Fwd: NEW SPACE PROPOSAL

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 31, 2010 12:26 am
Subject: Fwd: NEW SPACE PROPOSAL

Fair and Balanced. Honorable Opposition Below.

New Welcome Message at /group/rickcosmos-eclectic

 Check out and consider joining one or more new sites: NASA_Ares, NASA  and                                          THE Meeting Place (Adult; contribute something: G or PG) at Facebook.                                                          ( Join rickcosmos-eclectic group site; visit don't join following): groups.google.com/group/

newfederalism, /group/spcosmology, /group/yellowfeverlime or yellowfeverlime101

nasa-ares, nasa-ares-associate, facebook-nasa-ares at Twitter
Warning: latest post at www.rickcmtsite.blogspot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: sci.space.policy@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:25 pm
Subject: Fwd: NEW SPACE PROPOSAL

by Richard DePersio (groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic to our Cyber-Friend

/group/sci.space.policy

 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.   

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).