Everything Science Forum

According to SpaceRef.com, President Bush may announce plans to return to the Moon at the Centennial of Flight celebrations at Kitty Hawk on December 17th, 2003.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=892

I'll believe it when it happens, but I'm sure hoping it's true.

If it happens, don't you think it is strange coincidence that the last time the US had a moon project, they were also involved a war that they could not ultimately win.

Is history repeating itself?

spooky....

Another parallel may lie in the recent efforts by the People's Republic of China in manned space exploration. They have definitely stated their interest in making future efforts toward exploring the moon. There's nothing like some competition to spur the US government to action. Of course the Chinese program has a long way to go but it's the perception that counts. Just like it was in the 50s and 60s.

Archie, the war that spawned Apollo wasn't Viet Nam - that parallel might work if the Apollo commitment had been made in 1965, but it wasn't.  In 1961 Viet Nam was neither a major commitment nor concern to most Americans.  It was barely a blip on the popular radar. Cuba and Berlin were far more in the popular mind. Retrospector has a better parallel IMO.

  The thing which spurred JFK was the perceived political cost of ceding preeminence in space to the Soviets at a time when technological prowess was perceived as a demonstration of the relative virtues of two opposing idealogies. Stung by setbacks like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy wanted to find a major space project with high propaganda value which offered an essentially level playing field - one in which the early Soviet lead in booster capability was nullified.  If he had been convinced that a large space station would achieve the effects he desired he would've gone for that - but he settled on the lunar landing.  His science advisor was violently opposed, but it wasn't a decision based on science.  It was a calculated exercise of ambition to decisively triumph in an arena then viewed as pivotal in the world perception of the virtues of West vs. East.   The fact that this looks almost quaint now makes it easy to underestimate how important such propaganda coups seemed at the time.

The primary effect of Viet Nam on Apollo was to kill exploitation of all that capability by siphoning off vast amounts of money and creating widespread disenchantment with not just the military but all things technological.  Apollo was politically almost irrelevant by the time it reached the Moon - and it was a political animal.   Once the stated goal was achieved, funding went away.  The J-missions which provided the bulk of the science return were very nearly cancelled completely.  As it was, we walked away from two of them, which could've nearly doubled the science return of the program - even though the boosters and spacecraft had been bought, built, and paid for and the crews trained.  The cost of flying the missions was trivial compared to the resources already expended in R&D and production.  

Anyway, it was the Cold War, not Viet Nam, which created the forces which moved Kennedy to reach for the Moon.  History doesn't really repeat - but perceived rivalries often spur efforts calculated to maintain or improve status in the eyes of the world.  It is entirely possible that policy makers in the Bush administration might decide that a lunar program would effectively counterbalance possible Chinese Lunar efforts without the expense of a Mars program, while providing an answer to the well-founded criticisms of the NASA and it's lack of clear goals.  the big funding needs would also be conveniently in the future - a tactic Bush, like other presidents, has used on many budgetary issues.

 I don't really think Bush cares one way or the other about space exploration, but he knows there is enough support for NASA and need for refocus in the wake of Columbia that his administration needs to finally create some actual policy statements.  I'm not holding my breath for any real funding increases in the long term, though - a billion a week in Iraq is going to insure that.  Bush could make a nice speech and stir people's Apollo nostalgia, gain some points from some people for "vision", divert attention for a day or so from Iraq, and not really incur any big bills - he knows that the realities of the budget will preclude major spending increases, and the onus will be on Congress if funding cannot be found.    

Congress seems to be in favour of a more robust NASA, but whether they still will be when it is time to pay for it is another matter.

Here is a letter that the members of Congress recently sent to President Bush, copied from SpaceRef.com (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10891):

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


October 24, 2003

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear President Bush:

On February 1, 2003, you eloquently said, "Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on." We commend you for publicly recognizing that we are a nation of explorers, and for expressing your continued support for the U.S. space program.

As you know, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has recently completed its investigation into the events and circumstances that led to the tragic Columbia accident. In its report, the Board observed that, "... we believe that the White House, Congress, and NASA should honor the memory of Columbia's crew by reflecting on the nation's future in space and the role of new space transportation capabilities in enabling whatever space goals the nation chooses to pursue."

We are writing to you as Members of Congress to express our strong support for a robust future for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is our vision that this future includes vigorous manned and unmanned exploration of the universe around us. We believe that a robust NASA, which partners as appropriate with other government agencies, should provide the foundation for the future of our nation's space strategy. NASA should be aggressively engaged in expanding the boundaries of human space exploration, improving our nation's access to space, enabling a safer and more efficient air transportation system, solving the scientific mysteries held in our solar system and the universe beyond, and understanding our own Earth and its environment. By tackling these challenges, our nation will maintain its technological edge over the rest of the world. A strong NASA will also play a critical role in strengthening the spirit of innovation which has made our country strong, educating our future high-tech workforce that is a prerequisite for our future national and economic security, and for inspiring the next generation of explorers. Recognizing that NASA is funded by valuable taxpayer dollars, NASA leadership should endeavor to focus the agency on an inspiring mission that reflects the priorities of our citizens, and strive to maximize the benefits of its work and accomplishments to the American public.

Historically, the funding requested for NASA from multiple Administrations, and provided to NASA by Congress, has not demonstrated an appropriate level of commitment to an agency that is so important to the future of our nation. According to the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, between 1993 and 2002, the federal government's discretionary spending grew in purchasing power by more than 25 percent. In contrast, NASA's budget went from $14.31 billion in Fiscal Year 1993, to a low of $13.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2000, and increasing to $14.87 billion in Fiscal Year 2002. This funding profile represented a loss of 13 percent in purchasing power over the decade. We enthusiastically write to you today to clearly and unambiguously express our strong interest in reinvigorating NASA and turning this funding trend around.

On February 1 of this year, the world lost seven brave astronauts. Over seven months later, we continue to remember the ultimate sacrifice that these intrepid explorers made in the name of scientific discovery for the benefit of all mankind. The greatest tribute that we as national leaders can make is to ensure that their legacy of exploration is continued through a vibrant NASA. We eagerly look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner to assure that America maintains the preeminent space and aeronautics program in the world, and we respectfully await your reply on this important matter.

There is a US Senate hearing currently being held to discuss the future of NASA. One of the witnesses is former Senator and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt.

The hearing began at 2:30pm ET.

Click here (http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=987) for more information, including a link to the webcast.

I thought the statements were interesting - especially the brevity of Jack Schmitt's - he knows that the Congress is, as he once said "not fertile ground" for discussing long-term visions.  He's trying to cast it as seed money to allow a good business case to be made for investors.  I like the repeated hammering on the "Lewis and Clark" theme a couple of the statements contained.  Instead of the fur trade, substitute lunar solar power, or Helium-3 mining, or fuel resources out of the terrestrial gravity well!  

I think a lunar industrial effort has a much better chance to become a reality than a Mars program - and we'll have the infrastructure to go to Mars at a time of our choosing.  Take a working Earth-Moon transportation system, and you have the basic building blocks to go anywhere in the inner solar system.  Yes, you need more power, more fuel, more shielding - but  these are things that can be overlayed on the basic designs needed for lunar work.  If a lunar operation can truly create a space-based economy, as the Lunar Solar Power advocate hopes, Mars and the asteroids will come naturally as more and more people and resources are off-planet.   I want INFRASTRUCTURE!
   

comon theres two reasons Bush wants to send nasa back to the moon one is that he dosnt want to let a partialy comunist country to get established up there. The second is that he thinks its made out of chesse and with his spending budget he thought he'd make himself a nice snack [smiley=cheekysmiley.gif]

Back when his father was president, Bush Sr announced plans to set up a Moon base in a State of the Union Speech. Absolutely nothing came of that, the same will come of any plans launched today.

write the president!

http://planetary.org/action/president_email.html


It can't hurt I guess

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Rem, I think Mars is already off the table - so I can't agree with the Planetary Society on this one.  I've already written my letters advocating a lunar program with tax incentives for private enterprise participants - how about a Lunar Solar Power demonstration project with private participation?  

There is no way that really large budget increases are going to happen, and I don't see NASA doing human Mars exploration absent them.  OTOH, if  the lunar mission were to become a goal, it is possible that more modest increases - on the order of 10-15% of real spending power -  along with retirement of the shuttle system after major ISS assembly is complete, might free up enough money to return to the Moon and establish a base in 12 years or so, after a new crew and cargo transportation system is in place tailored for the job.  That's about the best scenario I can see happening.  More likely, this is going to go nowhere, as others have predicted.  Shooting for Mars carries larger risk, higher cost, and no political upside I can discern - my best guess is that it's not even being considered.

OSP may die without added mission focus - and I think that we need a small crew transport to LEO no matter what mission we choose.  Efforts are already underway to kill it.  If that happens, and no alternative is advanced, NASA's human spaceflight efforts will lurch along on the shuttles, flying crews solely for the sake of maintaining a human spaceflight program, until we kill another crew.  ISS would then likely be abandoned.  The institutional inertia that would allow this to happen is disheartening, but I think real.    

BUT - If resources are focused on a specific mission, I think it can revitalize NASA.  A lot of dead wood needs to be pruned, and it will be resisted, but I don't agree  with those who want to tear NASA apart completely and start over.    

...and the disappointment is larger than ever...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/04spacepolicy/

Jim..
I have been a lunar colony fanatic for more than forty years. The death of Apollo thirty years ago took the wind out of my sails in a terrible way.

I think the path out to the universe starts with the moon. While sympathetic to O'Neil type habitats (and a serious supporter), I think humans need a "planet" to consider itself at home.

I think the value of living on our sister planet is a necessary step in our evolution.

That being said, I cannot see any real economic justification for the return to the moon.

Ideas like Criswels Lunar Solar Power System simply cannot make cost/benefit sense. On a list of ways to to provide end-user services on Earth (heat, light, transport, etc.) LSP would be down near the bottom from an economic, environmental, and vulnerability point-of-view.

The same holds true from a mining angle, whether minerals (which are already common on Earth) or Helium3 Fusion, a technology which has never ever been accomplished, cannot be shown (similar to LSP) to be cost effective, and has serious weapons proliferation problems.

Tourism MAY be a possibility, but I don't think that the return would cover the costs. In any event, I suspect tourists would prefer a zero-gee oribital experience (just for sexual purposes alone).

I don't know...
I dream of a  future in space, but I see no way to sell it to bean-counters .

yale

A sad story..... working at the Cape just before the launch of the Lunar Prospector in 1998, my team was driving past the road to the Athena pad after a dinner break.  I offered a wisecrack: "If that should find big deposits of platinum and gold, we'll have a REAL space program again, won't we?"
Our supervisor gave me a stern look.  "No.  It would cost too much to go after it and bring it back."  Of course, he was right.

I'm afraid the only chance for a 'return to the moon' program right now would be to show that Halliburton could make a huge profit from it.

IMHO.. (notice the "H".. ) It is a matter to catch the whim. It is both a positive constructive thought as a demoralizing one..

The potential of humankind ( or is it human kind.. ;) ) is more than needed. The only thing standing in the way is to find a way to get peeps interested in less than 3 minutes cos 4 would cost to much ;)

That is both a bliss as a curse. I *know* we can do whatever we want. Heck, why stop at the moon.. Mars is still there.

only.. how to catch the whim.. the "nonchalent" manner in which budgets are distributed.. How to catch "Attention"

Good luck to the shallow ones who are capable *and* on our side. We need you!

Peter

The UPI is reporting that President Bush has ok'ed a plan to return to the Moon early in the next decade. If true, the announcement will be made by President Bush at NASA Headquarters next Wednesday (Jan. 14).

Click here for the full story (http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st%2Fsn%2F01080002aaa05132.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking)

that's super!

but..ehm....how is he going to pay for it? He is already spending way too much on military. Doesn't the US have one of the largest debts in the world?

Sure hope this will actually fly though!

*lightbulb above my head mysteriously appears*

The US can join the Aurora time-line!
Or do they want to do it all by themselves?
ideas?

Apparently, the US would rely on Soyuz and Ariane for everything ISS-related these next years.
As for the cost, I'm sure it wouldn't take much more money to make what we dream. I'll develop that somewhere else.
People still think about countless bilions spent during the Moon Race. Remember they did First-man-in-orbit to Moon-landing in 7 years.

Not convinced?
Answering a question about a moonbase, Sean O'Keefe the other day:
"So you have an interesting concept and one we are trying to pursue and the cost, unlike what you suggested need not be staggering. "

I certainly hope so ! :)

Nothing will come of this, the first step in going to the Moon is to realize the Apollo show wasn't real. Even then we have a long, long ways to go, you can rely that you wont see any people on the Moon in your lifetime, but maybe someday you will realize the truth, that wont cost anything except pride.

Nothing will come of this, the first step in going to the Moon is to realize the Apollo show wasn't real. Even then we have a long, long ways to go, you can rely that you wont see any people on the Moon in your lifetime, but maybe someday you will realize the truth, that wont cost anything except pride.

Must be painful to live without dreams.
At least, you won't waste your time making efforts trying to realize them!

Looter wrote:
"the first step in going to the Moon is to realize the Apollo show wasn't real"

What??

Are you saying that the Apollo program wasn't real in the sense that it wasn't an adequate basis for long-term settlement of Moon - mostly a stunt - OR (please let it not be so) are you saying that the Apollo program was a hoax????

yale :o

I am sort of familiar with Looter from a Yahoo! Group I'm a member of. He does indeed believe Apollo was a hoax.  ::)

10 years ago his father said he would return to the Moon, absolutely nothing  happened, therefore I conclude that in 10 years time when nothing has come of this you will be no closer to realizing you cant fly to the Moon than you are now. Really the best way for you to learn that you cant fly to the Moon is to try, but you have been pretending for 30 years that you dont want to go to the Moon, thats not true, you are only fooling yourselves.

Not us, I think we are aware of who is fooling themselves.

Some sort of failed logic.
It reminds me of Gvant2000 on SDC:"It didn't happen thus far so it won't ever happen!"

If I understand your "logic" Looter, then because the political process (rightly or wrongly) prevented any followup to Apollo (and will prevent it again) then Apollo itself didn't happen (when the political environment supported it)?

What unadulterated illogical bilge.....

Why are you wasting your brain  trapped into bogus beliefs? The universe is so jam-packed with cool stuff, WHY derail yourself into conspiracy mumbo-jumbo?

You don't know how upset I am to see someone harm themselves this way.  [smiley=033102unsmile_1_prv.gif]

I am also dismayed by this:

"you cant fly to the Moon " What?

You appear to have gone beyond the nonsensical "hoax" crap to actually positing that space flight is somehow impossible!

[smiley=wall.gif]

here here yale ;D, the moon landings were real as far as im concerned. Comeone weve had stuff flying to mars since1960, and had sucessful landings there since 1975, so it wouldnt be that hard even back then to pop a few peeps on the moon [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

But don't non believers make things more interesting?

It's not about believing or not.
You don't 'believe' Napoleon has existed or concentration camps or whatever has been done.

Refusing to accept facts can only be religious fanatism (ex: creationism) or ideological blindness (here:disgust of the US Govt).

here are the points:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/14whitehouse/

a question

"Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired. "

There have been several programs that tried their hands on something like this. Will one of the programs be revived or will there be am entirely new program?

To be blunt, I don’t think bush knows jack about space, but as long as he dishes out the green I’m happy.

There was one thing that stood out me, the invitation to the international community, it'ed be great if the world shared the cost. That way we all have a slice of the next giant leap of mankind. However i dont think that after we "lost" beagal u really want us brits helping out too much [smiley=oops.gif]

Am I right in thinking that on the moon the process of extracting oxygen would be through its removal from iron oxides in the ground, I saw schematics for a magnetic separator once, would such a device work in realty.

And would the reallocated funding plus the extra funding be enough to get us to mars, from what I’ve heard it sounds at least 100 billion short (but thats only crude projections I’ve heard on the news) [smiley=dunce.gif]

I think it's something along the lines of OSP with better focus on an ultimate set of mission parameters, Rem.

Won't be as driven by ISS requirements, and will be specifically intended for eventual ops beyond LEO.  They are already talking about a building block approach, so I guess we might see a family of vehicles with common components.  Just for fun I'll take a whack at some possible configurations...
though we'll wind up with dedicated threads for this, I'm sure.




A.) BASIC ORBITAL TAXI - The first flight vehicle, capable of ISS crew rotations and lifeboat duties.  A crew reentry vehicle with full-envelope abort options (I sincerely hope...) Might be a capsule, might have some moderate aero lifting characteristics, but I will be shocked if it is winged - the deep space thrust of the program should drive design away from winged vehicles.  Small service module for LEO work.

B.) HIGH DELTA-V  SHIP - Add more consumables and impulse, and perhaps a "work bench" and you've got the vehicle to deorbit a troublesome satellite or service a high-value one.  If the Moon missions go with a start from a LEO platform, this is the one that will work the assembly/activation missions.  Maybe  we wind up cancelling the Webb telescope and keep Hubble for another decade or more - if so, this is the new service vehicle.  It's got enough tankage to do lots more, because we want commonality with...

C.) THE LUNAR SHIP - Take the higher delta-vee ship and add a TLI stage and a lander on the nose. (OK, it doesn't have be on the nose, but docked...)   The bigger tankage of  (B) is now utilized to feed a larger engine, but still chemical,  for LOI/DOI/TEI burns, perhaps even to burn to a Lagrange point.  We don't know what the transportation architecture is going to be yet, and we may be going to the lunar polar regions for a base.   Or not.  Major decision which needs definition by some ground truth ASAP: is there useable water in the lunar south polar region or not?  Besides freezing the configuraton for the reentry vehicle, nothing seems more urgent to me than settling that question if we really intend to build a moon base.  Still carries the reentry vehicle, unless we commit to a staging point in LEO or near L1.  I don't think we are likely to see a straight LEO to LO taxi vehicle, not in the next 15 years.

D.) ASTEROID SHIP -  Replace the lander with a pressurized crew  living/working compartment to extend comfortable endurance into a period of months.   Add big solar arrays or a small reactor, and use some kind of very high impulse propulsion like VASMIR,  incorporate a very expensive (in terms of mass) section with the best radiation shielding we can fly, and go do some prospecting on NEOs.  Not an explicit part of the present program, but i sure would like to see it happen!  I think more people are going to wind up living in the Belt than on Mars in the end...   No point in lugging a reentry vehicle.

By the time we are near this point, a decision is going to be made about go/no go for a Mars flight.  If we are smart, we've already got most of the building blocks in operation or test.  Obviously there's a whole new stable of cargo rockets that need to come into play, along with appropriate "tugs" busses, or whatever you want to call the upper stage systems to deliver the payloads to the places where they are needed.  I have more fun imagining the crewed vehicles, but the cargo lift requirements are going to be serious and I doubt that we'll use just the EELVs.  Perhaps the last gasp of the shuttle system will be the belated flights of some shuttle-C type vehicles, with throwaway SSMEs near the end of their service lives.  Maybe we'll also see an ATV-type system flying on a U.S. booster.   Tons of possiblilities if they manage to get the shuttles retired and free up that money!

Thoughts?

Jim  

Nice as it is to hear all the discussion that this has provoked but I am going for the total pessimistic skeptic angle on Bush's speech.

We have heard plans like this over and over again from various US administrations in the last 30 years, and as soon as budgets start getting overloaded or some political mileage can be obtained by knocking the whole thing on the head then you can bet your last penny, that's what will happen.  Especially true based on Bush's mishandling of the economy, not so much now but for the near to long term future.  He has created mounting debts that will take years to pay off.

What's really missing is the driving force such as there was in the 60's for Apollo.  The race to the moon was a combination of national ego and quest for global domination.  The US is already the world's largest economy, has the world's largest military and controls more than enough global governments that it does not have the necessary national commitment to push this plan through with 100% conviction.  Sure, there are enthusiasts like us but the general public doesn't give a damn about the moon or Mars.  Say what you like about the Cold War, had it not happened then Looter's opinion of the validity of Apollo ever ocurring might have been the "real" truth in our history.  While everyone in the US and Europe was living under the threat of nuclear holocaust, there was a much stronger incentive in the common man to "show those darn russkies who's boss".  All that is gone now.

As for the International angle, I think the way that the US has ducked out of its various promises on ISS will sink any likelihood of any other major nations wanting to get involved again with the US on this.

The Chinese won't  join in out of pride, the Russians cannot afford to and Europe has it's own agenda and in any case ESA is most heavily infuenced by the French so is unlikely to get involved with NASA if they can avoid it.

I hope that I am proven wrong, there is nothing I would like to see more than a manned Mars mission realistically, I have to stick with the opinions above until it actually happens.

Awww, gee whiz, Archie!   Allow me one day to gush before my normal cynicism returns....

::)

Do I think it will come to fruition in a Mars landing?  Not really.  If we wind up with a deep-space capability of any sort I'll be thrilled.  And the enunciation (not I word I use lightly in connection with Dubya!) of an actual goal set for NASA beyond LEO is immensely overdue.  Retiring the shuttles after ISS commitments are fulfilled is also a good call IMO.  It's just possible that we might actually see that lunar base - although I suspect continuous occupation is going to be tough given the cost of logistics upmass.  Crew-tended a couple of times a year for a month or so at a time would be fine for me.  It would be the start of real, long-term surface operations on another body!

I do have that sneaking suspicion that we might see Shuttle-C type vehicles flown after the orbiters are retired - enough high-time throwaway SSMEs ought to be available to fly perhaps four or five missions - which could put an aggregate payload of between 200 to 275 metric tons into LEO.  I could envision unfueled landers, a construction shack/early hab shelter, and a vehicle or two , being parked in orbit, then "slow-boated" to the Moon after checkout and fueling.    A low-thrust/high specific impulse propulsion system for these pieces of hardware would save on fuel upmass.

(Yeah, I'm excited, and yeah, I understand that this might be one more false start.  But it's sure fun to dream about these things.  And there's just that chance...)

Jim

By the by, Looter, I've worked in the space program for nearly 20 years, between civilian and military, manned and unmanned. I know the guys that WENT to the Moon, and it ain't no hoax. Sorry, Charlie, you know not whereof you speak.

Looter,  Besides the overwelming evidence that proves the moon landings are real, I work with a company that has been designing habitates for creating living quarters on the moon.  We work with data about the conditions on the moon, that could have only been provided by physical collection means, that occured during the Apollo missions....

First off is try and design an airlock that will be able to remove the dust from your suit...dust that is ultra reactive to oxygen, and so fine as to be a major problem for filters.  Dust like that does not exist on Earth, other than in sample containers still in Nasa's archives...You can not manurfacture it...there is not a vacume chamber in the world that match outer space

Leave Looter alone! He's just a poxy flamer and not worth the extra wear on your keyboard!

Skyjim, loved reading your hypothetical configurations  :)  Aside from the important ice issue, surely the permanently shadowed craters at he moons poles would be useful for protection from radiation? Just a thought...

I wonder where Messrs Rutan et al fit into this...the cheap way to get people as opposed to cargo up to LEO? Pay your fare....

And another question peeps - CEV starts testing in 2008, but first manned flight in 2015??? Does it really take that long to go through the 1/4 scale, 1/2 scale mock ups etc?

Overall, I'm glad we're finally going to make some progress - seems like we've spent a lot of money since skylab, and now we've got....a slightly bigger skylab. Let's hope future administrations don't get the chance to scupper it...

Steve M

Oh and another thing:

Will someone from the Cassini project please give the press a pretty picture of Saturn [smiley=thumbsup.gif]!!!!


Steve M

How about this one from November?  (Or were you hoping for a more recent shot?

(http://ciclops.lpl.arizona.edu/PR/2003L05/SatC40_V3_half.jpg)

I agree with you, Steve.  Those development and test timelines seem  odd.  Possibly that 2014 is a date for first flight out of LEO - some articles have seemed to day that.  So possibly they envision LEO work like ISS supprt earlier.    Don't know.  Need more info.  But they might not know either, at this point.

Jim

Dingo,
the problem with the moon hoax theory is that they can say that all the data and samples were from unmanned probes.  Didn't the Russians do that on several occasions?

It's an unwinnable argument until such time it can be repeated.

And PLC, I know what you are saying, but from their side, they would simply call you one of the members of the conspiracy.

Might as well be arguing about the existence of God.  Some might say that "God spoke to them in a vision" while others will scientifically prove that God cannot exist.  Neither will ever believe the other's stance.

Archie, the problem is.. where do you draw a line. I mean, I haven't been to Japan, I know nobody (physically) that went to or lives in Japan. For all I know there is no island of Japan!

It is closer to this analogy than to the god analogy; apart from the fact that I would still be able to go to Japan to check it out for myself. I do however find it less likely I would be able to visit every country on the planet before I would accept they existed.

Besides -and this is going to sound VERY weird- the US sucks at keeping secrets. :) This of CIA blunders that came out, think of the Glomar Explorer, etc.. They would simply be unable to fake the whole thing for more than a few days or something. :)

Peter

Oooh, I don't know Peter, Roswell is still a mystery....isn't it?   [smiley=cheekysmiley.gif]

In many ways the belief in the Man on the Moon is religion masquerading as science. After 2000 years millions of Christians are still waiting in vain, but they find comfort in their numbers, they cant all be complete morons, Jesus will return any day now. The faith that Lunatics place in their Moonrocks is just like the faith that early Christians took from all their silly relics as proof of their irrational beliefs. Trying to convince a Lunatic that he cant fly to the Moon is as futile as trying to convince a Christian that their omnipotent God is just a figment of their imagination. It is simply beyond their comprehension because if they could understand, they would have noticed long ago there is no God, just like our poor Lunatuics should have noticed that they cant really fly to the Moon.

What I have to wonder, Looter, is why somebody who believes we did not go to the Moon would ever bother to register and post messages about it at sites dedicated to Space Flight?

If you don't believe it, what possible interest could you have in space travel?  Your words and deeds are contradictory:  You are obviously interested enough to register and post at multiple websites on the subject of space travel, yet you say you don't believe it.

The only logical explanation for your course of action seems to be to make an attempt to anger forum members, which, (if that is your goal), will not happen here.

I am also curious why someone should be so outrageously bigoted.  I have a few questions for Looter.

1) How old are you?  Most of the moon hoax cultists are younger than 30 years of age, the fact that the events occurred before they were born assists in the detachment with the real facts.
2) What nationality are you?
3) You continually state that "man cannot fly to the moon".  Please state why you believe this is true.
4) What was the original thinking that led you to believe in the moon hoax cult.  How were you indoctrinated into that way of thinking?

Rather than looking at Looter as the troll he is trying to be, since he seems keen to keep re-appearing, it might be worthwhile treating him as our own laboratory animal that we can prod with sticks to see how he reacts.  It might give us more of an insight into the thinking of the moon hoax cultists.

So come on Looter, let's hear some original thinking from you as to why you believe the way you do, why not try to convert us with sound debate and evidence?  Or are our first impressions correct about you?  If so, you are on a losing wicket, as Orstio said, those tactics don't work here.

Looter,
Being a bit religous myself, take some things into account.  First off, the book of Revelations is a warning of things to come if God has to directly intervene in the affairs of mankind again.  It is specificly written as a warning to the church to follow the guidelines in the Bible.  Generally the church has.  But that is a subject that belongs in Earth Politics, not Space Flights.

Looter, I have a suggestion in how you can prove the Moon hoax....You seem young, so here is what I propose.

1.  You go through a lot of schooling, and achive a couple of doctorial degree's in space sciences.

2.  Then you get in absolute best physical and mental shape.

3.  You apply and go through astronaut training at NASA.

4.  You get assigned to a Moon launch, and go.   Take lots of pictures of the Apollo landing sites up close.  That should debunk your idea that the moon landing were a hoax.

I will help foot the bill to send someone to the moon.  I do so now!!!

What I find offensive is that he has labeled me a lunatic.

Son, I have degrees in 4 sciences: Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics, both graduate and undergraduate. I also have graduate and undergraduate minors in Geology.

I am also, in my spare time, a police technical officer on my local Indian reservation, training to become a detective.

Kinda hard to do/be all that and be insane.

Unless he starts in with some logic instead of name-calling, he gets ignored by me from now on. I have better things to do with my time, like protecting his right to spout drivel.

I sincerely hope this person answers Archie's questions - I am curious as to where he/she is coming from....  On the other hand, he/she could just be trying to yank our chain so to speak..

My mother was a librarian in the 70's and 80's.  She was also an avid follower of the space program so she made sure to have plenty of books on NASA, the moon landings plus a good healthy dose of sci-fi.  We lived in a tiny town in Texas where most of the folks are good, salt-of-the-earth type folks.  But there were the occasional loons.   There was one small contingent that went to the school board to try to force my mom to get rid of "all that moon rubbish".   But then again, these were the same folks that managed to ban the book "FLowers for Algernon" from my 8th grade English class because they felt it was pornographic  ::)

Looter, somewhere else on this board you posted about orbital spaceflight... If that is possible, why not the moon? And the landers on Mars?
What's so special to the moon that it becomes unaccessible? Or is it just too costly?
And if you're convinced there is now way to 're-convert' us to the truth as you see it, why bother telling us that?

Anyways, back to the thread;

I have another question: has anyone actually designed/built a machine that can do air/fuel extraction from rock etc? It's been a requirement of many Moon/Mars base designs, but I've never heard of one existing.

Perhaps they exist already, just in a different form ie deriving other products from different raw materials...

Steve M

Smich, that's not a biggie. It's an ore cracker. Same sort of thing miners use now for extracting metals, etc, also releases, as a by-product, the various gases trapped therein. Would be a simple matter to modify 'em to make that the principal product.

(sigh)....

I remember watching the Apollo missions on the tube as a kid.  Back then, I figured by the time I turned forty, I would, if I were rich enough, be able to afford a weekend stay at a lunar resort, and a manned Mars mission would either be underway or about to be underway.  Well, I turn forty one in a few months...and no human has been past LEO since then.  

Right now, I don't see a lunar base getting established before I turn  sixty (2024) - the manned Mars mission, with a lot of luck might happen before I turn 80...if I live that long.

It's a crying shame, isn't it? :'(

I do have the consolation of watching my son experience (hopefully) the same as I did, although he'll be in his early teens, whereas I was 5,6,7 years old.

PLC - thanks! That's a relief then! Be a shame if we designed the ship to get there, but couldn't do the science when we arrived [smiley=roll.gif]

Steve M

I do have the consolation of watching my son experience (hopefully) the same as I did, although he'll be in his early teens, whereas I was 5,6,7 years old.

Don't know if its grounds for optimism or not, but hereabouts (Alaska) we have a fair number of youngsters going to something called the `Challenger Learning Center', which supposedly focus's on teaching space flight based stuff.  I never could decide if it were `pork' or legit, mayhap some combo of the two. Well...if it is legit, and really does act as some sort of intro into the space program, then perhaps in fifteen or twenty years some of the kids going there now actually will be on a future lunar base or heading out on a manned Mars mission.

Right now people can only fly as high as 400 miles above the Earth, no one has ever flown higher. As for landing people on the moon and returning, there are no such capabilities, the current limit of NASA's abilities is repairing the Hubble. you people probably should learn more about real Spaceflight, if you want to tell the difference between science and make-believe.

And what evidence do you have to support the claim that people have never flown higher than 400 miles? It's easy to make the claim, now you have to back it up.

Your avoidance of the questions put forth to you about your purpose here is proving that in fact, you are just a troll.

Dont act, Orstio?

yup. If all he can do is put out unsubstantiated, opinionated 'statements' i'd ignore him.
They never answer if you ask 'em a question, just come up with something else, vaguely related to a question. That's not discussing things, that's monologue. I go to a theatre if i want to hear a good monologue, thank you very much.

Orstio, I move to ban that troll, if you haven't done so already.  Waste of bandwidth.

Jim

I agree with SkyeJimbo. Not only is he spouting the same nonsense, he's obviously not reading anyone else's posts if he thinks nobody here has any education in space science.

I concur

I think he has been banned for two days now...notice the "guest" status, where there was once a blue name with a picture of speedy gonzalez

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/columbiastory20201WROLAND.htm

Oooh, I haven't posted for a while, the posting page looks good.  I like the character counter.  hee hee, there goes some more.... I could keep typing all day just to see what happens when it gets to zero.  tum tee tum,   ahem, yes the reason for the post I suppose.

Orstio, that link gets it 100% spot on as far as I am concerned.  Its nice to read that there are other people ou there not being blinkered by this fool of a President.

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/020804guest.htm

Another one from Florida Today, this time to shut the critics up!

If even The Mars Society endorses the plan, I wonder what stops the members of a space forum...except their irrational hate for Bush.

Vish,
if you are pointing the finger, then you know very well that my hatred for Bush is not irrational.  I have given you dozens of valid reasons in the past why I conclude that Bush is a dangerous moron who stole the presidency.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter a hoot what we say against each other or this reporter says about that reporter, the facts as I see them are that Bush's speech was nothing more than a feeble attempt to suck in a few votes for his doomed upcoming election campaign.  (did you see the way he was squirming over the weekend over Iraq and his Vietnam war record?)

I would love to be proven wrong on that by the way.  I want people on the moon and Mars but I fail to see that happening in the US due to petty politicians trying to get one up on each other by initiating new programs, then cutting programs to save cash and repeating the cycle ad infinitum.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians start future co-operative programs with the Chinese for future moon landings,  after all, the Russians haven't got to the moon yet.  With their infrastructure and knowledge base backed up by political will and cash from China, I would put my bets on the Eastern Hemisphere being the next moon inhabitants.

As we've seen, the US currently has a bad reputation amongst its partners for holding true to its promises on the ISS, I see it unlikely that any other major player will want to be involved with them on such a huge new project.  Therefore the US realistically will have to go it alone if it really wants to go back to the moon.  Of course, the US could do it technically within a very short time frame, but only if the political will is maintained over a sustained period.

Geez, Archie!  Guess I'm a hopeless optimist.  I seem to recall all sorts of happy noises from the ESA folks last week regarding the lunar efforts.  Didn't sound like summary dismissal of future partnering to me!

Any realistic look at partnering with the U.S. includes the vagaries of the annual budget dances in Congress.  It's incredibly inefficient, it's infuriating to have to refight the same battles over and over, it would be much better from a program management standpoint to have multi-year authorizations, but that's simply not the way it happens.  Failing to take that into account would be naive.  In the end, the ISS partners have no choice but to roll with it since the U.S. is footing most of the bill.  And that is a fact set they were acquanted with going in.   I think they have been magnificent in supporting the program in the wake of the Columbia accident - but what options are really available?  I would love to simply be purchasing Progress/Soyuz flights right now - a real sore spot for me - but Russia has stood up and shouldered the load, and Europe and Japan have displayed great patience as their people and hardware wait to fly.  IMO we should be considering adjusting the allocation of available crew slots to partially redress the situation - but, as I said, everybody knew the score going in.    

I guess no other nation has to deal with being run by politicians, eh?  

I'm unhappy about the state of ISS - but we ARE going to get the complex completed and the partners labs up.  The fact that it is taking longer and costing more is unfortunate, hard reality.  See above.  If others wish not to partner with us in the future, that is of course their call.  In the long run, I don't know that the U.S. is a lot better off or not for all of the partnership with other nations in ISS.  I believe it is probable that ESA and NASDA (or JAXA, I think - correct me please...) would've remained on board whether or not Russia had come into the program.  If the Soyuz/Progress capability had not been part of the design mix, we might have pushed ATV and CRV harder early on.  Hard to say. The complexities of the management structure and the hardware/software integration headaches (which have been handled magnificently by the working troops scattered all over the globe - they've made it look relatively easy, which is most assuredly not the case!) may have cost more in the long run than were gained through cooperation.   I personally think that it is A Good Thing For Humanity to carry off projects of this magnitude with an international team, but that is just personal opinion.  

I think a Russo-Chinese joint program would be great.  One of the things I am in hearty agreement with in the Bush plan is the focusing it is forcing NASA to do.  I don't like Mr. Bush and probably will not be voting for him next November, but the move to a hard retirement date for the shuttles and the declaration of a long-term goal for NASA to focus on is hugely important, and is something Clinton should have done years ago.

  Nothing focuses we Americans like a rivalry, though, and a joint program with Russia and China on board would create just the focus and political will you correctly state are necessary to move forward.  I'm happily willing to show our stereotyped competitive nature in a second space race.  I just don't think it is all that likely.  Too bad!  

Lots of us thought that the human future in space would be a logical evolution of programs.  We read too much science fiction, I guess.  It is, instead, looking like more of a series of spasms, and base competitiveness seems to be a potent stimulant for these jerks ahead.  

I personally would welcome a credible effort beyond LEO from China and other countries, but I think the Chinese may have a hard time partnering with anyone for awhile.  They seem intent on going it alone for the time being, don't you think?

As far as the NASA  planning goes, I am politically poles apart from Vish, but he makes a good point - your dislike of Dubya seems to me to be getting in your way.

What is better - to lurch along for 20 more years pouring $4 billion every year into the shuttles or making the choice to move on?

To fail to set a goal or to look outward?

To wait five or six years to get a payload to the outer solar system or try to cut that down to a third or less of that time?

Yes, there are funding problems, and reach will probably exceed grasp.  Yes, I think the chance of getting to Mars in any fashion inside of 20 years is that of a snowball in Hell.  But no, this isn't something exclusively suported by the conservative right in this country.  There are plenty of Democrats in key commitee positions who are in favor of moving NASA back into exploration mode, and the front end of the Bush plan is putting this into motion.  It will certainly not survive the budget process unscathed, but it beats the hell out of what we've been doing for the past 20 years or so.  I can live with any NASA plan which moves us out of the shuttle era and looks to extend human presence beyond LEO!

Jim    

Extremely well said Jim,
This matter about Dubya and his moon speech is just the tip of it for me.  Don't forget other factors such as Kyoto, Illegal steel tariffs, Invading Iraq on what has proven to be extremely questionable grounds, the ICC, anti pollutions controls (or the lack of) etc, etc, etc.  Yes it is true I intensely dislike the guy, but I do so based on more than one policy.

Anyway, enough of that.

What NASA needs is not only long term goals but also long term budgeting.  Once set in place, the budget should not be touchable by the next administration.  Let NASA have the money for five or ten year plans on a five year or ten year basis and when it is all used up, go and request some more.  I wonder if it might also push the management into more efficient long term project management policies when they understand that they have a fixed task and a fixed budget to complete it with.

I totally agree with you on the Soyuz point, most of which I understand stems from the refusal of the US to try to repair the bridges between itself and Iran.

The US is not so badly off with its politicians, the UK politicians normally wait to see a good idea developed to the pre-production stage, then cut the funding so the developers end up going overseas.  The Mag-Lev train system being one of their biggest points of shame.  Now, Japan and Germany rule but the technology was invented by Britain's Eric Laithwaite.

True, the Chinese will have a lot of pride and ego set in going to the moon for themselves, but the experience of the Russians will be hard to ignore.

The end of life for the shuttle was already earmarked, the Columbia accident only brought it into people's minds again.  Nasa has no other choice but to develop something new and Bush simply tagged onto that to earn a few political brownie points as far as I could see.

Anyhow, sorry to appear so pessimistic.  But on the other hand, by being a pessimist, you have a far greater chance of being pleasantly surprised when something DOES happen as planned.  Optimists are the ones that are continually disappointed.

Here is the place to give feedback on the new programme:

http://www.moontomars.org/

behave!

mmm...the form doesn't seem to work right now, so I'll paste my comments here in the mean time:

I think it is a worthy project and I admire the president for his vision, but like he said, it is important that the United States first does his duty in the internation partnership within the ISS project.

Furthermore, I think it is wise to also look at ESA's Aurora programme and adjust goals accordingly, and, if possible, coorperate. I think it would be impossible for both Europe and the United States to do such a project seperately. But both have now set up a programme that shows they are more than willing to expand human presence beyond the Earth. Coorperation between the two would only look wise to me, saving cost and time, saving redundant missions and improving international relations.

it works again

apparently, missions like TPF are also included in the "nation's vision".

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12052

don't know it that is a good thing...it's good to have vision, but what if everything gets cancelled? will TPF etc, suffer?

Yeah, but does he [Bush] know where it is? [smiley=smiley.gif]

I just checked the spaceref link and under Milestones found

"2015-2020: First human mission to the Moon "  - Huh?  Does anybody proofread anymore, or am I missing something?  I thought we've been there already.  I suppose they missed a qualifier and mean 'of this millenium'.

Actually I have seen some of the original films (from the moon) in Houston.  It would really hard to fake that stuff.

Meanwhile keep an eye on the ISS, especially the altitude (just some comments from the inside) http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/

I would like to get back to the moon and on to Mars.  I was ready 20 years ago, when I did some studies on an NEP system to Mars.

There are some things heating up!  I'll have a better idea in about 4 months.

you work at NASA?

I work for a small private company, which provides engineering services to NASA and their contractors, DOE national labs and their contractors, and utilities and engineering companies in nuclear power and aerospace industries.

I have friends and colleagues who work at NASA and DOE labs, and various contractors and universities.  Basically, we are waiting to see what's happening with Project Prometheus (continuation of the Nuclear Space Initiative).  Boeing, Lockheed and Grumman are competing for top spot.

Unfortunately, it's hurry up and wait - a matter of bureaucratic inertia - a lot of which is outside of NASA.

budget battle starts:

http://www.space.com/news/budget_fight_040315.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0006BC20-3E44-1052-BD3483414B7F016F

A support campaign:

http://www.space.com/goformars/

Thanks for that link remcook. I voted my support.

I think that the funding issue may improve after the elections as all of the politicans are more interested in how America votes and not what is good for America.

do you think it will matter who wins? (i.e. will Kerry cancel the whole thing if he wins?)

I think that most of them do not do, or try to do, a lot of things they promise. What I do think is that once the election is over and they have to votes to remain or take over that this may or may not change.
Kerry may very well try to cancel it all, but I am not sure wheather or not he is bluffing.

I think that we have too much invested in Space for a total cancelation to take place and I am sure a very long debate would take place should that issue indeed arise.

I believe that most everything now is likely to be political profiling but hope not w/ Bush and his initative.

NASA has to do something to get the publics support.

http://www.space.com/news/commentary_vision_040429.html

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040510-125812-6719r (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040510-125812-6719r)
new speech coming

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14237

some groups are preparing a "blitz" to support the new plans

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595075202,00.html

Appolo project was prestige issue of Americans and was byproduct of cold war.Now no cold war ,no moon going.

alokmohan!

You state your opinion yet fail to enter into discussion.

The fact that there is no "cold war" does not preclude a return to the moon, or a future mission to Mars.

These are initiatives proposed by the present administration and have nothing to do with Gagarin, Apollo or the Cold War.

Please try to approach these issues with an open mind.

Appolo project was prestige issue of Americans and was byproduct of cold war. Now no cold war, no moon going.

Such a statement is an over-simplification of the situation.  Since the 1980's the US has invested in the Space Station, Hubble Space Telescope and numerous other satellite and exploratory projects.

Since the cold war has ended, significant resources of the US have been diverted to two wars in Iraq (otherwise known as Gulf War I and II) and conflicts in several other countries, e.g. Bosnia.

Hopefully as matters settle down somewhat, or we adapt to the current situation, America and the world can start to think of beyond ISS.  I would like to see a multilateral, make that multinational, space program.

i agree with Astronuc, hopefully, a calm down in international conflict will make things better for space exploration.

On the flip side when theres no war, the CIA usually set about fixing it (joke)

From Nature.com:

Bush's space vision loses focus
Mark Peplow
US budget for sending astronauts to Moon and Mars is slashed

President George W. Bush's project known as the 'Vision for space exploration' looks likely to stay firmly on the launch pad after budget cuts at NASA were supported by a key government committee yesterday.

The budget proposal gives NASA $15.1 billion in 2005, $1.1 billion less than it requested, and $229 million below the agency's budget this year. The full House and Senate is likely to vote on this bill later this year.

The cuts strike hardest at some of the initiatives announced with great fanfare by Bush in January this year. For example, he promised to send humans back to the Moon by 2020, as a stepping stone for human exploration of Mars and beyond. But a mere $372 million has been provided of the $910 million needed to kick-start the project.

"We simply could not afford to fund the vision," admits James Walsh, chairman of the subcommittee that recommended the cuts earlier this week. The US House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, which is responsible for overseeing all budget proposals through its subcommittees, ratified the proposals yesterday.

NASA's administrator Sean O'Keefe says that without the cash, the 'Vision for space exploration' will remain nothing more than a vision.

In an open letter sent yesterday to Bill Young, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, O'Keefe tried to persuade Young not to accept his subcommittee's proposals. "The President's budget proposes the means to support the 'Vision for Space Exploration', while the subcommittee's position does not provide the resources," he wrote.

O'Keefe added that space science would undoubtedly suffer as a result: "The recommended funding level for NASA would adversely affect its ongoing science and technology programmes."

Return to flight

NASA will, however, get the full $4.3 billion that it needs to return the space-shuttle fleet to active duty. This is expected to happen in the spring of next year. After the loss of the space shuttle Columbia on 1 February 2003, it has been seen as a matter of principle within the space agency to get its remaining shuttles running again as soon as possible.

But the space shuttle is due to be phased out by 2010, to be replaced by a 'next generation' piloted vehicle. The tightened budget now provides only about one-quarter of the proposed development costs of this new craft, which would hamper its proposed deployment by 2014.

Other initiatives hit include Project Prometheus, which aims to develop nuclear-powered engines for craft such as the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO). This ambitious mission would send JIMO to visit three of Jupiter's moons (Callisto, Ganymede and Europa), which may harbour vast oceans beneath their icy surfaces. The $230 million withheld from this project looks likely to delay the proposed 2012 launch date.

There is some good news for NASA, however. After the successes of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, a robotic Mars mission got the full $691 million that the agency had requested.

For the present no moon.But JIMO isnew side.Oh I like europa so much.Robotic mission to mars will help us to learn about mars, our future hopeful abode.Moon is too costly now.Lets have mars.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040728-124356-2684r

Next: NASA's new atomic rocket

hmmmm...interesting

http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/index.html

this sounds optimistic

http://www.eians.net/2005/01/05/05mar.html

..but I don't really buy it

Alokmohan posted a comment yesterday under Everthing India about an announcement made in Ahmedabad.  I wonder if this was simply a repeat of the Moon-to-Mars goals from last year.

It seems strange that a definitive statment would be issued by some official during an overseas visit, rather than the NASA administrator making a major announcement from Washington.

I wonder what is meant by the phrase "send a man to Mars", rather than land a Man on Mars.  It would be a waste of effort to send someone to orbit Mars and then return.

That person also must be very healthy.  An incapacitative illness could be fatal.  Also, the article mentions that "astronauts suffer from a range of peculiar cardiovascular and neurovestibular diseases ".

However, imagine the competition to be the one astronaut, who would be a child or teenager now.

I think NASA should host a show, called 'american astronaut' or 'who wants to be an astronaut' to select the chosen one. They could funds half the mission with it as well!  :elkgrin.gif:

Rem - great idea!  :rollin

 :yukyuk

But given the kind of people who participate in such programs . . .  ::)

Maybe NASA could send a chimpanzee along for company.  But then cleaning up after a chimp would be a pain.

two words:

hyperintelligent rats

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/07okeefe/

"NASA's budget enables new age of exploration"

full budget;
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107487main_FY06_med.pdf

nice article about NASA's moon plans (the hardware side)

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo

From the article that Rem posted - here is on of NASA's concepts -