House bill seeks to gut NASA’s Artemis plan, resurrect Journey to Mars

Lawmakers also appear to like cost-plus contracts.

Read the whole story

 

[azazel1024]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

Not sure about land rush per say.

For what is possibly valuable about it.

1) There does appear to be water there. Possibly accessible water
2) Oxygen can be extracted from lunar regolith
3) There appears like there could be somewhat ready access to a number of important elements in Lunar Regolith that should be possible to extract through processing. All important to a settlement and/or spaceflight industry. oxygen, sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, calcium, titanium, and iron are the principle components of lunar regolith
4) Modest gravity well with NO Atmosphere
5) dV from Lunar surface to LEO is significantly less than from Earth's surface to LEO.

Not saying it SHOULD be the stepping stone to Mars. It would be easier to go visit it and learn some stuff about living on a gravity well, "in space" that we can't learn in LEO and would be useful for Mars.

But it doesn't really help us get to Mars. Not on the time scale of "boots on Mars by the 2030s". It certainly has applicability to get outside Cislunar space down the road.

Even with full reusability from Earth, Lunar launches to LEO are still less dV required than from Earth's surface. Possibly lower stress on the spaceship to shuttle Lunar surface to LEO and back than there would be on a fully reusable Earth to LEO rocket. So there might still be lower TCO in the long run.

Certainly way cheaper to go from the Moon to one of the L points than from Earth to one of the L points.

From a Commercial stand point, the Moon probably represents a much bigger bonanza. Again those readily accessible minerals (there are also hydrates on the Moon that shouldn't be too hard to access, so at least low volume water production is possible, even without water ice. Though that would be ideal). Close enough to make visiting "easy". How long before a Mars "vacation" is possible? I suspect other than maybe a few billionaires, probably not this century, even with lots of advances. Even with the use of things like NERVA (or more advanced nuclear propulsion) the window for Earth-Mars and Mars-Earth travel is every two years and relatively narrow. Then it takes 10 months to get there and 10 months to get back. So you are talking about all of the support costs for ~2.5 years. Plus the time investment of that. Even with a nuclear propulsion source IIRC that keeps the same every 2 year window for a reasonable mission, but shaves it down to something like 4 months transit time. That MIGHT reduce transit time sufficiently that you could leave early in the expanded window, get there, spend a few weeks there and then travel back. Accomplishing the whole thing in less than a year and limiting the tourist season to every other year.

But at any rate, for a long, long time to come, it is going to be limited to governments and large corporations with deep pockets sending explorers and possibly bankrolling colonies who'll likely NEVER come back. Or at best, would be one way for decades before returning.

The Moon on the other hand, if costs continue to get pushed lower and lower with something like Starship and super heavy, then you might end up at a place where you can take a week or two long vacation on the moon, with the attendant 3 days each direction and all you might be talking about shelling out is a couple of hundred thousand a person.

That's in upper middle class territory for a lot of the 1st world for those willing to devote their financial resources to an incredible vacation. Certainly within reach of the entire upper class.

That's costs by the 2050s maybe. By the end of the 2100s? Don't know. If we ever manage cheaper energy, more engineering advances, expanding lunar colonies it might in the realm of tens of thousands for a vacation.

Of course there is more there than just tourism, but Lunar tourism is certainly possible this century. Martian tourism? Probably not.

 

[azazel1024]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

The side of the Moon that always faces away from the Earth would be prime territory for radio astronomy as most, if not all, of the Earth's radio traffic would be blocked, leading to cleaner reception of signals from suitable radio sources in our galactic neighborhood.

In addition, as a plethora of Internet-centric satellites, e.g. SpaceX's StarLink constellation, which will nominally number in the multiple thousands, pollutes the night-sky for astronomical purposes, the Moon's relatively cleaner skies will likely be the future of astronomical observation, if only from observatories in orbit around it, let alone those on the surface (if the Moon dust problem can be mitigated).

Those not on the surface of the Moon will be at the mercy of those on it. Imagine hundreds of prospector robots cruising the surface looking for tasty deposits of vital minerals. Whether those minerals could be exploited locally is a matter of energy, be it solar or nuclear. If such exploitation could occur, then the Moon's gravity well at one-sixth that of Earth's would be a potential initial gateway to the asteroid belt and beyond.

In the end, it'll come down to willpower and technology. The alternative is to stare at our navels until we lack either the will or means for the exploration and exploitation of the greatest gifts of all to humanity: the Solar System.

I forgot about the astronomy aspect of things. Quite right. Especially if we have sufficient industry on the moon to "make things". Even if it isn't a very cheap way to make things. Can you imagine a lunar telescope on the far side with a 30 meter aperture and no atmosphere to have to compensate for!?! Plus, 1/6th the gravity to need to worry about forming the mirror and the telescopes supporting pieces.

 

[azazel1024]

So, what do we imagine Bridenstine's choice of whiskey is, and how much is he consuming right now?

His drink of choice is Diet Mt. Dew.

It is interesting that less than two years after he leaves the House, they stab him in the back.

Semi-relatedly, is he about the only appointee of the current administration that does NOT have some kind of scandal relating directly to their conduct in office? Sadly NASA isn't a semi-independent agency like some like the fed or FCC are, or he could probably do more. He seems a like Wheeler-esque in terms of "we thought he'd be a dumpster fire, turns out he's actually pretty decent".

Or that seems to be the opinion I've formed of him the last couple of years. Maybe not as rock on awesome as Wheeler, but at any rate.

 

[azazel1024]

Your tax rate is now more inline with the world average.
The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect. These new wealthier share holders putting the money back into the economy. Perhaps buying a new Tesla.

Oh, I feel that 'trickle' all right. Don't piss on my head and call it rain. 'Trickle down economics'........how quaint.[/quote]

Perhaps you can go and work for a Latino business who are seeing accelerating growth. Maybe you'll feel better about yourself. In addition take some pills so you feel less of a victim. Classic leftist.[/quote]

Trickle down economics has a perfect track record of abject failure for the past 40 years. It has been a poorly-disguised reverse Robin Hood scheme that has produced an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the very richest individuals. Not coincidentally, it has also created the largest wealth inequality gap in history. As a related feature, it has grown the budget deficit to stratospheric heights, something rethugs were all up in arms about when dems were in the White House. Now...not so much, although Trump is now saying he is planning to propose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps to pay for his record deficits.

Anyone who believes in trickle down economics is woefully ignorant of economics or facts.[/quote]

Or they know it works really well, for them (see those who actually get the money trickled UP to them).