Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 21:28:35

*Frowns* Unexpected, but probobly not surprising... you can't do Shuttle/ISS -and- leave LEO. And congress still wants the Shuttle gravy-train/"international commitments."

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-21 00:31:56

SDV lets you do Shuttle/ISS and leave LEO... this is essentially the most misguided attempt at "spacy policy" I've ever seen in my entire life. Even Clinton's cutting back of funds was more reasonable, imho (faster better cheaper was workable, Pathfinder proved this, it just broke due to the bureaucracy). Granted, it wasn't approaching manned exploration the way that Bush supposedly is trying to do (but seemingly failing miserably at doing), but at least it was doing something.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-21 00:54:06

RATS!!! :bars2:

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 08:44:36

SDV lets you do Shuttle/ISS and leave LEO...

I think that depends... is NASA/Congress/et al willing to do some serious, deep, irrevokable bloodletting from the program or not... To basicly eliminate from the arcitecture anything to do with the Orbiter with its expensive engines and to eliminate all associated personel plus a great deal of the Admin/Stack/VAB/Pad-39/Michoud folks since we won't be flying very often. In short, to place the cost of the system above the continued employment of Shuttle engineers.

Otherwise, we would be better off pulling the entire plug and getting to Moon/Mars using a suped-up 40MT "EELV+," as the cost of flying SDV would take up the money needed to build the actual spacecraft it is supposed to launch.

The ISS is worthless any which way... worthless if Shuttle flies forever, worthless if Shuttle doesn't fly, worthless orbit for assembly, worthless construction in poor shape (esp. sans Shuttle), worthless for doing science, worthless for growing crystals, worthless without a HAB, worthless without a CRV or Klipper or double-uped Soyuz... you get the idea. The ISS has to go, it does stand in the way of the Moon and Mars.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 09:40:14

The ISS is =NOT= worthless from the perspective of the rest of the world. So long as the United States spends $6 billion per year on STS / ISS, we cannot do anything else.

From the French and Russian and Chinese perspective, ISS / STS is a gift from heaven. GWB says its not a race. Since we would be in first place if it were a race, how can anyone else complain?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 10:20:21

Do you think that is what they really believe, or simply what they continue to say? They know just as well as we do that without Shuttle to deliver heavy cargo regularly and without the HAB module there is very little if anything science wise that can be done.

They know it, that the whole project will be worthless come 2010 when Shuttle is gone... Progress-B and ATV can hardly keep the thing up there much less carry science racks, nor is there a way to return useful cargo, and to top it off you need 2 of 3 crewmen just to keep the station from falling apart.

But where is the protest? Where is the outcry? That the entire massive $100Bn project will come to nothing without Shuttle and a HAB module at the very very least. Where is Chirac or Putin on CNN cursing NASA's name over it and demanding an explanation from Bush for abandoning "OUR" project?

The Europeans and Russians will be almost as happy to be rid of it as we are, other than to keep Russian engineers employed perhaps.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 10:28:59

In Lost in Space the recent NASA bashing book, a Russian engineer was said to have quipped, "our trying to build Buran was a stupid move, wasting money copying your shuttle. But ISS is our revenge. . ."

How much money has NASA wasted on ISS? How much has Russia spent on ISS? Europe?

If it is a race, ISS / STS ties a huge weight to our ankle while Proton and Zenit corner the paying market, with an occasional Atlas for appearances sake.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-21 10:31:06

Terribly cynical... but not unthinkable

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-11-13 21:36:31

Well, it looks like it's going to be tough for NASA to get going, since it's budget has just been cut.
"NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million. "
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14633

So, I'm mulling this over...
Could this be the Administration cutting the strings on their proposal to limit politcal opportunism in an election year?
Or, could this be a way to force the debate on NASA. If you look at it, they are cutting NASA even further- ending SLI (which was slated to be killed and replaced by CEV)?
Nuclear propulsion has had strong support from the get go by Bush and company- they've included funds for it for some years now. Ending it now would be a complete waste.
This kills the prize money too.
It further provides no new money to fix Hubble, replace Hubble, or give NASA the money it needs to comply with the Columbia saftey requirements...
This simply dosen't make sense unless it is designed to force the debate, or to quietly kill the whole show.

As people have said :
Quote

Let us see if the Mars-vision was a political stunt or if there will be real projects and real cash put forward into such a trip. Mars skeptics have wondered whether NASA and the cutdown budgets are up to the job. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other companies that contribute to the space program are the stewards of an ailing industry, facing a brain drain as its aging engineers retire, with few newcomers entering the field.
The uncertainty about Mars has been underscored recently by official silence. Rising medicare costs, the price of war in Iraq and the jobless rates are just some of the many issues which could see NASA having another cutback. The vision has been missing from news about Mars is any mention of the dramatic proposal of the President to land humans on the Red-planet and bring them home safely. Why has there been no followup, and why the deafening silence? Since George made his initial announcement, which was greeted with some public skepticism, he has had little to say about the subject, not even mentioning it in his State of the Union address. Another problem is that a number of NASA people are unsure of the plan or have spoken against the vision with Astronaut Glenn being strongly against much of the idea for rushing to Mars.
seems like there's a lot of work to be done
As some American science writers have said successes of the Mars rovers show again why a lot can be done without spending $300-500 billion dollars, and like many other scientists, James Van Allen, best known for the discovery of the radiation belts that bear his name, is aghast at the Mars proposal. Van Allen has been working on great projects in the past and was with folk who sent instruments to the moon Venus , Jupiter, Mars Saturn and throughout interplanetary space to the edge of the solar system. He points to “the difficulty and the danger and the cost, all of them monstrous problems” and notes that the budget the President proposed for the project “is far too anemic to anywhere meet the need.” Van Allen is hopeful that the administration has done its homework in gleaning congressional support for the ambitious ventures.
He remembers when in 1989, Daddy-Bush that is President G.H.W. Bush in a State address spoke of returning to and staying on the moon and launching a manned-mission to the Red Planet. “That was 14 years ago and dead on arrival" in Congress, Van Allen had made such a remark and many other top scientists don't think much of the plan by Bush-jnr. So far the admin have been silent since the Bush vision to Mars was announced, costs of Iraq, a drop in industrial production and high jobless numbers may be on their minds, however like his father Bush has made a promise for Mars let's see if they even speak about it during the next four years or will the deafening silence continue ?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-14 00:51:06

Yes yes yes, Bush can't do anything right, economy in the dumps, war costs spiraling out of control, yadda yadda... the economy isn't that bad off you know, and its better then most except the developing far east.

I think that it goes somthing like this... since few Americans really care that much about spaceflight, that for Bush to make a large, epoch, grandiose announcement about it during time of war would be politically stupid reguardless of the costs or bennefits, it would look to the country that he wasn't taking his job seriously. Its a darned if you do or if you don't situation, people that are critics of Bush get lots of air time, and they would be critical of Bush if he didn't publicly and loudly support his plan, but they would haul him over hot coals if he did too.

The fact that Bush-II has finally condemned the Shuttle (and to large extent ISS involvement) and given NASA an achievable mission besides "fly in circles to keep engineers employed" is a huge huge improvement over the last three presidents you know... It was Clinton that got us into this ISS mess.

NASA also recieves enough money with today's budget to pull off a bigger-then-Apollo Lunar program and lay the groundwork for a basic Mars mission. They already have all the cash they need (as long as it isn't a rush job like Apollo). Most of the technologies exsist too... there is just one little problem: the ISS. The International Space Station, joined at the hip to Shuttle and wrapped around NASA's neck by international agreement, sucks down six or seven billion dollars every year from the budget... NASA doesn't need to look elsewhere for money to set a Lunar program in motion, they have had it all along.

You are also quoting folk from the "instrumentalists" camp too Yang, people that think sending humans at all is a bad idea, and that pure scientific interest is the only goal for nonmilitary government space program. People that don't believe in expanding our reach as a species is a noble and worthwhile goal.

comstar03 · 2004-11-14 02:30:05

I think you don't know the politics behind going back to the moon, it relates to china, russia, and europeans. Every government now that the resources on the moon could benefit the earth and the future expansion into space for each country. ( we aren't doing this for the benefit of humanity )

America must have a foothold on the moon, and make sure that they get there share of resources on the moon. So, that is why, the moon is important in the NASA planning at this early stage to expand into space.

I also see that when all sides are on the moon, they will expand into space to Mars. When that happens the individual countries again will expand into mars bases.

If you don't believe that conflict won't happen then in Colorado, America's Space Command has several regiments of space troops under development ( it might be on paper or for real ) Also developing defences against foriegn space assets.

So, when you look at the He3, Fe, Ti , Water Ice, and other resource needs for space expansion and the ability to find some or all these on the moon, it opens competing interests between the countries on earth.

But Government Administrations can't come and say that without giving there hand away to the competitor. So they wrap the need to go into space into exploring the solar system to expand our knowledge and human evolution.

Alexander Sheppard · 2004-11-14 20:22:15

The economy has been in what I think you could accurately call a devestated condition for the past quarter century or so. This is because the average real wages of the population are not rising, overall, for the bottom 80% of the population and median wages for everyone are not faring much better. As a result the US has fallen from its former place of having the highest incomes per capita in the world (except Luxembourg which is irrelevant) to being behind Japan and the Nordic countries.

This administration will only accelerate the trend that has characterized this "leaden age", namely a continued erosion of rights for most of the population. Unionizaton rates have fallen to pre-New Deal levels in the private sector, I think around 9%, because of unchecked employer coercive power--since Reagan the state has increasingly gone along with union busting. Total unionization rates are not much higher at 13% for public and private, down from maybe 30% before 1970.

My feeling--I wonder if there have been any hard studies done on the subject--is that when the population is in a position of economic security they will more readily plan for useful long term scientific projects. Human space exploration is a useful long term project, and I think there is potentially a lot of support. But when you get numbers like 62% or something of the population opposing the President's space plan, I think at least part of it has to do with this. There are other reasons too, like the fact that the plan is, judging from history, most likely a lot of hot air which will not accomplish its goals.

Alexander Sheppard · 2004-11-14 23:36:20

I am also curious why people continue to say that NASA's chief task is a jobs program rather than corporate welfare. Not that jobs necessarily has nothing to do with it, but you could employ engineers just as well if 85% (or whatever the exact figure is) of NASA's money didn't flow through contractors, which are largely giant corporations. The idea that top people in the aerospace corporate world and top people in the government bureaucracy are not closely allied at the highest levels strikes me as very strange on the face of it and, given the evidence, quite absurd.

BWhite · 2004-11-14 23:53:02

I just came back from SpaceVision 2004 at MIT. Lots and lots of good stuff on this exact subject.

The problem remains, however, that some policy wonks cooked up a plan behind closed doors, GWB ran with it and now they are trying to convince the rest of us this is America's plan therefore no debate or dissent allowed. Sitting on the Mars people now only means they (we?) will scream louder in years to come.

Some still seem to say that lunar fuel can reduce the costs of going to Mars, a proposition Zubrin buried 12 feet deep, at least IMHO. (When cornered the lunar people changed the subject and said, "well going to Mars was not defined by the President as having any definite urgency. Its back to the Moon, and on to Mars, well someday TBA. . .)

= = =

Plenty of independent people seemed to agree that if the big aerospace companies are not held tightly in check on what they spend, the whole thing will collapse in a few years. $25 billion for the CEV capsule? Then we just ain't going anywhere.

We were also told DO NOT underestimate the political clout of the STS business as usual people.

To repeat my IMHO - - to kill the orbiter TODAY and transition to EELV may well be a good option. Allowing orbiter to fly until after GWB leaves office does not assure its certain retirement come 2010 and therefore shuttle derived may well be necessary if we intend to get on with the business of exploration and not retire orbiter NOW.

= = =

People seemed split on whether settlement was part of the exploration vision or not.

John Creighton · 2004-11-15 00:04:40

Some still seem to say that lunar fuel can reduce the costs of going to Mars, a proposition Zubrin buried 12 feet deep, at least IMHO.

Well of course Zubrin is right. If you want to go to mars go to mars. As far as going to mars the moon mostly provides extra flight testing of equipment. However if a lunar base was built with the infrastructure to produce fuel, Mass drivers to get the fuel into orbit and tugs to take it to some staging point (L1, GEO, LEO) then it is a different story. But if you only goal is to go to mars then it is not worth it.

BWhite · 2004-11-15 00:22:39

Some still seem to say that lunar fuel can reduce the costs of going to Mars, a proposition Zubrin buried 12 feet deep, at least IMHO.
Well of course Zubrin is right. If you want to go to mars go to mars. As far as going to mars the moon mostly provides extra flight testing of equipment. However if a lunar base was built with the infrastructure to produce fuel, Mass drivers to get the fuel into orbit and tugs to take it to some staging point (L1, GEO, LEO) then it is a different story. But if you only goal is to go to mars then it is not worth it.

Tumlinson was hysterically funny. He talked about how most everyone, even Zubrin was now saying Moon-Mars as a single word. (His Zubrin impressions were worth the trip to Boston.)

Zubrin did say there are worthwhile reasons to go back to the Moon, and going to the Moon is a good idea all by itself.

But, as a steppingstone to Mars, that is nonsense.

If you want to go to the Moon, okay fine. But at least have the honesty not to pretend its going to help getting to Mars.

= = =

Paul Spudis, on other hand, would be quite happy to call for Mars in say, 2090 or 2105, and spend all the time before that on the Moon.

= = =

Zubrin had a very nice presentation on how MarsDirect hardware would work marvelously on the Moon with lunar O2 for a direct return to Earth.

And he had his classic "selling rope" slide. NASA reps seemed to grimace while many in the audience shrieked with laughter.

= = =

Tumlinson is a piece of work. I loved his speech. Made me want to subscribe to his newletter.

Josh Cryer · 2004-11-15 01:52:34

Tumlinson was hysterically funny. He talked about how most everyone, even Zubrin was now saying Moon-Mars as a single word.

Oh my god! I wish I had been able to be there! That's so hilarious. I remember back when Bush proposed his plan (indeed, this very thread has my original comments) and how "Mars" seemed to be "intertwined" with "moon" whenever it was mentioned.

Cute.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-15 06:50:54

AS you noted the moon plans are so tightly wrapped with mars was one of the reasons that I started the moon direct topic. To qoute from the orginal.

In Many of the discusions of topics we come back to what did the president mean by first the Moon and then beyound. To use the moon as a stepping stone to space.
To sustain a Moon project does this mean a base, colonization and or can it be one shot after the other with nothing permanent ever built.
We can keep looking a startup cost as well as the long term cost but are they really what is important to exploration.
If we go to the moon should we be looking to develope self sufficiency and less dependence on Earths resources.
Should the moon be the next Launching pad to beyound?
The questions keep coming or going and even Nasa is looking for information as to what is meant in the commissions report.

I think we do need both plans but the problem is on of affordability for all activity and that is where Nasa is having its difficulties. And IMO both should be on going simutainously
not ont followed by the other decades or even a century later. I could see maybe a few years but there is no real reason to wait other than that to which is caused by underfunding the whole space activity that Nasa engages in.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-11-15 20:58:46

Zubrin did say there are worthwhile reasons to go back to the Moon, and going to the Moon is a good idea all by itself.
But, as a steppingstone to Mars, that is nonsense.

I fear a manned lunar program might kill any future mars program, not because it will steal resources from the mars effort, but because the space program itself must start showing returns on investment if it is to be fully funded in the future. And Mars, in my mind, is the only hope we have of showing enough return on those investments. I fear a renewed lunar program, after some initial excitement, will settle into being another Space Shuttle: A big dumb liability, and a bad advertisement for the space program in general.

comstar03 · 2004-11-16 06:48:05

Michael,

It doesn't matter what the cost is to get to the moon, the resources are needed for space and for earth, particularly He3 for fusion generation. Sometimes the politicians and focused individuals in industry and science understand the importance to access the hugh resources on the moon.

Over the next few years it will be shown to the public through positive messaging - greater good of humanity speech, or the expanding the frontier for America speech. This is for pushing the agenda for lunar operations.

The other nations, and private enterprise see the benefits of the lunar surface and want those resources as well, for there groups or countries. At the end of the day , Michael, we are not going back to the moon for a stroll in the park, but a larger plan to expand into outer space with additional space-based resources.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 07:05:14

To have investment returns there must be investors and at the current instant we have governments as the investors. They are not looking for profits or returns to offset paying Nasa to do this work.

We could look at the SpaceShipOne process in that it was to win a prise but that bar is to low. We could look at what will become of having do it which is more sub orbital flights at around the $3,000 price tag. Still to low on the ladder of space flight.

One must look at space as more than just being a provider of a means to get there taxi for crews, or that of being a cargo lift service provider.

At the current time space is about doing scientific research, the learning though exploration process and not of any permance or lasting presense in space though to do that would cost more.

Ultimately the return on investment is the return of material or goods from space and not services to those that are doing the work.

BWhite · 2004-11-16 07:27:14

One must look at space as more than just being a provider of a means to get there taxi for crews, or that of being a cargo lift service provider.
At the current time space is about doing scientific research, the learning though exploration process and not of any permance or lasting presense in space though to do that would cost more.
Ultimately the return on investment is the return of material or goods from space and not services to those that are doing the work.

As of today, except for tourism, there is no business model that has any hope of returning a profit. And tourism is far from assured of giving profits, even as we keep our fingers crossed.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 08:15:55

As you noted tourism is a provider service not really a high return industry.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-11-16 15:32:10

Perhaps I used the wrong analogy... What I meant was the space program must be more efficient, not profitable, atleast not financially, but more efficient. And replying to comstar: Hey, y'know if we need He3 for our fusion reactors, then let's mine the moon for the stuff. But reallistically, I do not see He3 as the primary driver, either now or in the 'near' future, of a manned lunar effort. Rather, and somewhat contrarily, I fear 'human exploration' will be the primary driver, and not scientific or technological return. Let me elaborate: Demonstrating technological abiltity (i.e building space ships and other space-based infrastructure) is a useless way of showing off. Demonstrating the ability to learn, however, is far more valuable. When the Apollo program was initiated, the president did not say, "Here's $50 billion, build me some spaceships." He said, "Here's $50 billion, put men on the moon, and you better learn something while your at it." Okay, those obviously aren't historically acurate quotes, but you get my drift...

comstar03 · 2004-11-16 19:23:34

Michael,

From different focus groups in the space culture will push their own agenda for why we should be in space, on the moon, or going to mars. You talk about being efficient about space, interesting question !!!! we need to get away from the prototype developments and work on recycling technology from one vehicle to the next, just in car manufacturing development of engines in series using the same cost and return principles.

We need high quality training facilities for crews, developing space transportation principles outside the government administrations with standardisation of control systems, emergency procedures, and also processes to working with government space vehicles in orbit and re-entry.

But the long term goals are the explore and expand the frontiers of humanity. That means advanced vessels that have larger computer capacity than currently, might include development of solid state storage cores that will store very large amounts of data ( TB or PB) repairable electronics, Power Systems for these facilities onboard and more.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-20 21:28:35

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#77 2004-07-21 00:31:56

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#78 2004-07-21 00:54:06

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#79 2004-07-21 08:44:36

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#80 2004-07-21 09:40:14

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#81 2004-07-21 10:20:21

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#82 2004-07-21 10:28:59

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#83 2004-07-21 10:31:06

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#84 2004-11-13 21:36:31

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#85 2004-11-14 00:51:06

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#86 2004-11-14 02:30:05

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#87 2004-11-14 20:22:15

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#88 2004-11-14 23:36:20

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#89 2004-11-14 23:53:02

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#90 2004-11-15 00:04:40

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#91 2004-11-15 00:22:39

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#92 2004-11-15 01:52:34

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#93 2004-11-15 06:50:54

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#94 2004-11-15 20:58:46

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#95 2004-11-16 06:48:05

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#96 2004-11-16 07:05:14

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#97 2004-11-16 07:27:14

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#98 2004-11-16 08:15:55

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#99 2004-11-16 15:32:10

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#100 2004-11-16 19:23:34

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

Board footer