e-Claire

Luna City -- Redux

This screed is far too good to be lost in a comments box, so, with the tacit permission implied by its having been posted in comments, I hereby make the executive decision to put it out front. Oh, and those bona fides -- I'm proud to say that I have personal knowledge that they are, in fact, bona fide. Read on:

Remember 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 crew-less) 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. Tim B Kyger

He's right -- you know he is . . . Sooooooo. Perhaps this is an opportunity, with all the attention focused by Bush on the subject, to begin a rational discussion/information dissemination about what is really possible and desirable to do. Then, lobby Congress to do that instead of what will be proposed. It will have the attraction of being much cheaper than the "official" proposal -- albeit the possible detraction of actually being feasible, but I think we can overcome that part. Or do I just have stars in my eyes and Heinlein in my blood? UPDATE:

It's too late. Lobby Congress all you want; the fix is in. We'll do it NASA's way. It's all been decided by those folks higher up in G'umnt already. You don't get a Presidential speech and commitment like this until *everything* is *already* set in stone and/or concrete as to how and what they'll do. This was all arrived at behind closed doors, of course. It's the way this particular Administration does things. Other Administrations have done things the same way; it works very well. The spark that set this off was the loss of Columbia a year ago. For decades -- since early 1961 in fact -- not a single Administration had paid any real attention to NASA and what NASA was doing. (I'll define that as the folks at the Top; i.e., President, Vice President, etc. Others, like Nixon or Reagan, *have* dealt with NASA and the space program, but it's been as a result of folks 'way below them bubbling it up to the top, where it takes a few moments of time on the part of the President at that point.) So, for 40 years, or at least since 1969, NASA has drifted. It's just gone along, trying to get along, and trying to do *something* with the bucks and support it had politically. It was barely enough to do things; the Space Shuttle program and then in addition the Space Station ate the lunch of NASA's budget, since they were badly designed and incredibly costly, and as a result, they weren't designed to do anything useful other than to just exist. The Shuttle went up and down; the Station went round and round; and NASA continued to shuffle the same old cards it had been dealt over and over again. Columbia brought this point home. The CAIB report brought this point home. No one in government had paid any attention to the Nation's space program since, essentially, 1961. Yes, there was always lip service paid; but it was never ever backed up by money. And not since JFK has any President had a *vision* of space as...well, *space.* (Except Bush 41. But then, he didn't back it up with *anything.* Not a frickin' penny. But that was also almost 15 years ago, too. The passage of time *was* noticed.) The CAIB report, in essence, said four things. 1. The Foam Did It. 2. NASA's screwed up inside -- fix it, or else. 3. The single major reason that NASA is screwed up inside is that the Government/Administration/President hasn't paid any attention to the space program for decades. 4. Either pay some attention and spend some real money on this, or shut it down. The Bush Administration of 43 has decided to pay some attention and to spend some real money on it. Or at least *plan* to spend some real money on it... There are two major players involved other than the CAIB Report or the President (who was very involved in this). They are the Vice President and Karl Rove. VP Cheny wants to be *on the Moon* when the Chinese get there. He wants to stamp their passports and get their fingerprints when they land. And Karl Rove? Karl Rove is an sf freak! He's a FAN; a space crazy, who wants to do this for the hell of it. (As do I -- that, to me, is the BEST reason. Explore! Why? Because!) And Sean O'Keefe, head of NASA? He needs a way to fix his agency. And that is to focus it on some single goal. And so here we are. Is the glass half full, or half emtpy, or does it just need optimization? (Or, if you're paranoid, is it filled with poison? ) My mind keeps coming back to the Lord of the Rings. "My precious....my government space program....I wants to go back to the Moon, my precious....I wants my NASA program...my precious..." Me? I say toss it all into Mount Doom and be done with it. We'd all be better off. But that ain't gonna happen. So I hope we *can* make the best of it. Maybe my kids will be able to go. I hope so. And I sure hope that they won't have to be Government employees to do it, either. Tim B Kyger

1. It’s too late.  Lobby Congress all you want; the fix is in.  We’ll do it NASA’s way.  It’s all been decided by those folks higher up in G’umnt already.  You don’t get a Presidential speech and commitment like this until *everything* is *already* set in stone and/or concrete as to how and what they’ll do.

   This was all arrived at behind closed doors, of course.  It’s the way this particular Administration does things.  Other Administrations have done things the same way; it works very well.

   The spark that set this off was the loss of Columbia a year ago.  For decades—since early 1961 in fact—not a single Administration had paid any real attention to NASA and what NASA was doing.  (I’ll define that as the folks at the Top; i.e., President, Vice President, etc.  Others, like Nixon or Reagan, *have* dealt with NASA and the space program, but it’s been as a result of folks ‘way below them bubbling it up to the top, where it takes a few moments of time on the part of the President at that point.) So, for 40 years, or at least since 1969, NASA has drifted.  It’s just gone along, trying to get along, and trying to do *something* with the bucks and support it had politically.  It was barely enough to do things; the Space Shuttle program and then in addition the Space Station ate the lunch of NASA’s budget, since they were badly designed and incredibly costly, and as a result, they weren’t designed to do anything useful other than to just exist.  The Shuttle went up and down; the Station went round and round; and NASA continued to shuffle the same old cards it had been dealt over and over again.

   Columbia brought this point home.  The CAIB report brought this point home.  No one in government had paid any attention to the Nation’s space program since, essentially, 1961.  Yes, there was always lip service paid; but it was never ever backed up by money.  And not since JFK has any President had a *vision* of space as...well, *space.* (Except Bush 41.  But then, he didn’t back it up with *anything.* Not a frickin’ penny.  But that was also almost 15 years ago, too.  The passage of time *was* noticed.)

   The CAIB report, in essence, said four things.  1.  The Foam Did It.  2.  NASA’s screwed up inside—fix it, or else.  3.  The single major reason that NASA is screwed up inside is that the Government/Administration/President hasn’t paid any attention to the space program for decades.  4.  Either pay some attention and spend some real money on this, or shut it down.

   The Bush Administration of 43 has decided to pay some attention and to spend some real money on it.  Or at least *plan* to spend some real money on it…

   There are two major players involved other than the CAIB Report or the President (who was very involved in this).  They are the Vice President and Karl Rove.  VP Cheny wants to be *on the Moon* when the Chinese get there.  He wants to stamp their passports and get their fingerprints when they land.  And Karl Rove?  Karl Rove is an sf freak!  He’s a FAN; a space crazy, who wants to do this for the hell of it.  (As do I—that, to me, is the BEST reason.  Explore!  Why?  Because!)

   And Sean O’Keefe, head of NASA?  He needs a way to fix his agency.  And that is to focus it on some single goal.

   And so here we are.  Is the glass half full, or half emtpy, or does it just need optimization?  (Or, if you’re paranoid, is it filled with poison?  )

   My mind keeps coming back to the Lord of the Rings.  “My precious....my government space program....I wants to go back to the Moon, my precious....I wants my NASA program...my precious...”

   Me?  I say toss it all into Mount Doom and be done with it.  We’d all be better off.

   But that ain’t gonna happen.

   So I hope we *can* make the best of it.

   Maybe my kids will be able to go.  I hope so.

   And I sure hope that they won’t have to be Government employees to do it, either.

   Posted by  on  01/14/04  at  04:46 AM

2. You’re dead right about the fix being in before the speech was made (WHY can’t people learn how politics is done??!!).

   It occurs to me that there is an end run that is not completely impossible—lobby Congress to redefine NASA’s mission.

   Posted by  on  01/14/04  at  12:03 PM

3. Well, I *did* note that Mr Daschelle was in attendance . . .  And wasn’t Mr Don’t-Dulay-do-it-today also there?

   Posted by Claire  on  01/14/04  at  12:10 PM

<< Back to main