Hello Gang,
As news comes in that the President will announce an
ambitious new space program that will return the United States to the
Moon and take us on to Mars, a venture that may have a huge price tag
connected with it, I am left wondering why NASA never seriously
considered the various proposals to use the shuttle's external tank (ET)
as the building blocks in developing a permanent space station and
cyclic spacecraft that would take us to the Moon, Mars, and perhaps to
the Asteroid Belt, and Outer Solar System. Why wasn't this idea ever
really given the attention it deserves? Looking at the proposals made by
the Space Islands Group and various other companies and organizations
this proposal seemed to have real possibilities.

Alex Michael Bonnici

--- In ssi_list@... Alex Michael Bonnici
>
> Hello Gang,
> As news comes in that the President will announce an
> ambitious new space program that will return the United States to
the
> Moon and take us on to Mars, a venture that may have a huge price
tag
> connected with it, I am left wondering why NASA never seriously
> considered the various proposals to use the shuttle's external
tank (ET)
> as the building blocks in developing a permanent space station and
> cyclic spacecraft that would take us to the Moon, Mars, and
perhaps to
> the Asteroid Belt, and Outer Solar System. Why wasn't this idea
ever
> really given the attention it deserves? Looking at the proposals
made by
> the Space Islands Group and various other companies and
organizations
> this proposal seemed to have real possibilities.
>
> Alex Michael Bonnici

NASA isn't about making real progress towards space colonization;
NASA is about maintaining the US government's control over the
ultimate high ground. It is not in NASA's interest to allow
hundreds or thousands of non-NASA personnel in space, which is what
would happen if a space island type of structure were to exist.

McDonnell-Douglas engineers had this all worked out 30 years ago; it
could have been built by 1985. However, had NASA done so, and truly
opened up space to the average person, NASA would lose power and
more importantly those multi-billions they siphon from american
taxpayers every year.

Ed

> Hello Gang,
> As news comes in that the President will announce an
> ambitious new space program that will return the United States to the
> Moon and take us on to Mars, a venture that may have a huge price tag
> connected with it, I am left wondering why NASA never seriously
> considered the various proposals to use the shuttle's external tank (ET)
> as the building blocks in developing a permanent space station and
> cyclic spacecraft that would take us to the Moon, Mars, and perhaps to
> the Asteroid Belt, and Outer Solar System. Why wasn't this idea ever
> really given the attention it deserves? Looking at the proposals made by
> the Space Islands Group and various other companies and organizations
> this proposal seemed to have real possibilities.

Space construction cost estimates from NASA are, I'm sure, much higher
than these other groups estimated. Anyway, the way the Shuttle is
launched is already a huge waste - 80 tons goes up only to come
down again every time. The external tank's nothing compared to that.

Arthur

I agree with you Ed. I asked this question at the National Space Society's International Space Development Conference (ISDC) back in 1996 in New York City and the impression I got was NASA was more interested in empire building rather than making space exploration and settlements a real possibility for common people. Looking at the work of the Space Island Group web site and other information on the Internet I still believe it was and remains a viable option in creating a permanent human presence in space. I am very much afraid that the present proposal may degenerate into another flags and footprints space program that leads no where in the long term.
Alex Michael Bonnici

http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/mars.html
http://www.kachoria.com/content/18.htm
Alex Michael Bonnici
Ed Minchau wrote: --- In ssi_list@... Alex Michael Bonnici
>
> Hello Gang,
> As news comes in that the President will announce an
> ambitious new space program that will return the United States to
the
> Moon and take us on to Mars, a venture that may have a huge price
tag
> connected with it, I am left wondering why NASA never seriously
> considered the various proposals to use the shuttle's external
tank (ET)
> as the building blocks in developing a permanent space station and
> cyclic spacecraft that would take us to the Moon, Mars, and
perhaps to
> the Asteroid Belt, and Outer Solar System. Why wasn't this idea
ever
> really given the attention it deserves? Looking at the proposals
made by
> the Space Islands Group and various other companies and
organizations
> this proposal seemed to have real possibilities.
>
> Alex Michael Bonnici
NASA isn't about making real progress towards space colonization;
NASA is about maintaining the US government's control over the
ultimate high ground. It is not in NASA's interest to allow
hundreds or thousands of non-NASA personnel in space, which is what
would happen if a space island type of structure were to exist.
McDonnell-Douglas engineers had this all worked out 30 years ago; it
could have been built by 1985. However, had NASA done so, and truly
opened up space to the average person, NASA would lose power and
more importantly those multi-billions they siphon from american
taxpayers every year.
Ed

It is not so much that NASA does not want to, it is the DOD, Congress and
the US Government in general. NASA originally had over 100 goals for the
STS, but that was reduced to 3. If you ask anyone at NASA, they will be
happy to build colonies etc.

The announcement next week is just that, and announcement. At this point,
there is no funding attatched to it and until there is, it is really
meaningless. I am writing my masters thesis on developing a permenant human
mining operation on the moon that would lead into other things such as fuel
development, a large telescope or group of telescopes, and ultimately space
tourism. After attending conferences on these topics and seeing that the
only NASA people showing up are the ones who pay themselves because Congress
will not approve the travel funds, it is plain to see that the real steps
forward will be by an international cooperation of foreign countries which
the US will be among the last to join. At the ILEWG in Hawaii in November
2003, the Chineese were not even granted visas by our Govt to come, so we
did a phone conference with them and they were asking for America's help,
but we will not give it to them. Not because NASA is to stuborn, but
because the GOVT is to stuborn.

And that Billions that NASA syphons is not that much, less than 2% of our
national budget. Lewis and Clark used a higher percentage of the national
budget, and they only went 2000 miles in canoes, we are going to other
bodies that are at least 250,000 miles away and in vehicles taht cost
exponentially more than a canoe. Lewis and Clark also lost more than 100 of
their team members on their excursion, and the US has only lost 17 in 30+
years, so is that really all that bad?

Kevin
AOL: stubek
Earth weighs 6,588,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons

If the Saturn V was returned to production, how much could be made to stay
in orbit as useful construction material with only the capsule (possibly
reusable) to return? Perhaps there are better means to this end as well.

Of course, the goal of getting lots of 'stuff' into orbit would have to be
establihed first, or this approach is moot.

Val