the technology, but the reason to go to the Moon. Once we have the reason, the systems and hardware will follow, because then we’ll also know what we’re going to do there.

Encapsulated in “the reason to go to the Moon” is also the acknowledgement of the cost, and an understanding of how that will be paid for. We’re not there yet, but we can be working non-surface space issues in the mean time. Again, this has always been in NASA’s plans, but Griffin/Constellation pushed them aside.

“Think of the ISS and government as a customer in relation to a strip mall with an anchor store. Commercial crew is great but it would never have happened without the ISS. I think government can play a positive role in the creation of markets in space.”

I’m glad you’re coming around to what many of us have been advocating, hence our support for NASA’s commercial crew funding. NASA saves money by using commercial crew, and the side effect is that (as I’ve already stated) the commercial companies can also market rides to LEO to non-NASA customers like Bigelow.

“Rockets are also a very narrow market segment. A much broader segment is components providers.”

It’s less than you think. Except for maybe a few, most of the component companies do space work as a segment of their portfolio, not as the majority. You won’t find the hydraulic hose manufacturer lobbying Congress for more launches – it’s not a large enough part of their business to expend extra effort. Rockets are the big bucks.

But I don’t see that need today, and we’re about 5-10 years away from reassessing that need again.

I tend to have a more long term view of what our planning should be. Constructing a fuel depot and lunar outpost would probably take 10-20 years. Waiting 5-10 years before thinking about the issue doesn’t seem to be a good strategy. I could see waiting 5-10 years before launching infrastructure but not starting the planning process.

The same could be said for any destination after a one time only flags and brags trip to a NEO. I’m not firmly set on any destination.

If the Moon as an actual goal and not a theoretical maybe, it would take away a lot of the uncertainty faced by the companies developing the technology to get us there.

The one time costs of a trip to a NEO are very close to the costs of constructing a fuel depot. If they both cost $2.5 billion, what is the better purchase?

Coastal Ron wrote @ October 15th, 2010 at 12:06 am

However, if commercial companies are contracted by NASA to deliver crew to the ISS, then they could also market their services to just about anyone for LEO. That is how a market is created, by being open to the many, and not the one. Just as you can’t have a competitive marketplace with only one supplier, you don’t really have a market with only one customer.

Think of the ISS and government as a customer in relation to a strip mall with an anchor store. Commercial crew is great but it would never have happened without the ISS. I think government can play a positive role in the creation of markets in space.

Rockets are also a very narrow market segment. A much broader segment is components providers. The ISS and the government has also played a big role in that part of the space industry. Anything BEO will be good for suppliers.

The involvement of private industry in space is catching up to our government but would not have been possible without it. Bigelow and SpaceDev are two good examples.

I don’t think our positions are too far off.

Why are you resorting to namecalling? No one has called you a name in this thread.

Grow up or go away.

“As you can see, MT favorite attack tactic”

If you have a problem with me, then address me directly. If you disagree with the critique I wrote of your earlier post, then address those points. If you’re not adult enough to do either, then don’t post here.

Again, grow up or go away.

“is to selectively take one sentence quotes”

I didn’t “selectively take” a “one sentence quote” from the other poster. The other poster only wrote one paragraph in the post I responded to, and I quoted everything in their paragraph except for the last sentence.

Don’t make things up.

“and beat the hell out them”

I have not beaten anything. I pointed out a false statement and have given the other poster several opportunities to correct or explain that statement. They have chosen or failed to do so.

Don’t blame me for what other posters write.

“he has no real interest in human spaceflight.”

Where have I ever stated that I have “no real interest in human spaceflight [sic]”?

And do you really think I’d participate in the discussions here if I had “no real interest in human spaceflight [sic]”?

Don’t make things up.

“Apparently, neither MT… believe that humans are capable of permanently settling in space or on other planets in the solar system ”

It depends on your definitions of “human” and “settlement”.

Can many members of our species (homo sapiens) potentially work and live in various space environments for a couple to several years at a time? Sure. And I sincerely want and hope that we do so sooner rather than later.

Can homo sapiens live and reproduce in space without species-altering modifications to our genomes and/or bodies given the radiation and low-gravity/microgravity environments involved? No. The radiation environment induces fatal cancers after a couple to a few years of exposure, and both the radiation and microgravity environments impose a high rate of crippling or abortifacent abnormalities in fetuses.

“based on the scant amount of science research that has been conducted in microgravity”

Years of Skylab, Salyut, Mir, Shuttle, ISS, and other research shows that a microgravity environment induces high rates of abnormalities in the early development of organisms ranging from plants to crustaceans to mammals. If your definition of space settlement includes homo sapiens reproducing in space, then it can’t be done without species-altering changes to our genomes and/or bodies.

There is no reason to believe that these negative results are suddenly going to become positive with additional research. Rather, as is the trend with practically every health risk, additional research will likely uncover additional and/or greater risks.

And microgravity is just one (very large) obstacle. The radiation environment in space will do even worse things to fetal development and take decades off the lives of adults. A former head of NASA’s old life and microgravity science division has stated that even for a lousy two-year trip to/from Mars, astronauts may have to be selected based on their genetic resistance to radiation damage. If homo sapiens have to do that for two-years in deep space, there’s no way our species is going to live for decadees and reproduce in a space environment. We’ll have to artificially modify our genomes and/or bodies to do that, at which point we’ll no longer be homo sapiens. I personally have no problem with such modifications to our genomes/bodies, but if your definition of space settlement includes our species as it currently exists, then we’re limited to spending a couple or few years in space, not living and working in space for decades or reproducing in space over multiple generations.

“More than a few of us have suggested to MT and others like him to discuss his views in a more positive, constructive comments instead of negatively attacking other people’s comments post.”

What are you talking about? You consistently resort to namecalling and insults (see “jackals” above) without provocation in your posts, often your very first post in a thread. It’s impossible to carry on a “positive, constructive” conversation with someone who immediately resorts to “negatively attacking” other posters with such ad hominen arguments.

Argue the post, not poster. If you can’t do that, then don’t post here.

Again, grow up or go away.

I didn’t “change” what you wrote. I quoted nearly all of your earlier paragraph.

Don’t make stuff up.

Again, you can correct or explain what you wrote. But repeating the same false statement ad nauseum doesn’t make it true.

“‘NASA Watch sources report that this upcoming trip to China and then Indonesia is Charlie Bolden’s idea first and foremost. The White House did not ask him to go to either country – nor do they want him to go.'”

This is a demonstrably false statement corrected on NASAWatch by the subsequent posting of NASA’s letter to various members of Congress, which states that Bolden’s trip was set up by a meeting between the U.S. President and the Chinese Premier a year ago.

Use primary sources and keep track of calendar dates.

“So you are so wrong.”

However, so far I’m right, and the only way you’ll be right is if all that happens. Let’s talk again in 10 years and compare what the U.S. and China are doing in space…

They have a spacecraft that can put astronauts in orbit- which after the last shuttle flight we will not. So you are wrong.

They have a nation with vast industrial capabilities and natural resources- and a talented workforce so large we cannot really wrap our heads around what they can do. All of our computers and cell phones: made in china.
So you are wrong again.

Finally, if they want to go to the moon, they will do it. You better believe it. They WILL launch once a week to keep a moon outpost going. And with underground caverns and ice they will become self-sustaining much faster and cheaper than anyone is estimating. That is how they will “take it away from us.”
So you are so wrong.

You make more sense than a barrel full of monkeys- which is what this site is. Your first name gives you that “be polite to ladies” advantage. It befuddles them because about the only response they have to facts that differ with their newspace fantasy is all out ad hominem and snarky insults.
Hang in there.

“NASA can do it again, if given the right direction.”

NASA did have “the right direction” for Constellation – what happened? Why did that effort fall so far behind schedule and over budget? Once you understand that, that’s when you’ll understand why many of us think NASA is being asked to do something it no longer has the skill-sets for (i.e. massive hardware projects).

“Russia has had the ability to make lunar flights with its Soyuz, but never has. Komorev originally intended for Soyuz to go lunar, but Russia has held back.”

The answer to the that is the same reason why we never went back to the Moon – the cost does not merit the benefit. The original effort for the Moon was political, and so when that race was won, no one had any other reason at this time to go back. Someday, sure, but the cost/benefit ratio is not there yet.

“We will watch, as China takes the game away from us.”

Please tell us what capabilities the Chinese have to “take the game away from us”, and then compare that to what our capabilities are. I for one don’t see anything the Chinese are doing that comes close to what we can do, and with what NASA is now authorized to do in the new budget, we’ll only pull further away from them in capabilities.

But if you think I’m wrong, please say specifically why.