anglagard:
My point is that returning to the moon, just to say you landed there again, is not what I would like to see. I would prefer a vision that includes permanant, sustainable, occupation of the moon and the colonization of the space itself around the Earth as a longer term goal. So far, I have only seen vague pronouncements concerning such longer term goals.
The Plan as it stands:
1. Finish the ISS, retire the shuttle.
2. Get Orion in operation, sustain the ISS.
3. Go the moon, establish base (near poles, with water ice?)
4. Go to Mars, establish base.
5. Sustain bases, go more places.
That's for human flight.
Unmanned missions will explore the moons of Jupiter or Saturn with the specific idea of later missions to those places and possible outposts.
Here's the outline, with timelines, for Project Constellation:
NASA - Exploration
Here's the NASA site for the porject. You'll find timelines, videos, FAQs, spacecraft specs and links to more information.
NASA - Constellation Main
You'll see that the further into the future the plans go, the less specific the plans are about how we do it. The flight plan for moon mission is put together. The same hardware can launch everything we need for a Mars mission.
One pattern NASA does intend to follow, which you can see in these moon missions: send the big stuff aloft via Ares V, send the crew separately via Orion/Ares I to meet it, and go. The Mars mission would work the same way on a more ambitious level. The hardware that a Mars crew will be meet up with has yet to be designed. They need landers, and the prototype for those landers is the new lunar lander. But, as you mention, they also need habitat. In the next few years we'll see some experiments in this area. Inflatable habitats are a popular idea right now. If you have the capability of compacting something and inflating it later in orbit, you're in good shape. The Ares V could send aloft a hotel.
An example of short-sightedness IMHO, equivalent to allowing Skylab to reenter the atmosphere instead of coughing up a million to keep it in orbit. Is it really cheaper to start from scratch everytime instead of using resources that already exist? It is counterintuitive to me, perhaps there are reasons I am unfamiliar with at present.
By all accounts, Dubya's adminsitration really does get a lot of credit for organizing this so NASA can expect a steady, predictable stream of funding from Congress. Both NASA and government leaders wanted to stop exactly that boom-and-bust cycle you mention: expensive program launched, ends too soon; expensive program launched, ends badly; hire engineers, fire engineers.
NASA took an off-the-shelf technological approach for the near future that emphasizes constancy of activity, incremental steps, reliabiity, and safety over budget-busting technological leaps (like the shuttle was). It minimizes down time: no laying off all the shuttle people and having to go look for them again in 5-7 years. By taking a step-by-step approach NASA gets a predictable allowance from Congress every year it can count on.
I've read that one priority for Washington was to keep the NASA-affiliated specialists steadily and predictably employed. Global marketplace: you want to keep the brains draining your way.
I agree in general, and believe I understand your points.
We share all the same concerns, I'm sure. I thought Skylab was a terribly wasted resource. Mir was the Motel 6 of space stations. Look how much more the Russians, and the world, did with it.
Don't even get me started on the shuttle. Like buying a Ferrari to make grocery runs.
My concern is once we do land people on the Moon again, which has already been done, what happens next? You seem to have partially addressed some of this but I would like more details. Is there a plan for permanant habitation? Is it sustainable? how much will it cost and what are the benefits? Are there any plans for the current or any further space stations to act as intermediate points between the Earth and Moon so that vehicles requiring less energy and even greater versatility may be used between each point?
I'd bookmark those NASA links.
NASA can focus now. It doesn't have to do everything like it once did. ESA, Japan, and China have their own projects, many of which will be cooperative ventures with NASA. And private launches are in the picture now for the earth-orbit stuff. NASA wants the ISS to be serviced not just by Orion, but by earth-orbit spacecraft launched by private companies.
NASA - ESMD
I think we are not so much in disagreement as you are speaking short term benefits while I am discussing longer term implications.
Unfortunately, I have seen the (hu)manned space exploration effort botched before due to a lack of vision. I think we would both agree that we don't want to see that happen again.
Definitely. Well, this definitely keeps us busy for the next 25+ years, with bases to maintain and new sites to explore after that. This time it looks like we're going back to stay.
Archer
All species are transitional.
™ Version 4.2