Three countries have successfully launched a man into space. Lets become the fourth. We are supposed to be the clever country. Why not prove it? I don't mean by copying NASA. That mob killed off the space age.

If NASA had been given the job of building cars then today's vehicles would be hulking, noisy, slow, dangerous contraptions driven by brave 'Autonauts'. NASA has always been a bad example of how to tackle the final frontier and we should ignore any offers of help from that direction. Would you drive a new car to work every day and then abandon it? That's what NASA does with it's rockets!

Instead we should invest in the Private Sector. The X-Prize proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that re-usable spaceships are possible. Entrepreneurs get the job done while Bureaucracy only ties itself up in red tape. Richard Branson's 'SpaceShip Two' is only sub-orbital. We could do better.

The American's haven't been back to the moon in over 30 years. Their Shuttle was designed upside down. At 500 million dollars a flight it's a flying goose!

We should utilise nuclear rocket technology. Space travel requires the most compact energy source at our disposal.

Why spend money on space exploration? Because Space is the future. China and America know it. Even India is getting in on the game and they aren't as rich as we are. There is a whole universe outside of this molten ball of rock with its varnish of atmosphere that we call home. Infinite resources and adventure. We owe it to ourselves to reach out and conquer it. National defence. Do we really want the Americans and Chinese in charge of the sky above our heads? The threat of comets and asteroids. We currently have no defence against them. With the Third World taking steps towards becoming economic power houses in their own right we have to start thinking ahead.

The future belongs to those who plan ahead for it. We have the technology and minds. The Private Sector only requires some small investment and we can lead the World.

Wayne,

Necessary Priorities:

*Australia can not afford a manned space program.

*We must develop a capacity for lifting 100,000 tons of payload per year to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). To do this you need to establish 288(5-miute launchwindows) LEO capture stations permanently orbiting over a Mt Wilhelm launchpad in New-Guinea. The PNG tribes are crying out for development opportunities and this would be doubly suitable as we WILL guarantee a net zero environmental impact as opposed to mining propositions.

*The strategy can ONLY be to view space the same as CYBERSPACE. That is we send PACKETS, one ton at a time. and those packets are electronia=cally and actuatively encoded in the usual seven layered ISO standard logical/physical layers. Initially only 20 or so packet types will be needed to set up an entire SPACE NETWORK from LEO all the way to the MOON. In essence, the bulk of Australia's space effort will be in research and manufacturing labs around the country where the 20 different one ton packet types will be perfected.

*The role of industry must learn the lessons of corruption and political manoeuvering that infected PPP participation in Sydney's Toll Road Network. Australia cannot afford a Space Program that is a cash cow for our social and industrial elite. This is why I endorse a value added PBR based expansion of Australia's nuclear industries. An Australian Space Program must be substantially paid for external to any PPP involvement and a PBR Pebble nuclear export industry is the only feasible way it can be financed. This is the only way private enterprise involvement can be trusted.

*The emphasis must be on constructing DSYNAMO driven power generators and packet switching ROUTERS spreading outward from LEO and initially to the Moon and possibly Venus, where Solar energy can be maximised. Mars is going the wrong way as solar energy potential is less that Earth.

*Despite being an unmanned program, there must be an emphasis on creating an escape hatch for planet Earth. The following article on the extermination of Elephants should give some inkling why this must be so: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html?8br

Hi Kaep,

"*Australia can not afford a manned space program."
That a manned space program must be exhorbitantly expensive is a myth. Australia could easily afford it. We just have to keep the Bureaucrats out of any major decision making. As any entrepreneur will tell you Politicians don't care how much money they waste. It isn't their money.

"*We must develop a capacity for lifting 100,000 tons of payload per year to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)."

What did you have in mind? Maglev launcher? Single stage nuclear ramjet? Supergun? If it's strictly payload then that certainly broadens our options. I admit my pre-occupation with manned space travel is merely personal preference. I'd rather humans explored the solar system than tin cans.

"*The strategy can ONLY be to view space the same as CYBERSPACE. That is we send PACKETS, one ton at a time."

The most advanced packet of instruments we could send is a human being.

"*Australia cannot afford a Space Program that is a cash cow for our social and industrial elite."

NASA has an archaic and foolish zero profit organizational rule. Instead we could seek to profit from space and use said profits to further finance our foothold in space. The Eros asteroid alone is worth an estimated 40 trillion dollars in Gold and Platinum. Add to that the windfall from Berrylium and other exotic elements and you are looking at an unbelievable fortune. Then there is television rights, space tourism, solar energy, scientific knowledge, the opportunity to build larger than before space telescopes etc. Profits mean jobs and jobs mean workers. It could open up space for everyone.

Wayne,

I think you need to get those stars out of your eyes and get your head around it.

And remember the quote from Forbidden Planet: "The Australians forgot one thing Wayne .. monsters, monsters from the ID"

Wayne, I've seen stuff that suggests the actual cost of a shuttle flight is much higher - at about the 100 flight mark the shuttle program had cost about 150 billion US in total.

I don't know what the spin off's (if any) have been from the shuttle program but the moon shots are claimed to have paid for themselves about 30 times over by those who have looked into the economic benefits of the spin offs.

I like the manned flights as well but there are some very practical reasons why robotic probes work well for the long duration or high risk stuff.

I've not seen any updates recently but just after the X prize there was an announcement of a follow up prize for simulated servicing of a space station (I think it was demonstrated ability to carry a crew of 4 to an inflatable station so many times within a couple of weeks). Nasa was also looking at using the prize concept to see if better ways could be found to do some things it wants to do (deliver a small payload to the surface of the moon was one mentioned). I don't know if they will proceed with that but it has potential.

I tend to doubt that any Australian government could get the support it would need to fund a manned space program and I suspect that the idea of nuclear powered rockets would provoke a lynching if that was pushed seriously. More support for creative people to reach milestones is viable. A series of prizes for low cost delivery of various goals might be a starting place.

R0bert

I think it would be great if Australia could get into the space race! But as you people have said money money money!! We should maybe form a joint Asian/Pacific program get countries such as NZ Korea Japan Singapore and Canada into a joint venture program!

We are behind in this field now becasue John Howard refused to be apart of the international space station. One of the few bad decision he has made!