Gingrich Space Plan

[GIThruster]

You're kidding yourself. OBama didn't have a plan for NASA. When you blithely champion him as though he did, you like he, leave out all the details.

Yes, he did have a plan and it did have details.

I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. Directing NASA to spend more money on R&D of "various technologies" that will one day contribute to space exploration is just passing the ball to Bolden as to what to fund. A real leader would have for instance, recognized the need for new propulsion systems, and had a commission review deep space transport, then made funding decisions between things like, Ion, VASIMR and TRITON. Instead, we have VASIMR as the default position because Ad Astra has been a NASA funded favorite forever.

Its not childish bitching. One thing I will say for Newt, despite I don't like the Lunar Base proposal, is that no one has provided vision like this since JFK. That's saying a lot.

[Skipjack]

Directing NASA to spend more money on R&D of "various technologies" that will one day contribute to space exploration is just passing the ball to Bolden as to what to fund.

And maybe they were planning to bring in some experts for that too and then decide? Is it so hard to accept a president that does not claim to be an expert on everything related to science?

One thing I will say for Newt, despite I don't like the Lunar Base proposal, is that no one has provided vision like this since JFK. That's saying a lot.

What vision? Where are his details? Have not seen much from him either. I think you are interpreting whatever you want to hear in what he actually said.
So far I think he has been mostly talking BS out of his behind.
A moonbase by 2020? Even under the most optimistic predictions this would not work. Or it would be moonbase for the sake of having a moonbase, without an infrastructure to support it and therefore no future as a long term project, another one of stunt like Apollo was (which in this regard was a total failure as a space programme, even though it succeeded as an expensive publicity stunt).

[GIThruster]

And maybe they were planning to bring in some experts for that too and then decide?

Right. Well, he's been in office for three years, Skippy. When was your boy gonna start to lead?

A moonbase by 2020? Even under the most optimistic predictions this would not work.

In general true but with the exception that private industry not be unleashed the way Newt was talking. If you handed that ball to SpaceX, they could not only be on the Moon in less than 8 years, they could do it for 1/100 the cost NASA would incur.

[Betruger]

The Obama Space discussion thread should get a separate forum topic.

[Skipjack]

In general true but with the exception that private industry not be unleashed the way Newt was talking. If you handed that ball to SpaceX, they could not only be on the Moon in less than 8 years, they could do it for 1/100 the cost NASA would incur.

Not even then. I am a big fan of SpaceX and new space in general, but even I cant believe that anyone could do it in 8 years, at least not in a way that would lead to anything sustainable, with sustainable, I mean a real space architecture. I cant see that happening in 8 years.

[GIThruster]

I guess it depends upon what you call "sustainable" and when you start counting. Given the funds, I think SpaceX could put boots on the ground there in 8 years. IIRC, the Dragon has the ability to land there. Once Falcon, Dragon and the trunk are all man rated, wouldn't take much and having one guy pull all the strings makes things go fast. I think the real question is whether the trunk can really bring Dragon back all by itself. I've never seen any specs for that.

That is a very long way from anything I'd call "sustainable" and I'm not sure I even know what that is, apart from a full colonization. I can't imagine stuff like that happening without a propulsion breakthrough.

[ladajo]

As I say often in my world, "Getting there is easy, staying there is hard."

[D Tibbets]

Several points. While VASMIR may be a good engine, it is worthless without a breakthrough power plant. solar panels, of radioisotope thermal batteries are not up to the task. For the aviable power already developed ion engines are the answer. They can use the energy aviable and are lighter.

This is the Polywell forum, so a reminder of Bussard's vision for rocket boosters and space propulsion is appropriate.

I am not a Newt fan, and I don't know if he knows what he is talking about, but at least he has expressed interest in moving forward. That is much better than the knee jerk denials by Allen and Romney in the last debate.

Dan Tibbets

[hanelyp]

I figure SpaceX could get astronauts on the moon inside 4 years, if there was compelling cause and funding. Using 2 launches of the Falcon Heavy:
First launch puts a lander module in lunar orbit or at L1. Second launch puts a Dragon capsule on course to rendezvous with the lander. Astronauts take the lander down, leaving the Dragon parked, then rendezvous with the Dragon for the trip home.

Sustainable would take longer, with a reusable lander, orbit transfer craft, and transfer/refueling station, among other infrastructure.

[Skipjack]

As I say often in my world, "Getting there is easy, staying there is hard."

Exactly and there is no point in going there to just get a boot on the ground. We have done that before and cancelled the Apollo programme prematurely because it was quite boring.

[Robthebob]

NASA was never meant to do pure science, no space agency does that. They're all meant to be a tool to show off what a country can do. We want to talk about real science, it's the less costly things.

Right now, having any type of space agency for space exploration is like trying to travel from a state to another state on a tricycle. We need the technology to be good enough before we even think about doing something so dumb.

Commercializing space exploration is also dumb, cus space exploration is not profitable, thus companies wont do it, no supply and demand, no competition, no force to fuel the capital innovation, not that such a thing really really exist.

PS: why is the major front runner of the GOP thinking that a "moon base" is okay? Does he not understand that cosmic rays, solar flare, etc etc makes it pretty much impossible? It's like listening to a lunatic (i hope yall got the joke).

[Betruger]

He's throwing our lives away for this whole manifest destiny mess.

[GIThruster]

PS: why is the major front runner of the GOP thinking that a "moon base" is okay? Does he not understand that cosmic rays, solar flare, etc etc makes it pretty much impossible?

There are ways to use the regolith that a permanent base would be viable, but those were not NASA's plans. They were headed toward a mobile base that they called "pernament".

Personally, I do see reason to do the flags and footprints thing again. I would much rather see a fleet of interplanetary explorer craft, like the Nautilus-X; start flying dozens of missions all around our planetary system, than see a permanent stationary base. Even though this is expensive, it is much cheaper than a permanent base, and doesn't require nearly the infrastructure investment. While we still have only propellant based systems, we could be making huge strides as to what it takes ot live and work in space, while enticing the next generation.

If indeed we were to start a real human exploration program, the obvious place to start is the Moon. Start with the harder stuff Apollo never did like visit the poles where we expect to find ice, confirm that's a real resource and study what it will take to extract it for whatever future use. Move on from there to the Near Earth Asteroids and eventually Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Titan, etc. If we were to design one craft that can meet all these mission requirements, and have the energy and propulsion swapped out for various missions, we can see chemical, Ion, VASIMR, TRITON and eventually even propellantless systems all attached to the same craft. This is indeed what Nautilus-X was designed for. Ugly as it is, it's a good first attempt.

IMHO, it's not a far guess that Newt knows about Nautilus-X, SAFE 400 and VASIMR. He probably didn't name names because he doesn't want to scare anyone off talking about nuclear.

[Torulf2]

Its no secret lots of conservatives think NASA is a vast with tax money.
this is first step to kill the US space program.

[Skipjack]

GIT, VASIMIR is not the answer to the biggest problem for space exploration. The biggest problem for that is to get stuff into space (LEO) in the first place. We need to master this first. With "master" I mean make it cheap and routine. SpaceX is on the right track, but I am still convinced that we need a technological breakthrough to make it as affordable and routine as a transatlantic flight.