Either the russians do not like the course the vision is taking plus what is occuring as a result of trying to restart Nasa after the shuttle disaster.
The other possibility is that they are trying to start a new space race, One they feel that they can win this time since the soyuz basically is ready less a lunar lander and possibly an upper rocket stage to put the unit on a direct course to the moon and for it's return.

Which brings up the question of the differences in the moon versus a Mars lander. Let alone the difference for a base construction for permanent settlements on either place enventually.

Other than Boeing's re-usable moon lander I have seen nothing else from any other corporation at this time. Just another sign of the holding partern of no contracts no work by big business.

Does the shuttle safety problem with regards to the astronauts being civilians change if lets say we make the next few flights with military personel only.

Hi Harold...Well,here we go again...NASA shoots down year long missions on the ISS...How the hell are we ever going to gain experience in long duration spaceflight for manned mars missions if this is not on their agenda ?....Nasa Nixes the Fixes on almost all the things that are necessary!!We have to have more experience in this area !! All I have heard is excuse after excuse why they can't do it...what is this ?...Nasa saying " Can't "..well,there it is in a nutshell.....Dan Goldin had the vision,but not the backbone;..Sean OKeefe may have some backbone and some vision.....this I believe isn't the right leadership that Nasa needs....Nasa needs someone like Eugene Cernan or Buzz Aldrin to head it...Not wimpy ,worry-warts who make Nasa seem like a timid child!! We need someone to make Nasa roar..roar back to life and give it some intestinal fortitude.....I'm afraid if something isn't done soon at the top,we may lose one of this nations greatest endeavours...remember." If you don't use it...you lose it ".....Thanks....Jake

Good morning Jake: Even an old astronaut like Glenn or Shephard would have more backbone at there age as well. A test of a good manager selection would be if they are willing to fly the shuttle the way it is. I would say that they would at least have the right spirit for the job unlike the current no fly manager NASA now has.

You are right in that it would seem that NASA wants to go down the wrong road again as always.

I do not know if you saw the earlier post I made on Boeing doing nothing until it has contracts for the CEV design work.

I still say designing a new Rocket for the Moon
and then probably a new one for Mars is the wrong approach to getting back into space.

First my suggestion is to start where we are knowing that the shuttle can not be most likely and should not be continued being used for more than the next 10 years, 15 tops not the 5 the president put in the vision.
Which means to follow an example that has been put before us by the Russians. Which is to add or modify what you have as you go. So first on the agenda would be to design a new capsule, and or plane for long term use or to resurrect the x-38 which is nearly complete for temporarily filling as we go this is a no contract top build deal for all vendors of space products. Nasa is to use what they want as the need it from the vendors.

Second Cargo carrying version of shuttle must be implemented Boeing and Lockheed both must step up to the plate and get this done.

Third if flights are to be ramped up due to orbital construction needs for the ISS or for other building no matter what the type is in orbit. Then the Kistler 1 reusable rocket should be funded now to make them a reliable vendor or NASA should simply by the technology of the design and have the joint venture of Boing and Lockheed build them for NASA's use. This would fill the heavy lift responsibility for the present and future needs if adapted as lift requirements increase.

Four Design Moon rocket from existing rocket
componentry hardware taking what is most cost effective for the job for the possible 3 or 4 stages that will be required.

Five design new lunar lander or combo base modules that can be joint to create a larger Habitat for the crew.

Six one rocket minimum must be design for a long duration flight simm of flight to Mars while going to the Moon. This is most likely an ION drive engine with the normal combo of engines if needed for higher velocity changes for obstical avoidance only.

I am sure that there are lots of other project on the to do list that must also be prioritized into the vision planning that I have not mentioned.
I feel that just going to the Moon to practice getting to the Moon fast and under it's conditions is the wrong approach to the eventual Manned Mars mission. We must treat the Moon as if we were going to Mars as close to what we know about Mars. Yes make appropriate adjustments to the conditions as needed but still try for the Mars design first.

Harold,

Why an ION engine? I dont think there is any design for an Ion engine that can get people to mars in a reasonable time. I would suggest the Vasimer or Mini Mag Orion drives, both could be ready by 2018 timeline. and both could get us to mars in 6 months or less.

The Ion drive was to simulate when going to the Moon a long duration Mars flight only. This would also allow for cabin, storage and other stuff to be designed as well as to be worked out in advance for us using near conditions to actual flight times like you noted with the use of the other stronger and much faster mission engines for the actual flight to Mars. Also if more fuel can be obtained while enroute you can also speed up the craft with additional velocity to get us there faster as well.

Also by doing long duration times to the moon we will also learn about what systems need backups while trying to design the eventual Mars craft and whether or not this needs to be a dual ship one to act as a life boat. The normal Ships would be on standby just in case something should go wrong, though this is something that would not be possible for Mars missions.

If the Russians are smart they will have there people and the European community stay as long as they would like even if NASA does not want to. Do there own thing so long as enough ships are going to satify Nasa's need to keep a fresh crew member on board who cares what NASA is thinking. We are not paying for the seats any ways at this time, so do we really thing that we have an automatic seat on a soyuz as NASA would want with no shuttle flights. I would say Pay up or no seats if I were Russain.

Harold,

Only one problem with your vision that I can see. Once we go to mars there no longer will be a reasonto go back to the moon. Do we really want that? or do we want to make the moon a hub for interplanetary travel?

good morning Sammy: I beleive that it should be a hub for exploration, Mining and much more for science. We should never stop going once we start, it does not matter if it is to the moon or to mars. People want to do this, I myself for one would volunteer to do so for nothing in return.

Good morning Harold,

I agree, the one fear I have about NASA is that they are very successful, they just cant deal with what comes after success. Just like Apollo, they made it to the moon first, then they faultered because they didn't know what to do after they had won. Maybe they need to learn how to deal with winning?!

Here's a question, after we know little more about living on the moon and mars, I wonder how much it would cost to go there on a one way trip? Seriously, if someone could raise enough money to buy the equipment to help settle either places, I know I would go (okay my wife might be a little hard convince, but I'd work on it)I know there's alot of dangers, but so what, what would have happened if our ancestors thought it was to dangerous to settle North America?

Well that would depend on the seats per rocket cost as compared to the soyuz 3 seater, number available one on each flight for 20 million. I guess at that rate only the rich would be able to go.
That is why I asked the question on the max crew size for the ISS; I just started digging and found an article that indicated before the shuttle acident that it would be 6 by 2009 and 7 by 2013 if the OSP where in place.
So until something is flying that can carry more than 3, I guess I already know the max number. This is why cost will never go down as well.

Harold,

But that cost includes a safe return back to earth. How would the cost change if it was just a one way ticket? I'm not saying do this right away, but after we know more about each place (moon and mars). It's a different matter if we talk about colonization, we can think about spacecraft that need only be used once, then dismantled to form a small base, and so on and so forth.

Since no return flight, there is nothing to offset the cost on rocket. Much like an airplane ticket to any given destination the aircraft gets reused thus the flight cost is lowered. A one way ticket is however what ever value the airlines think it should be for a discount price. I think that is how it works.
The motor home concept of parking the trailer on the land once it arrives is kind of what you are thinking in terms of as a temporary shelter.

Go deeper, The difference between the cost of launching an Atlas or Delta rocket and the space shuttle is staggering. The shuttle was created for multiple uses in mind, the Atlas/Delta just once. What is the cost of man rating for a vehicle such as Soyuz compared to the shuttle??
These are just ramblings of mine, it shows it takes a bit of a shift in thinking.

The difference is partially made up of the refurbishment cost for reuse. If that was the same as making a new one or less then it would be ok, for us to keep using a reusable but that however is not the case with the shuttle. Nasa never did figure that one out.
Also the costs of the Atlas and Delta would also increase if they were to become man rated. But that would also require building a crew capsule or plane depending on who is the designer and or preference for landing. Needed in man rating is support services for the crew (air, power, cooling and heating...). I am not sure what else is considered.

The Atlas V has LEO Payload: 12,500 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. or a Payload: 5,000 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer trajectory. while the Delta IV LEO Payload: 25,800 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. or a Payload: 10,843 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer, 27deg inclination trajectory.
If we are to convert either ship into a manned vehicle, then we can not exceed the payload mass on either rocket for what ever crew capsule or plane is designed.

Here is some dat on previous capsules:

Gemini
Spacecraft Module: Gemini RM. Other Designations: Reentry Module.
Crew Size: 2. Mass: 1,983 kg. fully loaded

Apollo CM. Other Designations: Command Module.
Crew Size: 3. Mass: 5,806 kg.
Apollo SM. Other Designations: Service Module.
Mass: 24,523 kg.

The old apollo capsule would be right on the edge of lift capability for the Atlas but well within that of the Delta rocket.

Now granted each is capable of strap on solid booster and of other configurations as well. Which is why they should both do there own designs and let NASA choose which one they want based on mission details.

I found this website on why should launch costs so expensive, really good perspective.

http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm

The high indirect labor cost of refurbishment on sbr and on the orbitor coupled with the new external tanks definetly add up to a very big bill. That is why I wondered why was there no one in charge of cost reductions for these areas. The tank was initially made lighter but I am not sure if it were cheaper to make. The srb's had a re-design due to O ring burn though but with a slight loss in lift thrust. The orbitor has had many changes to it over the years but tile replacement is the biggest eater of its fair share of Nasa budget.