e-Claire

Luna City, here I come

It's amazing how many people don't understand that the biggest drivers for technological and economic growth are War and Exploration. What's your choice? Howz about the "spin-on" effects national pride and the resurgence of a "can do" attitude? Putting all one's eggs in the same basket has always been known to be a poor prior plan. Right now, all of Humanity's eggs are in this one planet. Not even counting all that we will learn about Earth's ecosystems from an orbital platform, what about the next random meteor with the Mammals' name on it? The entire national budget this year is about $2,230 billion. The budget NASA will need to return to the moon is about $20 billion per year. That is 0.0089, or .89% which is less than 1%. Isn't growth, knowledge, new frontiers, and the pride that comes with doing something difficult worth 1%? Is 1% too much to invest in the future, not only of our country, but of our species? And if that ain't enough, howz about this little notion? Ad Astra -- if we hafta walk! UPDATE: Ok. I'm feeling a little better: MIT poll Suburban Blight poll And Kelley's personal obervations. And Jared is "a HUGE (I'm about 6'5", 230lbs. HAH!) proponent of space exploration." And Ith, who also sees the security angle. [Happy 50,000th, girl!!]

1. Rember the old adage, be careful what you ask for, you may get it?

   Before I let loose my screed, my bona fides: I’ve worked as a space activist since 1975.  My first memory is Sputnik.  I lived next door to Michael Collins back in the very late ‘50s.  I’m an adherent of the High Church of Space from ‘way, ‘way back.  I’ve also walked the walk; I worked in Congress on space issues for 8 years, and was a lobbyist for Pete Conrad (!) for five.

   And I gotta tell ya, I’m not sanquine about this here proposal to go back to the moon *at all.*

   In a nutshell, here’s my argument.  Yes, you could go back to the moon, and in fact, you could do it for just a few billion dollars and in three years.  That’s if you do it in an intelligent way (which I’ll outline in a moment).  It would leave you with a capability to continue to have lunar missions, and start to build a moonbase.  Luna City, you betcha!  (And who *knew* that Luna City would be at the South Pole?  The South has risen again!  )

   All it requires is the development of a single new vehicle.  We’ve got the rockets, actually.  Lots of ‘em.  They’re just not Saturn Vs, and you’d do things differently than you did Apollo, is all.

   Alas, what is being bruited about over at NASA is some sort of program that will take tens of billions to do, and *might* get us back to the Moon by about 2013.  Or so.  Maybe.  That is, if in the meanwhile, NASA doesn’t change its mind.  Again.  About what it wants to do.

   I predict that what’ll happen is this.  NASA’s budget will be increased, and increased again; we’ll shut down the Shuttle program providing even more money at NASA for NASA to spend.

   And just like the space station program, or the X-33 program, or the X-34 program, or the SLI program...NASA will spend money, make viewgraphs, and build and fly *nothing.*

   And that’s assuming that they get all those bucks in the first place!

   When I say NASA, please realize that I’m referring to the Code M Empire—the Station/Shuttle folks.  The self-licking ice cream cone of NASA that results in a $5 billion dollar a year performance art peice.  The Shuttle goes up (well, maybe...) and supports the Station.  And what does the Station do?  It is the destination of the Shuttle.  But with only two people on board, all that they can do is to maintain the Station in working order.  So, what is the Shuttle for?  To support the Station.

   It goes round and round and round, and does nothing, and costs $5 billion a year.  It’s a pretty sight when it goes over at night, though.

   I think NASA ought to get itself an NEA grant for this spactacular art installation.

   How would *I* go back to the Moon?  Heere’s how.  (And it won’t happen.  Not a chance.)

   You buy a Russian Proton rocket launch.  The payload is a Delta IV upper stage; the newly developed Centaur on steroids stage.  You put that puppy into Low Earth Orbit ("LEO").  Repeat with a second Centaur Supreme; dock both together.  Then launch a Soyuz with a crew and dock *that* to the stack.  (All three of these launchs can be purchased commercially; the Russians make great stuff for really cheap.  And it’s all built like a tank.) The Delta IV second stages are also available for purchase from Boeing.  We can probably get a good group rate for buying in bulk…

   Anybody remember what Soyuz was also called?  Any hands?  You?  Yes?  That’s right.  “Zond.” Zond was actually *tested* coming back from the Moon, after a circumlunar flight.  Twice.

   We need a lander.  It needs to be reusable.  It also needs to be able to ferry cargo down to the Lunar surface, to build Luna City.  *That’s* the expensive part, and the part that will probably need some time and money.  Two billion dollars to develop it from scratch?  Probably that, or $4 billion.  This is the ONLY expensive part of all of this.

   But we know how to do it.  Designs for such a lander were outlined 15 years ago.  It’s only a matter of some SIMPLE engineering.

   You launch this lander (fueled and crewless) into orbit.  Proton?  Delta IV?  Ariane V?  Don’t know.  But we have all of those big launchers available to us (as well as the Atlas V, too).

   If we need to, we can send it up in sections.

   Anyway, we dock the sucker to the stack already in orbit, and then fire up Centaur Supreme stage Number One, and we’re Off To The Moon.

   We arrive at the Moon, using the Centuar Supreme No. 1 to burn into orbit.  Our intrepid crew gets into the Lander, and down they go.  They do their One Small Step thing; they get back in; they return to orbit and rendezevous and dock with the Centaurs and the Soyuz.  Centaur Supreme No. 1 is toast; we toss it.  We use Centaur Supreme No. 2 to refuel the Lander; we always want to leave our campsite better off than how we first found it.  We leave the Lander in Lunar orbit, then, for the next mission.  (We won’t have to drag it along with us next time around.) We fire up the Centaur and we’re off on our return to Earth.  Cue the tickertape parade…

   We *could* be back in three years.  We could.  But we won’t be.  We *might* be back by 2013, under the NASA plan.  We might be. 

   But NASA’s history says otherwise.  *sigh*

   Always be careful what you ask for.  You may get it.

   Posted by  on  01/14/04  at  03:47 AM

<< Back to main