Monday, May 5, 2008

Plan B for Space Exploration

I found this article on www.spaceref.com ! It's very interesting, and it voices a lot of my own concerns about the Vision too!

In 1992 as a student enthusiastically working on projects associated with the Shuttle, tethers in space, small satellites and the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), I, along with some fellow students wrote papers about
technologies that could be used in the return to the Moon effort. One conference that we wrote a paper for was the American Society of Civil Engineers Space 1992 conference in Denver Colorado, which at that time was a wellspring of great academic and research interactions regarding practical approaches to building Lunar and Mars outposts.

During this time I kept a daily diary of my interactions as this was literally at the dawn of today's Internet and we still used paper for many things. At this conference were many NASA luminaries and at one panel discussion a startling, and in hindsight prophetic statement was made. The statement that is in my diary goes "SEI by 1994 or will not happen until after 2004". The person that made this statement was the head of NASA Code X (X for exploration), and his name was Dr. Mike Griffin. Dr. Griffin also stated that without the SEI the United States would begin to fall behind in aerospace technology. It seems that with 14 years of hindsight that Dr. Griffin was exactly right on both counts.

Those of us who were disappointed with the demise of SEI shared the frustrations that I am sure that Dr. Griffin shared and is trying to fix today with the ESAS architecture. NASA is furiously working to make the Ares 1 overcome its problems while also looking to the future in the development of the Ares 5 and the retirement of the Shuttle. However, there are many of us out here who were around then, I have written before, think the same forces that killed SEI are going to kill the ESAS architecture and Constellation systems. The chances of this are high enough that like a prudent military commander, we need a plan B for space. This is not going to come from NASA just as there was no plan B in 1993. Therefore as a service to the community that is desperate for a plan B, the following plan is offered for consideration.

Critical Features of Plan B

The follow-on to the shuttle and the vehicle that returns humans to the Moon is not a business decision, but a political one. Therefore political considerations are paramount. At this time there are four primary political considerations that any plan B has to address and these are:

  • Reap the science harvest for the U.S. and International partners for the $100 billion spent on the International Space Station.
  • Workforce retention and continuity.
  • Open the Moon and beyond to exploration while leaving enabling low earth orbit as the domain of commercial space
  • Close the American human spaceflight gap as much as possible

These four considerations force a Solomon's choice on NASA, Congress and the aerospace community. We cannot have it all so we have to make choices on how to carve up the space program into viable chunks that the nation can afford and can buy into in the moral choices between space and other priorities. As military strategists are wont to say, the perfect is the enemy of the good, so the question is, is there a "good" solution that satisfies the above requirements? In other words, is there a possible politically workable plan B?

The problem with positing a plan B today is that NASA has been pummeled for the past three years in relation to plan A and has put up their defensive shields and will not consider anything but the current plan. This is too bad as the agency and its engineers are working very hard to make the current system work, but it is highly unlikely that the current plan is going to be funded after the election, just like in 1993. Therefore we have to do it for them (I have received a lot of professional input on this but most of them work on the current contracts and are more than willing to allow me to fall on the sword and make Dr. Griffin mad on this in the hopes that something constructive will come out) and hope that if Dr. Griffin or his successor sees that plan A is dead that they will remember plan B and make it work.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/nw.shuttle.c.jpghttp://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/nw.shuttle.c.jpg

Shuttle C + EELV + ISS + International Participation as Plan B

Shuttle C

There have been many variations of Shuttle Cargo (C) designs over the years so a clarification is necessary. The lowest cost, fastest schedule system for a Shuttle C is the version shown in the image here of the version that basically is a Shuttle with the wings and crew compartment removed. A Shuttle C with this capability could loft about 45 metric tons to ISS and as much as 52 metric tons to a 28.5 degree orbit.

Critics will correctly immediately point out that this is inadequate for boosting a human mission to the Moon. However, if the payload is sent to the International Space Station, these payloads can be aggregated into enough payload with two launches of a the Shuttle C and an EELV-lofted CEV to do a lunar mission. It may be that we will have to sacrifice the capability to send four crew to the Moon but that is three better than zero.

The value of the Shuttle C as configured here is that it requires no changes to the launch pads at KSC, no changes to the VAB high bays, and only minimal changes to the payload handling system at the pad to deal with the longer length (85 feet vs 60 feet) for the extended cargo bay. In the original Shuttle C studies of the late 80's and early 90's the cost for developing the system was minimal, less than a billion dollars according to an external report and no more than $2 billion by NASA. If you include a recoverable SSME pod this might go as high as four billion dollars but would eliminate the $35-$50 billion for the development of the Ares 1 and Ares 5. It would take a lot of Shuttle C flights and years of operations to equal that amount of money.

As an engineering solution the Shuttle C as described is far from optimum. It does not fully take advantage of the throw weight of the Shuttle system as it is volume limited and a larger volume would be nice. However, larger volume would require a lot more changes at the Cape, which negates the larger cargo volume, especially if you want this system to fly soon. Further, these losses are offset in that performance is at least partially used in getting the system up to ISS or to a higher orbit. As a political solution it does solve three of the four problems above. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Shuttle is going to fly beyond Sept 10, 2010 and Congress may force the issue as it pertains to the gap in human spaceflight and the ability to fly spare parts to the station. A Shuttle C with the same cargo carrying ability and connections as the orbiter could carry anything that has ever been designed by NASA for the orbiter. This brings in another facet of why this is a good solution: our international partners.

The Role of ISS in Lunar Development

For years now our European partners have been upset because it seems like the day that their investment of tens of billions of dollars in hardware is lofted into orbit, NASA wants to walk away from that investment. Congress has been less than thrilled about this as well. Today NASA says that this must happen as it is not efficient to go through the station to get to the Moon. While this may be technically correct, it is politically tone deaf and in the end self-defeating.

The station, even at 51.6 degrees inclination, is an amazing outpost in space. With the truss almost complete, the European module in place and the Japanese Kibo addition just weeks away, the station is becoming what we always dreamed it would be, our first outpost in the sky and while it is far from the perfect location, it is a good location to support return to the Moon. From there we can take advantage of the European, Japanese, and even Russian cargo and human carrying systems. This also extends to the commercial systems such as the SpaceX and Orbital Sciences COTS systems. Eventually if SpaceX gets their Dragon human carrying system operational, it is conceivable that non NASA explorers could depart from ISS to the Moon. How would this be accomplished?

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/wingo.3.jpghttp://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/wingo.3.jpg

During the SEI Era there was an amazing cadre of engineers who sought to maximize the utility of the Shuttle system to support exploration. One of the concepts shown here (designed by Brand Griffin and illustrated by Paul Hudson) was a lunar lander that would fit in the cargo bay of a Shuttle or Shuttle C. This lander carried its payload in a center section where it could be easily lowered to the surface, a much simpler arrangement than the top loaded payloads that are required when a conventional launch vehicle is used. The Shuttle C lander used four RL-10 engines in a horizontal arrangement that took advantage of the layout of the long and narrow cargo bay, which moots the argument by some that the cargo bay layout is insufficient for a lunar lander. With modern control systems and RL-10's used at 50% power this system provides an abort to the surface fully redundant system. This horizontal arrangement would negate the need for heavy lifting devices to remove payloads from top loading lunar landers.

This system could be sent to the Moon by itself ahead of the human crew that would depart from the station via a concept developed during the late 90's by NASA as part of their Orbital Aggregation and Space Infrastructure System (OASIS) study carried out under their Revolutionary Space Concepts studies office. This concept called a Crew Transfer Vehicle or CTV looked like this:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/wingo.4.jpghttp://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/wingo.4.jpg
NASA OASIS Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) (Reusable)

This reusable vehicle, when married to an aerobrake, would allow for crews to be transferred from the station to lunar orbit and back again. In order to do this there needs to be a transfer stage. This transfer stage could be reusable or expendable, brought up on the Shuttle C as a payload and could use the same RL-10 engine packs as would be used on the Griffin horizontal lander.

There has been a lot of very competent work done on this concept and at least part of it was the NASA baseline at the beginning of the SEI era. The problem this was that that the space station had to be built before anything else could happen, along with a heavy lift launcher (Shuttle C). Well we have the station now and a Shuttle C solves a lot of the problems that confront the program now. That leaves the EELV to deal with. Also, going through the station gives a perfect entry for ESA, our long-suffering European partners, to participate. The Ariane V could be used to bring up cargo and payloads, including extra propulsion packs. A slightly modified ATV could be used to provide an initial boost of the CTV from the station to a higher orbit, to increase the total system performance. The Japanese and Russian ISS partners would also have a seat at the table and could contribute to the ultimate return to the Moon, one that works with our friends, rather than leaving them in the lurch with the billions that they invested in the station infrastructure.

EELV/Orion

The last part of this equation to deal with is the Orion. Part of the reason for the gap is that NASA is trying to develop a launch vehicle with inadequate performance at the same time they are trying to build a vehicle that can carry crews to the station as well as to the Moon and beyond. This is creating enormous problems for the NASA and contractor teams that so far have not been solved. The General Accounting office has roundly criticized such practices in the Defense Department in a newly published evaluation of the reasons for the lack of cost control of military space and other programs. If the GAO report findings hold for NASA (which is being done by the same contractors), we can expect huge overruns and there are indications that this is already happening in the Orion/Ares programs.

In the plan B outlined above, the Orion vehicle would no longer carry crews to the Moon, so a lot of mass savings could be had that would solve the weight problem. It would solve it so well that no longer would the CEV have to ride on the Ares 1 and that part of the system becomes no longer necessary. The latest iterations of the Ares 5 no longer use anything from the Ares 1 but the J2-x engine. Since with the Shuttle C the Ares 5 becomes a moot point, tens of billions of dollars can be saved by just moving a lighter weight, less demanding Orion that only goes to ISS over to the Atlas V or Delta IV heavy launch vehicle. The J2-x would survive and would still provide its role for an Earth Departure Stage.

This cannot be an impossible dream in that both Robert Bigelow and Elon Musk are designing similar vehicles. Also, by reducing the number of requirements that each system has to satisfy, lower development costs can be had and the savings applied to doing things on the Moon that we must do to open the space frontier. With this approach and by standardizing hardware, the same avionics that are used for the Orion could be used for the CTV, the lunar lander, and any other hardware that we send to the Moon.

Synthesis

This missive started out with the contention that with an election coming up and with none of the current candidates expressing enthusiasm for increasing NASA's budgets by the amount that is necessary to support the current ESAS plan, we need a plan B. This plan B must solve the political problems of workforce retention, close the American human spaceflight gap, enable ISS utilization, bring in international participation, and preserve our ability to go to the Moon in a budget-constrained environment. In 1992 our current NASA administrator stated that if SEI did not happen by 94 that it would be delayed to 2004 and history has proven him right. He has worked mightily to create momentum that will keep going after this election but with the problems that daily crop up with both the Ares 1 and Ares 5, and with the unhappiness in Congress over making Brevard county Florida a ghost town as happened after Apollo, we must develop a plan B that Congress can buy into. In 1993 there was no plan B, and it was only with the incorporation of the Russians as a foreign policy goal that the space station itself survived by only one vote in congress.

The above is by no means the only idea out there and technically perhaps not the best, but the perfect is the enemy of the good, and with a good plan B, we can do the things we need to do while not requiring more money than our congressional investors are willing to spend on this effort. I don't fault Dr. Griffin in his planning as I know that he is amazingly dedicated to this effort and shares our vision of a positive future, but without that plan B, it is unlikely that we will have any plan at all.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The Cost of Freedom

I just finished watching the final episode of the John Adams miniseries. It was a tearjerker. It was sad when his daughter died of breast cancer. I will admit that I cried when his wife died a few years later. It was emotional. If one watched the whole series, you would understand that Abigail Adams (his wife) was a huge part in John’s life. She have him advice and helped him in almost everything he did.

John himself died on July 4, 1826, the fifty year anniversary of the founding of our great nation. He died only a few hours after Thomas Jefferson, his best friend, died. John and Thomas were the last living of our Founding Fathers, and because of that, John Adams last words were, “Thomas Jefferson survives.” He did not know that Jefferson had already died (they were far apart after all).

The end of the final episode had a very interesting line that John Adams said (It was stated in a letter he wrote to his wife, Abigail), and that is, “Now posterity, you will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I took half the pains to preserve it.

That line really sums it all up. I guarantee you many who may read what I am writing right now know very little about the Founding Fathers and the Revolution. It’s a crying shame. They show a lot of that in the last episode too. There is a scene (I do not know if it actually happened or not) where John Adams meets the painter and the painting of all of the founders and the continental congress together signing the declaration. He looks at it, calmly, and completely scolds the painter saying that this painting is fiction! It never happened like it was portrayed. He states, “We were at war! Men were in and out of Philadelphia all summer to affix their names to Mr. Jefferson's hallowed document!"

This scene really shows how much our society has forgotten about what these men did. Again, this goes back to the Romanticizing of the Founding and the Revolution.

This whole Miniseries has inspired me to the fullest. I love this country, and I am a history buff (those who know me know this), but I feel that even I do not know enough about our founding. I will start to read and learn more about this critical time. What is sad, is that even though I claim that I do not know enough, most of my friends, and my generation knows less than half of what I know. I worry about that. Maybe, as one of my friends said, they will grow up and get more mature, but right now, the Millennial Generation is the most spoiled of all the generations. I fear that my generation may be worse than the Baby Boomer Generation in terms of selfishness. We have lost sight of why our country was founding.

A big example of my worry is how my generation is so willing to sign away our rights that our ancestors fought so hard for and gave so much. This would include this myth of manmade global warming. People just want to give our rights to lawmakers, because they have convinced people that it’s “our” fault that the planet is warming up. We are to blame, us evil Americans. Our founding fathers would be turning over in their graves to see what we are about to sign on to. They want to force us to use less energy. They want to force us to drive cars that are crap. They want to force us to use the inefficient compact florescent light bulbs. They have banned the traditional incandescent light bulb. All of these mandates and more are taking away from our freedoms. They also want to tax us more for our “sins.”

We have lost our way in terms of what the Founders believed in, but we are not lost. As long as we have our freedoms, we can always go back to the right path; the path of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, limited government, and rest of our rights.

I am rambling now, but this miniseries has inspired me to learn more. To understand what these Founding Father went though. I only got a tiny image of what our Founding Fathers went through with this miniseries; I can only imagine what the real deal was like. I hope the rest of you who read this, watch that miniseries, and strive to learn more about why our country was founded.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The Space Shuttle


Launch of Endeavour, March 11, 2008 at 1:28am central

I am watching the docking coverage of the shuttle Endeavour with the International Space Station. The more I watch it, the more amazed by it all I get. The space shuttle is 100 tons; the Space Station is 300 tons. Both of them are traveling at about five miles every second, or 17, 500 miles per hour! That’s crazy fast, but being up over 200 miles, the speeds don't seem that fast. In fact, relative speed between the two spacecraft right before docking is about one inch per second. To some this may not seem like a big deal, but for many who understand the concepts of physics, and what it takes to launch something and rendezvous and dock with something and do it right the first time, every time, all of this with the most complex machine ever built, it’s just flat out amazing!

This is the will be the twenty-fifth docking of a space shuttle to the International Space Station which has been on orbit since 1998. Crews have continuously occupied it since November 2, 2000. During that time, over 150 people have visited the station, many more than once! There have been 40 manned dockings, including STS-123, and 31 unmanned dockings (with the first European docking to occur in early April, increasing the number to 32). That is 61 dockings! Since the first space station piece launched in 1998, over 104 EVA’s or spacewalks have occurred dedicated to ISS maintenance and construction, with 5 more coming on this current mission.

I can be a critic of the shuttle and station programs, but they are still truly amazing programs. I am for exploring. I can settle for the Moon, but Mars is where I think that we should really go. I do believe the space station, as well as the shuttle program will have their benefits, and will help us in learning how to work and build things in space. The biggest thing that the ISS taught us is how to work together internationally. This is the largest multinational engineering and science project in human history.

When the space shuttle program ends, and the Orbiter’s are retired, it will truly be sad. Not “it’s the end” sad, but “those were amazing vehicles” sad. They have been flying since 1981, and designed in the early 70’s, so their retirement is long overdue. That means after this mission, there will only be 11 flights remaining. That is assuming they launch the contingency resupply missions (STS-131 and STS-133). The final flight I plan on seeing. If it is STS-133, it will be launched in July of 2010. I will be there. This is like watching the last Gemini mission. I would not compare it to watching the last lunar landing, for the fact that we are going to do something grander than what we are doing now. In 1966 when Gemini 12 landed, it was sad, but they knew back then that the next program was Apollo. Likewise, the next program for us is the Constellation Program. I just hope nothing is cut till we set up a base on the moon, which will be between 2020 and 2024. Once we have established a base on the moon, with crews rotating every six months, it will be very hard for congress to cancel a program like that. Then we can focus on Mars.

Don’t get me wrong, if they decided tomorrow that we would skip the moon all together and go to Mars, I would be the happiest person on the planet, save for Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society. But it probably won’t happen that way. You can read my previous post on my views of Mars Direct.

As the space shuttle docks tonight with the ISS, it does inspire me to continue to work towards being an Aerospace Engineer. I have loved space since I first saw a space shuttle launch, in 1998. Curiously it was John Glenn’s Return to flight, making him the oldest man in space. I believe the mission was STS-95, Orbiter Discovery. This year will be 10 years of spaceflight passion for me. Time flies.

I still do not know whether I want to go straight to the private sector of space travel, or go to NASA first. Every time I read about the company Space Exploration Technologies, my passion for the private industry grows larger. It’s amazing that by the end of this decade, maybe 2011 at the worst case, SpaceX will launch the first private space capsule to the International Space Station. Yes, it will be unmanned, but it has the capability to support 7 people. I think NASA would be stupid not to use it during the Shuttle Gap. Not only will they be launching what they call the “Dragon” Capsule, but they will be launching it using their own rocket that they designed. It’s called the Falcon 9. The first test launches should be sometime next year. I do believe at the pace that NASA is going that very soon, possibly in the late 20’s, the private industry will leapfrog NASA. Whether that means mining on the moon, or crewed missions to asteroids or Mars, I could not tell you, but it will happen.

For now, I continue to work towards being an AE. I view things like STS-123 as well as other missions for motivation. For somebody like me, there isn’t anything more motivating or inspiring as watching a space shuttle mission.

Shuttle Missions Remaining:

STS-124 – Discovery – Launch May 25, 2008- Large Japanese Lab (Kibo)

STS-125 – Atlantis – Launch August 28, 2008- Last Hubble servicing mission, Atlantis’s last mission

STS-119 – Endeavour – Launch October 16, 2008- Supply mission

STS-126 – Discovery – Launch December 4, 2008- S6 Solar array (the final large solar array and the completion of the truss)

STS-127 – Endeavour – Launch January 15, 2009- Japanese Lab exposed facility

STS-128 – Discovery – Launch April 9, 2009- Supply Mission

STS-129 – Endeavour – Launch July 9, 2009- EXPRESS Logistics Carrier (ELC) 1 and 2

STS-130 – Discovery – Launch September 30, 2009- supply mission

STS-131 – Endeavour – Launch January 2010- Contingency supply mission, ELC3 and 4

STS-132 – Discovery – Launch April 1, 2010- Node 3 and the cupola, Discovery’s last mission

STS-133 – Endeavour – Launch July 15, 2010- Contingency supply mission, ELC5, final space shuttle flight

Final configuration of the International Space Station

Monday, March 3, 2008

The Mars Direct Plan



I just watched a documentary last night called The Mars Underground. It was about the Mars Society and how it started, as well as Dr. Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct plan, how it started, and where it is now. The Mars Direct plan is a cheap plan to get humans to mars, within a decade of the programs start. It would only cost a total of 50-70 billion dollars over 10 years, well within NASA’s budget.

The Plan

The first mission, launched say in 2016, would be an unmanned Mars Assent Vehicle. It would be launched on the now planned Ares V rocket and launched to mars, and begin making its own propellant for the trip home, using only the chemicals in the mars atmosphere. That is the key. Make your own supplies, a “live off the land” approach. It’s called In-Situ Resource Utilization. Dr. Zubrin and his team have proven that it could be done on mars, and relatively cheap. The Reaction is as follows:

The Sabatier Reaction (CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O)

To produce the methane on Mars, as a propellant, Oxygen is liberated from the water by electrolysis, and the hydrogen is recycles back to the Sabatier Reaction. The usefulness of this reaction is that only the hydrogen (which is light) will need to be brought from earth.

The process would take about 10 months to complete, making up to about 112 tons of propellant (methane and oxygen).

This means that before the first people even leave earth, they will have a fully fueled Earth Return Vehicle on Mars waiting for them.

The second mission, launched say in 2018, would consist of 2 launches. The first launch would be an unmanned Mars Assent Vehicle. This would be identical to the first one launched, and sent to mars for the second manned mission after the first. This can be used as a backup for the first manned mission as well. The second launch would be the manned Habitat, launched with 4-6 people. They would land on Mars six to eight months later. The crew would then spend a year and a half (earth years) on the surface, waiting for earth and mars to line up again. They would then leave mars on the Mars Assent Vehicle, and make the return journey to earth. Before they even leave Mars, though, a second crewed Hab is sent to mars to continue exploration.

All of this can be done with existing technology, but NASA does not do it. We are going to spend well over 200 BILLION dollars on the return to the moon, and the Lunar Outpost, but we can’t spend 50-70 billion on a crewed Mars mission. Why?

NASA and politics, as well as people for the lunar outpost and other things will state a plethora of excuses. These “excuses” are much like the dragons on old maps.

What do you mean, “Dragons on old maps?”

In the early days before the exploration of the new world began, map makers would draw dragons of sorts in the large oceans that nobody has explored, showing fear that early sailors had of the unknown. Would the world just end? Would there be some monster that kills them all without warning? There were many fears.

This is similar to what we have today. One major dragon on the roadmap to mars is Radiation. Critics claim we don’t have sufficient knowledge of radiation to protect the crew to mars. This is nothing that we can’t deal with. You have a “storm shelter” of sorts in the center of the Hab that has the protections of radiation. Once you are on the surface of Mars, the radiation is something you don’t’ have to worry about. Radiation levels would be well within limits, in fact, your chances of getting cancer are increased by 1 percent. Your normal percentages of getting cancer are 20 percent, so you would now have a 21 percent chance of getting cancer. If you send a crew of all smokers (40 percent chance of getting cancer), and send them to Mars (no smoking allowed), then you are actually decreasing their risk of cancer.

Another Major dragon that you hear about is the Physiological Issues of 3 years alone with only 3 to 5 other people. Critics claim that people could go “crazy” on a long journey like that. Well, that claim is nonsense. Crews in the early years of sea exploration had to deal with a crew of 20 or so, on a small boat possibly with a mean captain, with horrible food, and no sign of land for months. They were truly all alone with no possible way of communicating with their loved ones for many months or years. The first mars crew would have all the comforts of home. TV (sent from earth), email, movies, good food, entertainment, and so on. Now, now it is true, that the crew would experience “rigors” not experienced by most civilians, but clearly survivable.

The biggest dragon that we are facing now is the belief that we need to go to the moon to learn how to work on mars. To test equipment, to learn about long duration stays on another world, etc. The fact is, these are the same scams that got us the space shuttle and the International Space Station, which have cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars. I’m not saying that these programs are pointless, but I am saying that these programs have delayed the true exploration of space that spurred so much technology that the Apollo program brought, as well as inspired the youth like nothing else has sense. The fact of the matter is, it’s easier, in terms of fuel, to get to Mars, than it is to get to the Moon.

The fact of the matter is, we can go to Mars, but there is too much politics in the way. It’s not only politics; it is NASA bureaucracy that is delaying this endeavor. There are too many “pet projects” in NASA that get in the way. If NASA wants to do something, NASA tries its best to incorporate everybody, so that everybody will continue getting funding for their projects. All of these things drive up costs, and complexity, and ultimately doom it to failure; can anybody say Space Exploration Initiative and the 90 day report? The first Bush Administration announced in 1989 that we were going to go back to the moon and go on to Mars. So, in response, NASA put together a group of people to figure out how we could do this. Well, their plan was to triple the size of the then planned ISS, add shipping hangars, send crews to the moon to build a base on the moon, learn to mine the moon, build ships there, launch the ships to lunar orbit, check them out, and send the mars crew to lunar orbit to take this giant ship (critics called battle star galactic) to mars orbit, land on mars, stay for a few days, and return home. A bold endeavor, at a cost, 450 BILLION dollars in 1990 dollars! This failed miserably in congress.

The simple matter is, we can go to Mars, in as little as 10 years, but we are wasting money on the moon. Mars has been pushed back from 1980, to 1999, to 2020, to now no later than 2030, but that will be future delayed at this rate. It kills me; 50-70 billion dollars over 10 years, 5-7 billion per year, and even less after the first mission, and we still are not going. We have the technology. What we have the will. What we do not have is the political backing.

If anybody is interested in the Mars Direct Plan, I suggest reading book called “The Case for Mars” by Robert Zubrin.

If you want to watch a trailer of The Mars Underground, you can watch it here.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Why I like Mitt and Fred, and why Huck and McCain are Liberal

Ah, the political season has set in. Everybody has set in around their candidate.

Frankly, I could not care less about the Democrat Party. I feel that any of the Republicans can beat them (save for maybe Huckabee and Ron Paul) so I will not talk about them.
On the Republican side you have the Ron Paul Kooks (yes many of them are that, not all though), and you have the Huckabee Evangelicals. You have people voting for John McCain, and so on, then you have the conservatives Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

People have wondered who I want to vote for and why. I like Mitt Romney as well as Fred Thompson. Some of you may ask, why Mitt Romney, why Fred? Why not Huckabee or McCain? I’ll tell you why. Fred and Mitt are as close to real conservatives as we can get in this election cycle. Huckabee and McCain are Liberals.

First, I don’t know officially who I want to vote for. I like Mitt Romney at times, and then Fred Thompson does something amazing. For instance last night, Fred Thompson finally lit up! He tore up Mike Huckabee and his only real response was. That’s all Fred can do is Attack because he has no message, which is totally wrong. I like Fred because he is the only one preaching Federalism. For those of you who do not know what Federalism is, well, shame on you! Federalism means sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central government (the Federal Government) and the States. That means the power to govern is shared between the Federal and State Governments. It’s in our constitution all over the place, though it doesn’t literally say Federalism. It’s in our 10th Amendment. Most of you may not know what the 10th amendment is. It states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So, if it’s not in the constitution, it is a state power; for instance, Gay Marriage and Abortion. You all have strong opinions on those issues. My personal believe is that Gay Marriage is wrong and Abortion is killing an innocent life. But Because I am a Conservative (which by definition means I believe in Federalism too) I believe that the final decision should be left up to the states. That way, we have 50 different “laboratories” for public policy. If something is working out well in Alabama, it sets an example for the rest of the states, likewise, if it’s a complete failure, other states know not to go that direction.

This is what Fred Thompson believes on the domestic side. He also believes in Tax cuts, spending cuts, private health care, and so on. He believes in Personal Responsibility, meaning you pay the consequences for your actions. He believes in Individual Liberty and Limited Government. He also doesn’t fall for that Man Made Global Warming Crap like McCain. He is strong on Immigration too. Secure the borders and NO AMNESTY MR MCCAIN.
Fred is strong on the War on Terror too. He wants to increase the size of our Military, and create a missile defense system and so on. He wants to enhance our intelligence community. Those prisoners of war at Club Gitmo, well, they will stay their, and he wants to make a judicial system that deals with terrorists as enemy combatants, not criminals.

That’s just the start for Fred Thompson. I also like Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is one of the few in the race that actually has a record of fixing things in major trouble, and doing them in a pretty conservative way.
To start off, Mitt is a business man. He knows how to organize. He has fixed many companies in the past. In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain and Company (which he worked for from 1978-1984 as vice president) because it was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain and Company though a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.
In 1998 Romney left Bain and Company to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, which was running 379 million dollars short of its revenue benchmarks. It was so bad before Romney got in that they were talking about scaling back the games. There were also allegations of bribery with the top officials in the committee. When Romney took over, he revamped the organizations leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He worked to make sure the games were safe following the 9/11 attacks by coordination a 300 million dollar security budget. Romney even contributed 1 million of his own money to the games, and he gave 825,000 dollars of his salary he earned as CEO of the games to charity.
Then there is Romney’s Experience as Governor of Massachusetts in 2002- 2006.
Massachusetts had a 3 billion dollar budget deficit. By the time Romney got his hands on Massachusetts and fixed it up, Massachusetts had a 700 million dollar surplus! And this was without raising taxes. He also cut spending by 1.6 billion dollars! And he did so much more.
Romney is somebody that can bring change to Washington. Not Liberal Change, like the Democrats or Huckabee and McCain.

Now why do I not like Huckabee or McCain?

McCain can be summed up in this article by Mark R. Levin.

"There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

The original Article can be found Here

Huckabee, now, Mark Levin likes to call him Huckaphony, he calls himself a conservative, but the truth is, he isn’t. He might be a Social conservative (if you want to call it that), but he is really a Liberal.

Fred Thompson said it right the other day during the South Carolina Debate. He wants to bring on liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies, he believes we have an arrogant foreign policy and the tradition of blame America first. He believes Club Gitmo should be closed and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association because his opposition to school vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for Federalism, so much for states rights, so much for individual rights that’s not the model of the Reagan coalition, that’s the model of the Democrat Party.

Here’s the rundown. The media have been building up Huckabee and McCain because they are liberals. And they know that they can easily be beat by the Democrats.
Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are the two most conservative candidates. They are not Reagan, but they are the closest we can get to one.

The Drive-By Media will always tell you who is and who isn't a conservative, by who they try to prop up and who they try to destroy.

This is a time for choosing. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party (as Fred put). The Republican Party will either continue its Reagan roots, or it will go the way of the Wigs.
I support Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney; they are the best ones to lead our Nation Forward.