Asusual, the politicians are totally missing the point. I new goal in space (like SSI' original plans), wouldcreate jobs and cost a lot of money-but they don't seem to care about spending money in Washinton. The job creation would be worth it-becauseall of those people with jobs would be paying taxes. I guess its justtoo logical.
I was tellingmycollege students about this today. My view is that mostof the politicians in power are too old to think of a grand vision in space as practical. Young people say- What's the problem?

John Personette

Illinois Valley Comm. College

> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:14:27 +0000
>
> FYI,
>
> "Obama Aims to Ax Moon Mission"
> Orlando Sentinel
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story
>
> : NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the
> : rockets being designed to take them there that is, if President
> : Barack Obama gets his way.
>
> : When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there
> : will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to
> : return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive
> : Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans
> : to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the
> : Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed
> : to take humans back to the moon.
>
> : There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation
> : program at all.
>
> : In their place, according to White House insiders, agency
> : officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar
> : with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will
> : look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take
> : humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day
> : will be years possibly even a decade or more away.
>
> : In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on
> : Earth-science projects principally, researching and monitoring
> : climate change and on a new technology research and development
> : program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and
> : the inner solar system possible.
>
> : There will also be funding for private companies to develop
> : capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take
> : astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International
> : Space Station a major change in the way the agency has done
> : business for the past 50 years.
>
> : The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce
> : resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for
> : Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA,
> : especially in the area of human spaceflight.
>
> : "We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one
> : administration official.
>
> : Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of
> : anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the
> : White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar
> : with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would
> : talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by
> : the White House until the release of the budget.
>
> : But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for
> : some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in
> : this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some
> : "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget
> : possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the
> : $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.
>
> : They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the
> : International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said
> : there would be an "attractive sum" of money to be spent over
> : several years for private companies to make rockets to carry
> : astronauts there.
>
> : But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming
> : years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency
> : and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both
> : commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what
> : was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.
>
> : That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine,
> : concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program,
> : NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take
> : as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop
> : commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from
> : the space station.
>
> : Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any
> : Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless
> : the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct
> : message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should
> : remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote
> : U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.
>
> : Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the
> : end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of
> : dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on
> : Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.
>
> : In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new
> : heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co.,
> : Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of
> : moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed
> : variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main
> : engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to
> : officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations,
> : some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed
> : by the hobbyists.
>
> : Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation
> : and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a
> : battle with Congress, Ares may survive.
>
> : "I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one
> : major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on
> : life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."
>
> : Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science
> : and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets,
> : Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some
> : powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center
> : in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a
> : fight.
>
> : The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash
> : 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.
>
> : One administration official said the budget will send a message
> : that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design
> : space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view
> : of the president," the official said.
>
> Mark Reiff
>
> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> To change settings online go to:
>
> To change settings via email:
> ssi_list-digest@...
> ssi_list-fullfeatured@...
>

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.

> As usual, the politicians are totally missing the point. I new goal in
> space (like SSI' original plans), would create jobs and cost a lot of
> money-but they don't seem to care about spending money in Washinton.
> The job creation would be worth it-because all of those people with jobs
> would be paying taxes. I guess its just too logical.

I don't know about that; NASA has been a big jobs program for decades,
and I don't think it has done us much good.

I agree that a true Apollo-scale effort would be good in the short term,
but as we've already seen, it's not sustainable. Much better to open
the frontier to commercial development. The government certainly has a
role to play in that, but building and flying launchers is probably not
an appropriate role for it anymore.

Get launch costs down. Nothing else matters if we don't get
launch costs down. Going to the Moon, going to Mars, mining
the asteroids, even increases in unmanned probes isn't
practical until it costs about 1% as much to put something
in orbit as it does now.

I hope this thing about encouraging commercial launchers
does it, together with Virgin Galactic, Bigalow Aerospace,
and others. Get the launch costs down. meow meow meow

Amen. Amen.

Get launch costs down. Nothing else matters if we don't get
launch costs down. Going to the Moon, going to Mars, mining
the asteroids, even increases in unmanned probes isn't
practical until it costs about 1% as much to put something
in orbit as it does now.

I hope this thing about encouraging commercial launchers
does it, together with Virgin Galactic, Bigalow Aerospace,
and others. Get the launch costs down. meow meow meow

Mark I. WallachAttorney At Lawmwallach@...
Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP1400 KeyBank Center800 Superior AvenueCleveland, OH 44114-2688

V-card | www.calfee.com
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential and legally privileged information from the law firm of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s) identified as addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic mail transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing contained herein or in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or can be used, to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
|

> Get launch costs down. Nothing else matters if we don't get
> launch costs down. Going to the Moon, going to Mars, mining
> the asteroids, even increases in unmanned probes isn't
> practical until it costs about 1% as much to put something
> in orbit as it does now.
>
> I hope this thing about encouraging commercial launchers
> does it, together with Virgin Galactic, Bigalow Aerospace,
> and others. Get the launch costs down.

That's what I'm thinking too. STS was supposed to bring launch costs
down dramatically, and didn't. Ares sure wasn't going to do it. Time
to give the commercial providers a chance.

This is not to say that the withdrawal from the Moon isn't a
disappointment, however. I rather liked the idea of commercial
providers getting us to orbit, and NASA doing stuff beyond LEO (for the
near future).

If we weren't embroiled in several wars, seems like a permanent return
to the Moon would be easy to fund... but, trying to look on the bright
side, perhaps NASA's withdrawal will only encourage the commercial
sector to find a way to do it profitably, instead of waiting around for
a government teat to suckle.

Best,
- Joe

I too like the idea of NASA doing what isn't profitable YET or
is too risky NOW.

Then again, if some company comes up with a $1,000 to LEO
launcher, NASA can book flights on it to put up their Moonship
and hey, suddenly RttM starts looking doable again.

I haven't followed everthing that SSI has been doing in the last few years because of health problems. Is there any chance that this new "commercial" initiativein space could lead to anything that fits the original vision of this group?

> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:19:01 -0700
>
> > Get launch costs down. Nothing else matters if we don't get
> > launch costs down. Going to the Moon, going to Mars, mining
> > the asteroids, even increases in unmanned probes isn't
> > practical until it costs about 1% as much to put something
> > in orbit as it does now.
> >
> > I hope this thing about encouraging commercial launchers
> > does it, together with Virgin Galactic, Bigalow Aerospace,
> > and others. Get the launch costs down.
>
> That's what I'm thinking too. STS was supposed to bring launch costs
> down dramatically, and didn't. Ares sure wasn't going to do it. Time
> to give the commercial providers a chance.
>
> This is not to say that the withdrawal from the Moon isn't a
> disappointment, however. I rather liked the idea of commercial
> providers getting us to orbit, and NASA doing stuff beyond LEO (for the
> near future).
>
> If we weren't embroiled in several wars, seems like a permanent return
> to the Moon would be easy to fund... but, trying to look on the bright
> side, perhaps NASA's withdrawal will only encourage the commercial
> sector to find a way to do it profitably, instead of waiting around for
> a government teat to suckle.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> To change settings online go to:
>
> To change settings via email:
> ssi_list-digest@...
> ssi_list-fullfeatured@...
>

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsofts powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

Good idea Mitchell. There is a discussion going on here:
http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/Topic%3A-Definition-of-Commercial-Space
Taylor Dinerman began a conversation on The Space Review last year:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1476/1#idc-container

John, I think the answer to your question is yes. It's our only hope Obi-Wan.

Sorry Robin, I don't see a connection.

The original purpose of the Space Studies Institute was to do research
to promote colonization of space. Solar Power Satellites (consumed a
lot of early SSI research) were and may still be a possible commercial
bootstrap method for getting there but not the only possible path to
achieve colonization. Methods for achieving human colonization of space
are not restricted to commercial. We would all like to see more
commercial space activity because it tends to be more efficient thereby
lowering cost barriers. But it could be just as possible to achieve
space colonization solely through government financing as it might be to
achieve bootstrapping to space colonization through commercial activity.

It has become fairly obvious in the last decade that technology and
capital availability has advanced far enough that commercial space
companies could exist and are trying to exist. And therefore NASA
should be slowly stepping back from that activity. It would have been
silly to try to do commercial for the Apollo missions and in a few years
it will seem silly for any government to be building their own space
transportation systems except for military use.

However the transition to commercial space transport does nothing for
space colonization. There still does not exist a commercial reason to
bootstrap to space colonization. SPS's if built now will probably be
built using remote controlled robotics. Something that would have been
impossible in the time frame that O'Neil was promoting. Nor does there
exist a overwhelming popular reason for space colonization. I am fairly
certain that space colonization will never make the top 50 things that
voters are concerned about.

The reason that I support SSI is that at some point technology and
capital availability will reach a point where small groups of interested
people will be able to move forward without regard to government or
commercial interests and achieve space colonization. SSI's role as a
catalyst and instigator of focused research can move that date closer.

Mitchell James