That was two years ago. NASA has a new administrator and he made some organization changes. Mankins was forced out. Mr. Griffin needed most of the H&RT money to pay for the CEV/CLV (aka Shaft), and proceeded to shut down the majority of the 118 non-NASA projects (not sure how many NASA awarded projects survived).

It would seem that NASA believes that they can not afford a broad H&RT like effort and will build the first phase of ESAS using mostly existing technology. Because NASA will not have any money for ESAS phase 2 (LSAM/EDS/Ares V) for many years (2012?) when they can get started they again will have no time for technology development and will have to use existing technology then too. I can see this dynamic occurring again when it comes time to build a lunar habitat and infrastructure. I believe this is a broken model and not in the best interest of our country and does not embrace the spirit of the VSE.

We did have our chance! NASA chose a different path.

The list of technologies captured so far is hitting all the high priority needs except for a few.

Radiation Protection: This may be the single biggest engineering problem there is in space. GCR’s cosmic radiation (GCR), and solar particle events (SPE) are very debilitating and can be deadly. At L1 or on the Moon SPE’s are major risks which must be shielded for. Mass shielding in orbit would be extremely expensive without an elevator/tether available. Mass shielding on the moon would be a given. Travel beyond the Moon and you will be in space for a long time, a trip to Mars will take ~300-500 days round trip using chemical propulsion. Protecting the crew with water shielding around their hab-module is possible (heavy) but I believe this leaves the water un-potable.

Space Power: I strongly advocated the use of small fission reactors with liquid metal cooling/energy transfer. Learn how to do this on the Moon so you can take the technology to the outer solar system. The problem is that our country is rapidly losing the capability to develop this technology. For all practical purposes the US Navy’s NR group are the only ones with that capability – and you could argue that they do not know liquid metal cooling.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion: If we are to ferry in space, we should travel as quickly as possible. I believe that NTP is best “near-term” technology that could dramatically reduce travel times to Mars (this also helps out with the space radiation exposure). A hydrogen based system could even use LH2 to protect crew hab-module, further reducing radiation exposure.

Highly Advanced Robotics: Because space is a very inhospitable environment we will need to rely upon robots and advanced intelligence agents for most of the exposed work. It is our brains that make the difference in space, our bodies become liabilities.

Jon, thanks for bringing up this topic. It was challenging to develop a “prioritized” list of technologies that support the VSE. I hope that we will get a chance to use it in future pursuits.

LINK

No one else can get to? So no one else but NASA can get to the lunar surface (which is where a lunar base would be located)? That’s not a rational statement. What this means is that there can be no private sector development of the Moon–ever. Why this is being asserted, I’m not sure.

Nor does Murphydyne understand what is being proposed. No one is proposing that someone *give* anyone a NASA lunar base. The proposal is to contract out to private business the servicing of the lunar base.

“Yeah, that’s going to fly. Rather than partnering with the American people to go to the Moon in a robust and sustainable way, NASA wants to just be pathfinders. But pathfinders are no good if those who follow have to rediscover the path.”

Huh? That statement makes no sense.

“(P.S. This is exactly what NASA did with the STS’s external tank component. They’ll carry it up to space, if you show that you can utilize it. Of course the only way to do so is to use the shuttle as your initial base of operations. Chance of arranging to do so? Very, very close to zero. I always wanted to put a belt of ion engines around the middle and boost it slowly up to a higher orbit. But you would have to carry the belt and engines in the shuttle bay. Oh well, too bad, we did offer though…)”

So private business can’t get to LEO either. I guess COTS is a lie and a fraud too.

“The Lunar Base is not a market. It is an asset. I can’t just give you an airplane and say “Look! You have a market!” No, you have an asset. And since it’s due for its ‘D’ check it’ll probably end up parked in the desert. By conflating the two you’re making a poor economic argument. And that’s a big component of why your continued championing of the ESAS, Mark, rings so hollow with me.”

Actually a thing can be a market and an asset as well. The rest of the statement in incoherent drivel.

“ESAS program that will put a small group of people on the Moon on a more or less permenent basis”

I argued:

“This is pure fantasy.”

and questioned:

“Why should our nation proceed in a way that has been demonstrably shown not to work, that of relying on a single vehicle.”

How is this a strawman? I put no words in your mouth. I did not mis-state your position. I quoted you. A direct quote from your website.

Where is the strawman?

And then the shilling continues here with “But that’s not going to happen unless there is a market for doing so, i.e. a lunar base. Build the lunar base, even in the “horrid” NASA way, and then throw it open to private industry.”

Were that it was that simplistic. So NASA’s going to build a base on our Moon that no one else can get to, and say “Here private industry, look, we built a small workshack that we want to give you. You can’t get to it, but you can have it once you figure out a way.”

Yeah, that’s going to fly. Rather than partnering with the American people to go to the Moon in a robust and sustainable way, NASA wants to just be pathfinders. But pathfinders are no good if those who follow have to rediscover the path.

(P.S. This is exactly what NASA did with the STS’s external tank component. They’ll carry it up to space, if you show that you can utilize it. Of course the only way to do so is to use the shuttle as your initial base of operations. Chance of arranging to do so? Very, very close to zero. I always wanted to put a belt of ion engines around the middle and boost it slowly up to a higher orbit. But you would have to carry the belt and engines in the shuttle bay. Oh well, too bad, we did offer though…)

The Lunar Base is not a market. It is an asset. I can’t just give you an airplane and say “Look! You have a market!” No, you have an asset. And since it’s due for its ‘D’ check it’ll probably end up parked in the desert. By conflating the two you’re making a poor economic argument. And that’s a big component of why your continued championing of the ESAS, Mark, rings so hollow with me.

Oh, and it’s murphydyne, as in a unit of Murphy force, and a tribute to the great American pioneers Astrodyne, Rocketdyne, Yoyodyne, etc. Not murphy din, though that is a cute jeux de mot.

One space themed Scoop site I know of is run by the Space Frontier Foundation at:

http://www.frontierfiles.org/

Post a diary there and registered uses can comment with threaded discussion. Maybe I should get right on that.

Perhaps tonight unless someone beats me to it.