DCAWD.com

As promised in a recent op-ed, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., has introduced H.R. 1641, the "Reasserting American Leadership in Space Act" or the "REAL Space Act". In the vernacular it is being called the "Back to the Moon Bill."
Thus far the bill had four cosponsors, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., Wolf's cosponsorship is significant as he is the chairman of the on the Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee on Appropriations
The key wording of the legislation is a directive to NASA to plan to return to the moon. "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the moon in order to promote exploration, commerce, science and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The budget requests and expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be consistent with achieving this goal."
The bill has a list of findings that spell out the reason why the primary mission of NASA should be a return to the moon. These range from developing technology to enhancing national security. The curious omission, often cited by supporters of a return to the moon, is resource utilization. The discovery of water and other resources on the moon suggest that it is not only a suitable venue for a human settlement, but also as a refueling stop for spacecraft bound for other destinations in the solar system.
Still, Posey's bill is an attempt to rationalize NASA's human space flight program. When President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation space exploration program, he also removed the central reason why NASA should have a human space flight program. Belated and vague promises of traveling to an asteroid are not taken very seriously by most space analysts and in any case lack a central rationale beyond a version of George Mallory's reason for climbing Mount Everest, "Because it is there."
The fate of H.R. 1641 is uncertain. Even should it pass the House, there does seem to be at present an effort to pass a Senate version of the bill. On the other hand, the language could be incorporated into this year's NASA authorization bill. Then it has to survive a presidential veto, a problematic effort at best provided President Obama wants to go that route. But in any case, the House and perhaps the entire Congress will be on record about why there should be a NASA human space flight program. That will provide some guidance for the next president, whomever he -- or she -- might be.

China unveiled plans for its own space station, to be completed by 2020, along with a cargo ship to ferry supplies to and from orbit.

The space station will be a 60 metric ton, three-module structure, according to Xinhuanet, the state-owned news service. The plans were announced by the China Manned Space Engineering Office at a news conference.

An 18.1-meter-long core module, with a maximum diameter of 4.2 meters and weighing 20 to 22 tons, will be launched first. Two experiment modules will then be launched and dock with the core module. Each laboratory module will be 14.4 meters long, with the same maximum diameter and weight of the core module.

The proposed space station is smaller than the International Space Station, which consists of 16 pressurized modules and weighs in at 419 metric tons. The Russian Mir space station weighed 130 metric tons.
Even so, the fact that the country is proposing one is a sign of the Chinese government's ambitions in space. China is the third nation to launch its own manned rockets into space, sending its first astronaut into orbit in 2003 aboard the Shenzhou 5 rocket. Since then two other manned missions have been launched.

China plans to launch a space module called Tiangong-1 and the Shenzhou 8 spacecraft in the latter half of this year, in the country's first unmanned rendezvous and docking mission. Shenzhou 9 and Shenzhou 10 are planned for 2012 to dock with Tiangong-1.
Wang Zhaoyao, spokesman for the program, said China now needs to develop technologies to support stays in space of at least 20 days as well as cargo supply technology.

Sabre wrote:I really think that the moon landing is the first step to heavy spacelift and other missions. There is simply no (efficient) way for us to continue to explore space without a base that releases us from the grips of gravity. A moon base is the first step to achieve this. There is definite ROI on the entire thing, from the investment in various industries to some of the great technology that comes out of it that can be used planet side.

I totally agree with you on the weaponization of space. That being said, it's only a matter of time... and that's if it doesn't exist already. Are we really all supposed to believe that some of the satellites in space don't have weapons on them?

What about the X-37B?

We need to get American's interested in space again.

avriette wrote:Lifting things to Luna isn't an efficient way to get things to the outer planets or the asteroid belt. You require two lifts at that point, even if one is from low-g. Only if there are adequate resources on Luna to make the original lift worthwhile (I suppose netting hydrogen from water ice would be useful, but that depends on how much ice there is and what we do with the hydrogen) is it a viable target for space exploration. Contrast this with the near immediate benefit of mining an asteroid and using that to build spacecraft.
There are rumors of kinetic weapons in space, specifically 20mm cannon. I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to open up a kinetic weapon in space. Which leaves things like CREWs and big clouds of dust, etc. I don't think the technology is there for CREWs, although I could be wrong. And you have to contrast this possible lazors-in-space thing with the benefit of doing it. It makes a lot more sense to have ground stations to mess with satellites.
The Chair Force needs something to service the IC's birds. It doesn't seem to me like a weapon, nor does it seem like an especially useful space exploration vehicle.
If only we hadn't been pissing away money on these wars, people might be interested in spending money...

Sabre wrote: I think establishing a base on the moon would be much more productive: The ISS is nearing the end of it's serviceable time (2016, although an extension to 2020 is in the works). After this, we need to have something up there to replace it. The moon, with the ability to mine it and also establish a permanent base seems ideal.