NASA had plans for a Saturn II, consisting of the two upper stages of the 3-stage version of the Saturn V. With the addition of some strap-on boosters from the Titan 3 program, it would've had a greater capability than the Saturn I-B, which was used to put the Apollo into LEO. A reusable vehicle much like the planned Russian "Kliper" could have been developed.

And we had a space station (Skylab), which could have served for the 70's, and then we could have sent up the second Skylab -- re-engineered with improvements -- in the 80's. Both had been built in '72-73 for the equivalent of less than $2 billion in today's dollars, as I recall.

One of the problems that we have is that we keep looking at space as a scientific endeavor. And in that light, the manned program has assuredly not been worth the investment. The robotic program has done a lot of good science, and the manned program has done a bit (particularly on the latter Moon landings), but that has paled in comparison to the money we've spent tooling around in LEO. The exploration of space is not a scientific endeavor - the science comes later or alongside - but a human endeavor.

I certainly agree that exploring space is a human endeavor and not a scientific one. The reason I mention the science is because fooling around in LEO isn't exploration, it is nothing but a scientific endeavor. Is the science gained worth the cost? If not, should we end or, at least, drastically scale back our flights in LEO? Are they getting us anywhere productive? If not, then we should use that money on actual exploration. I mean, what is the point of mucking about in orbit anyway?

why should we have only one goal?

I'm not sure you understood what I was looking for; certainly we should be pushing in multiple directions, but I was asking about the moon specifically. I know what our near term goal for Mars should be - to put a man on the surface and bring him back safely a la Apollo with the moon. Your goal of living there would be a little further out. But President Bush has spoken of going back to the moon as well. What is the near term goal we are looking to achieve by going back? Are we talking about a serious push toward colonization as being a goal in say 20-30 years? I don't want us to go back just because we can and accomplish little or nothing new in the process.

Mankind is meant to explore, to reach beyond itself, to go to new places and expand our minds thereby. That is why space exploration is so wonderful and engaging

Exactly! That's why I wanted to have a discussion of where we are and where we should be going. As a kid, I imagined all the great things we would have accomplished by now. I was sure we would have had a man on Mars and the beginnings of a colony on the moon. And honestly, we are in the exact same place we were 20 years ago. We're building a space station, but there were space stations before I was born. We've sent robots to Mars, and that's cool, but we did that before I was born as well. We've ignored the moon entirely. We've done some cool things with probes to other planets and to a comet, but where is the human exploration?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to blog about this.

Your first point, Brian, ties in with Roderick's point. The science in LEO is bunk at this point. Worse, even the engineering is bunk. Not worthless, certainly, but not worth what it's costing us both in dollars and in lost time. The failure of Apollo Applications Project - which gave us only ASTP and Skylab, but which had plans for building a complete space infrastructure - is one of the tragedies of our age. Euripides would have gloried in the story of hubris - both in the audacity of the attempt and the folly of killing it just as AAP was beginning to make real progress.

I understood that you were asking specifically about the Moon. My point is that NASA is not the way to get back to the Moon: private enterprise should do that. When mankind looks up in the daylit sky and sees a point of light near the Sun - the first human lunar colony in the midst of its night - mankind will fundamentally change in its perception of its own ability to achieve. NASA simply can't make it happen, for the reasons I outlined. I don't think NASA could pull off a Mars mission as things stand now, not for technical reasons, but for political reasons. It's sad, but it's just true that the government has lost the will to press forwards in space. For that reason, our best bet is to turn NASA back into a research organization.

Also, you make another common and fundamental mistake: if we go to Mars, why do we need to be able to come back? Are you worried we'll get bored? Imagine if we had, after Apollo, begun sending explorers to the Moon - pioneering families - and just sending supplies up to them. What might we now know? We've landed in half a dozen places, on a body with a land area about the size of, IIRC, Africa. Pick 12 places in Africa. Spend 2-14 days in each one, traversing no more than 20 miles from your base. What do you know about Africa? It's worse, though: pick those bases all within the equatorial belt, which is essentially what we did on the Moon. Now you know even less. But in 25 or so years of exploring Africa, how much more would you know? I think that the way to go to Mars is to go, and not come back: get people who want to spend the rest of their lives exploring and perhaps even colonizing the place. We'd save a lot of development, a lot of risk and a lot of heartache if we worked it that way.

But again, not the government: they simply don't have the ability to do this, politically. So again, the government should concentrate on research and engineering, not on doing things in space. When the private infrastructure gets more advanced (which would happen quicker if NASA were not so jealous of private efforts at non-governmental manned flight - NASA can send their people up on private spacecraft to private labs to do their work. The military meanwhile could do its own work in space, as needed, and should have been the operator of the Shuttle all along - at least after the initial testing.

We are as far from the first manned space flight as manned passenger jets were from the first sustained heavier than air flight when we developed ubiquitous, cheap, safe and effective intercontinental jet air transportation. By analogy, though, we are not yet to the point of the 1920s in space flight (that is, not to the point where anyone who wanted to and had at least middle class means could own an aircraft and fly it). We're closer, now, but we're not there yet.

I am really pretty bitter about the situation, actually. I feel as if we've squandered decades of potential just puttering about and doing nothing knew, and at great cost. Damned shame, really.

So, you're saying that government lacks the will to do great things in space (sadly, I know that's true) and that privatization is the way to do it, but it's at least 20-30 years away from happening. That doesn't make me a happy camper! We will have wasted a good 50 years!

As for going to Mars, I simply think that the first time we do it, we'll come back. I don't see it happening that our first trip will be one way, even for those who would be glad to do it. It's not that it's neccessary to come back, just that I believe we will. In fact, I can't think of many similar ventures where the first explorers volunteered to stay. The explorers go back to (hoped for) fame and fortune. The settlers come along later.

Of course, NASA's timeline is also on the 20 year scale, and experience tells me that without a strong national push, that means it's not going to beat private enterprise in any way. But it will be expensive. Look at the space station: 5 times the original cost estimate, 12 years late, and construction abandoned when only minimally complete (something like 25%, IIRC, of the latest plan was actually completed).

If the government leads the expeditions, we'll come back. But that's not necessarily true of the private sector. Unlike the terrestrial explorations, we have a pretty good idea of what is there, and can communicate effectively with our home base without returning to it. If the commercial sector leads, we'll go for the profit, and send back the valuables. (The scientific information alone, taking only the energy to beam back on secure channels, is worth a fortune, and I for one would charge it. It would help to offset the cost of importing hydrogen and other unavailable materials.)

this website did not help me at all!!!

Life's tough that way. Was there something in particular you were looking for, or do you just prefer general complaining, along with an apparent expectation that the rest of us are here to serve you and have, tragically, failed in our mission?