http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=34781

Interesting article at Centauri Dreams, including a discussion of Al
Globus's work on equatorial orbit habitats.

The International Space Station was a collaborative effort of a number of
nations. Are any of the future ventures to near Earth, Moon or Mars
collaborative in nature?

Regards,
Selvaraj

On 8 January 2016 at 23:44, Lucio de Souza Coelho lucioc@...
[spacesettlers] wrote:

>
> http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=34781
>
> Interesting article at Centauri Dreams, including a discussion of Al
> Globus's work on equatorial orbit habitats.
>

Regards,
Selvaraj
On 8 January 2016 at 23:44, Lucio de Souza Coelho
lucioc@...
[spacesettlers]
<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=34781
Interesting article at Centauri Dreams, including a discussion of Al
Globus's work on equatorial orbit habitats.

NASA may be going to the Red Planet without company. The European Space
Agency or ESA, a known partner of NASA, has announced its intention
to launch multiple interconnected missions to Earths natural satellite,
the Moon (and not Mars).
http://stgist.com/2016/01/esa-announces-plan-to-return-to-the-moon-and-hunt-lunar-resources-6159

On 10 January 2016 at 15:13, sraj wrote:

> The International Space Station was a collaborative effort of a number of
> nations. Are any of the future ventures to near Earth, Moon or Mars
> collaborative in nature?
>
> Regards,
> Selvaraj
>
> On 8 January 2016 at 23:44, Lucio de Souza Coelho lucioc@gmail.com
> [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=34781
>>
>> Interesting article at Centauri Dreams, including a discussion of Al
>> Globus's work on equatorial orbit habitats.
>>
>>
>

http://stgist.com/2016/01/esa-announces-plan-to-return-to-the-moon-and-hunt-lunar-resources-6159
On 10 January 2016 at 15:13, sraj
<
sraj99@...
>
The International Space Station was a collaborative effort of a number of nations. Are any of the future ventures to near Earth, Moon or Mars collaborative in nature?
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 8 January 2016 at 23:44, Lucio de Souza Coelho
lucioc@...
[spacesettlers]
<
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=34781
Interesting article at Centauri Dreams, including a discussion of Al
Globus's work on equatorial orbit habitats.

sraj sraj99@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> NASA may be going to the Red Planet without company. The European Space
> Agency or ESA, a known partner of NASA, has announced its intention
> to launch multiple interconnected missions to Earths natural satellite,
> the Moon (and not Mars).
> http://stgist.com/2016/01/esa-announces-plan-to-return-to-the-moon-and-hunt-lunar-resources-6159

Yep. Go Europe!

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 7:03 AM, 'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> NASA may be going to the Red Planet without company. The European Space Agency or ESA, a known partner of NASA, has announced its intention to launch multiple interconnected missions to Earths natural satellite, the Moon (and not Mars).
>

If you want to settle space, Mars is a lousy place to start. It is ridiculously far away (50 million km at closest approach) and kids raised in 3/8 will almost certainly grow up with weak muscles and bones.

If you want flags and footprints, Mars is great. It will be very expensive, take a long time, and give you your footprints (maybe).

If you want to settle space, start close and start small. The best place is equatorial LEO which is protected from radiation by the Earths magnetic field so well that at 500 km radiation shielding may not be necessary at all. A small starter settlement can probably be put there in about 160 Falcon Heavy launches. For details, including high quality radiation computations, see http://space.alglobus.net/papers/Easy.pdf
>
> We might be to a different stated policy by the next presidential election. (I say stated policy rather than current goal because just saying it would be nice for NASA to go to Mars without the money to do it is just talk, not action.)
>
> We are at the current stated policy due to the current president having a policy of, If Bush is for it, then Im against it. He ran and was elected on being the anti-Bush.
>

This is grossly incorrect. Obama continued Bush policies in many areas, including following the Commercial Cargo program, which helped develop the Falcon 9, with the very, very similar Commercial crew program. These are both great programs which have advanced the cause of space settlement considerably.

He did reverse Bushs Moon/Mars program, which richly deserved killing. It was a turkey. For example, there was no money for a lunar lander! The stick was supposed to fly to the ISS, but its first flight was a year after the ISS was due to be decommissioned. Obama deserves credit for the courage to kill a big, expensive program that had run off the rails and, incidentally, one that was going to suck up space resources with little gain for settlement.
>
> If we stick to the current idea of an asteroid capture and then straight from that to Mars with nothing in between, then it will be in defiance of common sense.
>
Obamas original policy had none of this destination nonsense (no Mars). Mars was added when the space community demanded it. Obama likes to compromise, so he went with it.
>
> The Europeans (and I think the Japanese too) are looking at this logically. The only reason why the Russians are pulling back from the moon is because they are pulling back from all ambitious space ventures. Their current program is in a bit of a shambles due to corruption and other problems.
>
> But I would not place my bet on NASA going it alone directly to Mars.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>

mikecombs@...
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
NASA may be going to the Red Planet without company. The European Space Agency or ESA, a known partner of NASA, has announced its intention to launch multiple interconnected missions to Earths natural satellite, the Moon (and not Mars).
If you want to settle space, Mars is a lousy place to start. It is ridiculously far away (50 million km at closest approach) and kids raised in 3/8 will almost certainly grow up with weak muscles and bones.
If you want flags and footprints, Mars is great. It will be very expensive, take a long time, and give you your footprints (maybe).
If you want to settle space, start close and start small. The best place is equatorial LEO which is protected from radiation by the Earths magnetic field so well that at 500 km radiation shielding may not be necessary at all. A small starter settlement can probably be put there in about 160 Falcon Heavy launches. For details, including high quality radiation computations, see
http://space.alglobus.net/papers/Easy.pdf

We might be to a different stated policy by the next presidential election. (I say stated policy rather than current goal because just saying it would be nice for NASA to go to Mars without the money to do it is just talk, not action.)

We are at the current stated policy due to the current president having a policy of, If Bush is for it, then Im against it. He ran and was elected on being the anti-Bush.
This is grossly incorrect. Obama continued Bush policies in many areas, including following the Commercial Cargo program, which helped develop the Falcon 9, with the very, very similar Commercial crew program. These are both great programs which have advanced the cause of space settlement considerably.
He did reverse Bushs Moon/Mars program, which richly deserved killing. It was a turkey. For example, there was no money for a lunar lander! The stick was supposed to fly to the ISS, but its first flight was a year after the ISS was due to be decommissioned. Obama deserves credit for the courage to kill a big, expensive program that had run off the rails and, incidentally, one that was going to suck up space resources with little gain for settlement.

If we stick to the current idea of an asteroid capture and then straight from that to Mars with nothing in between, then it will be in defiance of common sense.
Obamas original policy had none of this destination nonsense (no Mars). Mars was added when the space community demanded it. Obama likes to compromise, so he went with it.

The Europeans (and I think the Japanese too) are looking at this logically. The only reason why the Russians are pulling back from the moon is because they are pulling back from all ambitious space ventures. Their current program is in a bit of a shambles due to corruption and other problems.

But I would not place my bet on NASA going it alone directly to Mars.

Regards,
Mike Combs

Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> If you want to settle space, start close and start small.

Agreed on all points related to this. However...

> Obama deserves credit for
> the courage to kill a big, expensive program that had run off the rails
> and, incidentally, one that was going to suck up space resources with
> little gain for settlement.

Perhaps, but at the same time, he did have a very chilling effect on any
efforts to return to the Moon.

Whether de facto or de jure, we had a "moon taboo" that prevented almost
all lunar programs for decades after Apollo. Lifting that taboo was one
of the best things Bush did in his tenure, and I found it quite
regrettable that Obama's comments effectively put it back.

The current taboo isn't *quite* as firm as it used to be -- you're now
allowed to mention "Moon" as long as you hastily append "because this
will help us get to Mars!" -- but it's still not as sensible as it was
before.

Yes, the Mars advocates are largely to blame for this ridiculous state
of affairs, but Obama's "We've been there before" comment certainly
shares some of the blame.

Of course he also said at the same time: "Our goal is no longer just a
destination to reach... Our goal is the capacity for people to work and
learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods
of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite."

THAT is very sensible, but it pretty much contradicts the dismissal of
the Moon, since the only practical way to get sustainable indefinite
life beyond Earth is to develop the Moon. (And as it played out, this
latter comment was almost completely ignored by everyone anyway, while
the "been there" comment was widely and frequently repeated.)

So Obama gave us mixed messages, at best. And I don't hold out much
hope for the next President to clarify things much. It's just not a
national priority.

What I *do* hold out hope for is that Robert Bigelow will leverage the
new lower-cost launchers coming on line this year and next to start
developing the Moon, national priorities be damned. And as soon as
somebody starts doing it, I think the rest of the world will scramble to
catch up.

Best,
- Joe

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Joe Strout joe@... [spacesettlers] wrote:
>
> Whether de facto or de jure, we had a "moon taboo" that prevented almost
> all lunar programs for decades after Apollo.

May I remind you of the SEI Bush seniors early 90s plan to return to the Moon and Mars?

There is also a Moon program circulating in Congress RIGHT NOW to use CCDev-style funding to return to the Moon. This plan has been the subject of numerous space articles and was funded by NASA.

> Lifting that taboo was one
> of the best things Bush did in his tenure, and I found it quite
> regrettable that Obama's comments effectively put it back.

You are misinformed. There was no taboo and is no taboo, quite the contrary as noted above.

There was a Congressionally mandated taboo on NASA Mars studies for a few years some time back. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.

joe@strout.net
[spacesettlers] <
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
Whether de facto or de jure, we had a "moon taboo" that prevented almost

all lunar programs for decades after Apollo.
May I remind you of the SEI Bush seniors early 90s plan to return to the Moon and Mars?
There is also a Moon program circulating in Congress RIGHT NOW to use CCDev-style funding to return to the Moon. This plan has been the subject of numerous space articles and was funded by NASA.
Lifting that taboo was one

of the best things Bush did in his tenure, and I found it quite

regrettable that Obama's comments effectively put it back.
You are misinformed. There was no taboo and is no taboo, quite the contrary as noted above.
There was a Congressionally mandated taboo on NASA Mars studies for a few years some time back. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.

Al Globus alglobus@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

>> Whether de facto or de jure, we had a "moon taboo" that prevented almost
>> all lunar programs for decades after Apollo.
>
> May I remind you of the SEI Bush seniors early 90s plan to return to
> the Moon and Mars?

That's an interesting point. But the 90-day review of this program [1]
barely mentions the Moon. The key points (page x) are:

1. Space station.
2. "...an aggressive approach to reach Mars at the earliest possible time".
3. A mission architecture incorporating a variety of concepts; "One
concept for example, would place the permanent human habitat in orbit,
rather than on the surface of Mars." (They're talking about Mars orbit
here, not Earth or lunar orbit.)

The Moon does get a couple of passing mention on page xii, both times in
the stock phrase "Moon and Mars" and in the context of life sciences and
geology.

However, we did get Clementine in '94 and Lunar Prospector in '98 (Bush
Sr. served from '89 to '93), so I guess this supports your point.
Perhaps I need to give both Bushes some credit for lifting the Moon
taboo. (Though I suspect that cause & effect may be rather tangled in
the case of those missions.)

> There is also a Moon program circulating in Congress RIGHT NOW to use
> CCDev-style funding to return to the Moon. This plan has been the
> subject of numerous space articles and was funded by NASA.

Yes, though circulating plans is a long way from building (or funding)
hardware. We'll see what actually comes of it.

>> Lifting that taboo was one
>> of the best things Bush did in his tenure, and I found it quite
>> regrettable that Obama's comments effectively put it back.
>
> You are misinformed. There was no taboo and is no taboo, quite the
> contrary as noted above.

Nonsense. There most certainly WAS a taboo. From [2]: "NASA
accordingly proposed the Lunar Observer Mission, with an estimated price
tag of $350-$500 million. Congress would have nothing to do with it, not
with any lunar mission. NASA requests for a start were rejected year
after year."

Alan Binder had to campaign for many years to get Lunar Prospector off
the ground, and for that matter to convince the Clementine architects to
map the Moon. Prior to that, any lunar mission proposal, no matter how
cheap or how great the scientific return might be, was dead before it
even began. The "thou shalt not return to the Moon" rule was unwritten
but very strong.

> There was a Congressionally mandated taboo on NASA Mars studies for a
> few years some time back. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.

No. I'm thinking of the long decades when those of us interested in
developing the Moon met a stone wall at every turn.

[1] http://history.nasa.gov/90_day_review.pdf

[2]
http://www.moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_papers/lp_prehistory_paper.htm

Best,
- Joe