Space Race - America's Return to the Moon?

[Emperor_Mike]

US Eyes Return to the Moon

WASHINGTON (CNN) --It has been 31 years since a U.S. astronaut last walked on the Moon, but China's space ambitions have signaled a possible American return to the lunar surface as part of a renewed space program.

Aides to U.S. President George W. Bush say he is on the verge of calling for a return to the Moon as part of a dramatic new mission for NASA.

Sources tell CNN the target for returning to the Moon is about 15 years from now. But a lunar date is not yet embraced by a White House still debating key policy and multibillion dollar budget questions.

It remains to be seen if any of the plans actually lift off or if China and the United States embark on some form of a 'space race'. But on the table of American ideas is a permanent presence on the Moon and even a manned mission to Mars.

Certainly, Bush wants to set bold new goals in space, but has not made key decisions, aides tell CNN.

"There are no plans for any policy announcements in the immediate future, " White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed.

China's first manned space flight in October and its talk of a future landing on the Moon within the next two decades may end up being the spark to re-ignite the U.S. space program.

That program has been hit by cost cutting, budget restrictions and a stall in the wake of the Columbia space shuttle disaster.

"You've got the Chinese saying they're interested -- we don't want them to beat us to the Moon. We want to be there to develop the sweet spots," Republican Senator Sam Brownback says.

Some analysts say a Chinese-American space rivalry may prove healthy and lead to other benefits such as new drug products, but other White House hawks see Beijing's space program more as a warning.

They say China could use a space base to test new rockets or other technology that may prove threatening to the United States at some later date.

Though the White House is not pleased some of the proposals have been leaked out -- possibly by NASA officials keen to push forward the space program -- it has given cause for enthusiasm among space visionaries.

Shortly after February's Columbia disaster, Bush quickly committed to resuming shuttle flights with NASA's latest target for a launch set for early 2005.

"Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on," he said in February.

Among the administration's review of the space program:

• Setting a target for retiring the shuttle fleet

• A plan to phase out the International Space Station

• Picking a new space vehicle for manned flights

• Debating the costs and benefits, of a permanent moon base

• Developing a proposal for a mission to Mars.

NASA has been urgently refining its space proposals and Vice President Dick Cheney is consulting key members of congress.

Some are expecting Bush to make a pronouncement during a December 17 speech to mark the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight.

But the new space initiative is unlikely to be ready by then as many critical decisions remain.

Some top advisors tell CNN the proposal might not be completed by the time Bush delivers his State of the Union address in late January.

One thing is for certain. For at least another 15 years or so, astronaut Eugene Cernan's bootprint from December 1972 will remain the last legacy of man on the Moon.

-- CNN Senior White House Correspondent John King contributed to this report

[VV o n g B a]

buzz aldrin wrote this as an op-ed in the nytimes. he advocates putting a space station at the la grange point between earth and the moon. and then advocates a space partnership w/ china. seems like a grand vision... and thats prolly what it will remain unfortunately.

----------------------
Fly Me to L 1
By BUZZ ALDRIN

OS ANGELES

For the last 24 hours, news reports have been soaring into orbit that President Bush and NASA are busy preparing their vision for the future of America's space program — and that this vision may involve sending astronauts back to the moon, and perhaps establishing some sort of permanent base there. I applaud the instinct, but I think that a moon shot alone seems more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs.

Instead, I think the next step in our space program should be to create a floating launching pad for manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. This is not a task for the unfinished International Space Station, which is intended to be a floating laboratory rather than a bridge to the heavens.

A much more practical destination than the moon or the space station is a region of space called L 1, which is more than two-thirds of the way to the moon and is where the gravity fields between the Earth and Moon are in balance. Setting up a space port there would offer a highly stable platform from which spacecraft could head toward near-Earth asteroids, the lunar surface, the moons of Mars and wherever else mankind decides to travel.

Unlike the Moon and the International Space Station, which is in low-earth orbit, L 1 is not the site of strong gravitational pulls, meaning that spacecraft can leave there without using much energy. Thus L 1 would be the most sensible position for a base that would function as a test area and way-point for robotic flights as well as a support station and safe haven for human exploration of the solar system.

It would also be relatively cheap, at least in terms of space travel. To create a port at L 1 we can use the building methods that have already proved successful for Skylab and the International Space Station — and we can probably get it up and running for $10 billion to $15 billion, significantly less than the International Space Station, which will likely exceed $100 billion in the end. We can also save money by shifting away from using the space shuttle as the transport vehicle and by developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle and crew module to get people and cargo up to the L 1 port.

Unfortunately, NASA's work on future vehicles — including the much-ballyhooed "orbital space plane" — has stalled since the disaster with the Shuttle Columbia. And even before then, the agency had been focusing on the wrong sort of craft: one limited to transporting four astronauts at a time with little or no cargo-carrying capability. Such a craft would essentially be duplicating what the Russian Soyuz craft already does adequately: bringing several astronauts up and back from a space station, but little else. Moreover, NASA's "Supersized Soyuz" approach focuses only on serving the International Space Station, rather than working toward a more expansive vision.

There are better ways to invest our money in a new craft. One that would be relatively quick and easy would be to keep what works in the current space transportation system — the rocket boosters, external tank and trained staff — and combine them with new elements. The tanks and boosters we now use will soon be predictable and safe, as a part of NASA's post-Columbia efforts. And if we stick with them, no new buildings or untested ground-transportation methods would need to be built.

The big change would be to replace the aging shuttle orbiter with a new crew module that would hold perhaps eight or more astronauts, and build a so-called heavy-lift vehicle, capable of carrying cargo, that would attach behind the module. This craft would be capable of variable crew and cargo configurations. The crew module would need built-in escape and rescue capabilities for the people aboard. The early version might have to make parachute or parafoil landings in the ocean, although eventually it should be modified to make runway landings.

Over time, more powerful engines and reusable rocket boosters could be added to make possible sending even larger payloads and more passengers into space at a lower cost per person and per pound. But the important thing for the president to think about at this point is the long-term future of space flight and for NASA to pursue all avenues, big and small, to come up with the best plan.

Unfortunately, NASA has limited its $135 million orbital space plane development contracts to a few giants: proposals by Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. As a result, the space agency has shut the door on the smaller, entrepreneurial companies that are responsible for some of the most innovative current thinking on space technology. The farther reaching scope of an L 1 effort calls for collaboration and competition — two qualities that should be part of the cultural change NASA pledged to undertake after loss of the Columbia.

In addition, NASA might even look at a new competitor as a possible partner. The modernized, Soyuz-like manned capsule that China sent into orbit in October is potentially safer and seems technologically more robust than the Russian version. Working jointly with China would not only fill a needed gap when America's agreement with Russia on using Soyuz runs out in 2006, but it would also make a potentially important political alliance. China and America are on the verge of a new space race — with economic competition expected from Japan, Europe and perhaps India — and it is better to start off with cooperation than with confrontation.

The tragedy of the Columbia, combined with China's successful launch, have put NASA at a crossroads. America's continued leadership in space depends on decisions made now. President Bush should realize that the first step is a bold new vision from the top.


Buzz Aldrin, an astronaut on the Apollo XI moon mission, is chairman of Starcraft Boosters, which develops reusable booster rockets for spacecraft.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.html

[AliBabaIncorporated]

It would also be relatively cheap ... we can probably get it up and running for $10 billion to $15 billion
yeah, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. why does america need continued leadership in space anyway? once you're beyond earth orbit it's pretty irrelevent to national security ...

[537]

The moon can be a strategic location. Imagine a non-US base placed on the moon. It would only be a matter of time before a space-capable ballistic missile is developed. Launched from the moon would negate any type of detection measures the US has in place.

[MellowDrama]

FLORIDA

VOTERS

And that's all I'm gonna say.

[mr. x]

gosh, so can a country claim moon territory?

[John0101]

The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world, they don't want to be outshined by the Chinese. It's a pride thing.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

By UN treaty to which US, Russia, and China are all signatories, the moon is international territory, kinda like Antarctica. That held up through the cold war, but that was at a time when both the US and the Soviets knew that any base they established on the moon could be equalled by the opposite side.

[Cipherous]

I think this could be healthy,

both countries are going to concentrate and invest in education foremost and the payoffs are gonna be huge.

hopefully, this could result in a social reform for China and the US.

is war a threat? probably not.

War only occurs when the special interests of a specialized group is concerned.

People are passive, nobody wants war. Especially with the launch of the internet and the information era, its gonna get harder for governments to cover up shit and validate their reasoning for war.

[VV o n g B a]

People are passive, nobody wants war. Especially with the launch of the internet and the information era, its gonna get harder for governments to cover up shit and validate their reasoning for war.
??

are u forgetting about this little situation called iraq?

[Hanuman]

The only reason Bush wants to send up another mission to the moon is cause he doesn't want the Chinese to be the first people to actually make it to the moon. We all know the Apollo moon landings are fraud.

We have to hustle and get there first so we can get all the props set up and pretend we've already been there 40 years ago.

Ok, I'm only kidding, I really do believe that we've been to the moon already, but there are some people out there who think the entire thing is one big conspiracy hoax concocted to fool the soviets into fearing our technological advances.

Not to draw away from this thread, but here's a link on this.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=124

[Cipherous]

??

are u forgetting about this little situation called iraq?

Hmmm...I am wondering how many Americans wanted war on Iraq? Have you read what other countries think about the war on Iraq?

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Saddam is out of power because I don't believe in such as thing as a benevolent dictactor. However, I'd hate to see the Iraqi people governed by a foreign power (ie, from Saddam to the corporations)

Do you think most Americans agree with Bush's policy on war (atleast the ones who know about whats going on)? Operation Free Iraq my ass.