EDITOR'S NOTE: There are members of NASA and of Congress who are proposing
replacing Ares 1 with a new version of the Space Shuttle. Like the present Space Shuttle
the new version would have virtually the same two solid booster rockets (as would Ares 1)
and the large external fuel tank. Instead of the space plane portion, it would have a
cylinder with an Orion spacecraft on top. This smaller version would likely carry 3
astronauts instead of 4 as would the Altair Moon Lander if New Moon Program isn't
canceled. The proposal also calls for the Ares 5 Heavy-Lifter or a version of it in order to
visit Mars or an asteroid. The 3-man Orion could dock with Space Station or with Altair
landing on moon. Both crafts would be about one-third smaller then originally planned
but one-third larger then Apollo and LM. The Mars Orion would still have to be capable of
carrying 6 astronauts. (groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic)
We at CR believe that this would be acceptable to us Ares 1 fans. There is a major
drawback though - there always is: It won't be operational for 3 to 4 years. Again, we
insist that present Shuttle (each of which have been certified capable for over 75 flights
apiece) be extended for 2 to 4 years. Alternative: Humiliation; NASA grounded for 3 years
or more. We would be dependent on Russia (who we beat in the Moon Race) and/or
China (our Banker) to talk us to our Space Station - we paid bulk of the cost - on their
schedule - - to add insult to injury, Russia has already made it clear that they are going to
charge us an astronomical price tag! Obama doesn't care about U.S. embarrassment
and is hell-bent on laying off Shuttle, Orion, Ares and Altair workers.
We stated previously that we were willing to forgo Moon Base due to price tag and offered
original proposals. Three moon missions each lasting 5 to 7 weeks visiting lunar arctic
and antarctic; 4 to 7 follow-up missions if justified by the 3 missions. One of the reasons,
President Bush wanted Americans to return to the moon was to test components,
equipment, experiments and procedures (as well as, tests on the ground, in earth orbit,
en route to moon) for a Mars mission in 2035. We can still due that and without a base.
We can do it during 3 or more moon missions. Hopefully, lunar mining will be encouraged
by what's learned during those missions. We shouldn't muck-up a pristine area for mining
(this is for the sake of environmental wackos, of course, they'll demand no mining). Joint
Project: NASA and Private Sector beginning in 2025 (if missions between 2020-2023 justify
it), geologists, metallurgists, surveyors and support teams explore an area scientifically and
for the purpose of determining if it is a potentially economically viable area for mining. The
private sector takes it from there. They will construct mining camps.
Additional Proposal: We might do the above plus built a small NASA Base if practical to use
moon water for service module: water for drinking (as well as, recycled urine) splitting water
for oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for nuclear thermal (see our proposals in four articles at
www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com) rocket engine. Launching Orion with it's service module from
moon orbit would be a lot cheaper then launching from earth's stronger gravitational field. We propose that The Heavy-Lifter might not be needed or we can make due with a smaller, less powerful one to bring transfer module to lunar orbit with just enough hydrogen to get there. We can
launch it to lunar orbit where the Orion Command and Service Module is already in lunar orbit.
Altair and unmanned crafts can bring water to service module and transfer module from lunar
surface - cheaper then lifting it from earth's surface.
The transfer module can use Ares 5 or 2 liquid (safer then solid; H aboard transfer module) booster rockets and large external fuel tank.
We also proposed a mini-Orion or and operational-version of AF X-37B - both of which would be
easier to move and maneuver from the ground then as regular satellite - using heavy-lifter to park
it near our GPSs to temporarily move them if they became a target during a war or replace them
when necessary as a backup.
Or, Obama Plan to place "NASA in a Casket," give SpaceX unrealistic timetable and make Russia
a super-power again! (Russia orders Obama to shrink Bush Missile Shield, Obama obeys, Russia
announces that it has unstoppable missile; Russia declares that it has fighter jet as good as our
best fighter - the F-22, Obama orders production to stop on F-22s).
