Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

Bill White · 2004-03-12 22:23:25

Amen As Astra,
The only thing that I know of that it really does promise is to get people back to the Moon. Not even nessesarrily to stay or work or make a fuel factory or a base or whatnot, just to get Nasa's feet wet again.

If CEV proves to be a slightly overgrown Soyuz, with fancy new computers and a sleek sexy shape but unable to move significant mass to LEO; and

If all shuttle derived infrastructure is left to rot;

come 2025 or 2030 we will be starting from scratch, even if some astronauts spend a few weeks or months living in tents on the moon.

Ad Astra · 2004-03-12 23:18:19

I think there's a difference between me saying "this is what I think the pres said" versus "the pres's plan is bad because he said..." and that's what distinguishes my reaction from John Glenn's. As a person who sets policy goals, I would not expect the president to know specifics about the means to achieve these goals. I'm sure the president has some rudimentary ideas about what his vision requires, and I'm sure that the people he's appointed to the Aldridge commission have some very different (and probably better) ideas about how to proceed.

Bill White · 2004-03-15 12:48:53

From yahoo:

Boehlert (a Republican) said the merits of the NASA vision must be judged against competing science spending priorities. Boehlert and some of his colleagues have said they are disappointed with Bush?s proposed science budget for 2005 and have vowed to fight proposed reductions in research spending at the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency and others.
?A society unwilling to invest in science and technology is a society willing to write its own economic obituary,? he said.
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the committee?s ranking Democrat and long time NASA supporter, remained tepid on the president?s exploration agenda.
?I support the goal of exploring our solar system,? Gordon said during the hearing. ?However, until I am convinced that the president?s plan to achieve that goal is credible and responsible, I am not prepared to give that plan my support.?

Lars_J · 2004-03-15 13:40:46

think there's a difference between me saying "this is what I think the pres said" versus "the pres's plan is bad because he said..." and that's what distinguishes my reaction from John Glenn's. As a person who sets policy goals, I would not expect the president to know specifics about the means to achieve these goals.

I see - so Bush cannot be critized based on anything he says on the issue, because he doesn't know what he is talking about? Do I understand you right?

I'm sure the president has some rudimentary ideas about what his vision requires, and I'm sure that the people he's appointed to the Aldridge commission have some very different (and probably better) ideas about how to proceed.

There's lots of people that has great ideas about going to Mars, but unless he is actually prepared to pony up some $$$ we ain't goin' nowhere. That his great Mars plan wasn't even mentioned in the state of the union speech (traditionally a great laundry list of what a president wants to do) tells you how commited Bush is to space exploration.

Ad Astra · 2004-03-15 14:34:53

I see - so Bush cannot be critized based on anything he says on the issue, because he doesn't know what he is talking about? Do I understand you right?

It's fine to criticize the president's understanding of the issue and the priority he has (or hasn't) placed on space exploration. At the same time, I don't think it's right for John Glenn to say "no" to the so-called plan before he has any specifics about it.

In 120 days or so, when the Aldridge commission has a better idea of how much this is really going to cost and what the best ways of proceeding are, John Glenn might actually have something to rant about. I think he must truly be jaded if he believes that science in earth orbit (particularly on board ISS) is a better use of taxpayer dollars than collecting solar power on the moon or hunting for microbes on Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-17 08:16:32

Yeah ol' Glenn, being the token space hero of the "D" side of the congressional chaimbers, is complaining about a space strategy that is not a space strategy?

I also think people understimate the amount of money will be available once Shuttle/ISS are out of the picture... ten years of $5Bn chunks from Nasa's budget would be enough to at least get a MarsDirectToTheMoon partially completed I would think. If that magic $11Bn figure can be hit, then Nasa might not need any extra money... about $200Bn from the time of Shuttle/ISS retirement circa 2010 and the desired Mars date around 2030, thats almost enough for a modern version of SEI's Battlestar Galactica.

Bill White · 2004-03-17 08:25:17

Yeah ol' Glenn, being the token space hero of the "D" side of the congressional chaimbers, is complaining about a space strategy that is not a space strategy?
I also think people understimate the amount of money will be available once Shuttle/ISS are out of the picture... ten years of $5Bn chunks from Nasa's budget would be enough to at least get a MarsDirectToTheMoon partially completed I would think. If that magic $11Bn figure can be hit, then Nasa might not need any extra money... about $200Bn from the time of Shuttle/ISS retirement circa 2010 and the desired Mars date around 2030, thats almost enough for a modern version of SEI's Battlestar Galactica.

This article by Jeff Foust [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/1]explains well the fear of Neil deGrasse Tyson that those "shuttle savings" could prove ripe for picking come 2010 or 2011.

Also read the two recent entries at [http://www.spacepolitics.com]www.spacepolitics.com about the positions of Nick Lampson and Sherwood Boehlert on the Bush plan.

Anyway, as Tyson said:

He admitted, though, that there is a risk that as the shuttle and station programs end, those funds might get moved out of NASA entirely. ?My nightmare is that we have a next President who does not want any part of this vision,? he said, ?but still allows the space shuttle to cancel itself out, does not top off the budget, and everything washes down the drain.? He said that the commission is ?sensitive? to such a possibility, and will try to offer strategies to minimize that possibility.
One of Tyson?s concerns related to this possibility is that the new initiative might become entangled in partisan politics. Already the new initiative has been closely linked to Bush, and thus has come under criticism of Democrats, particularly those running for President. ?I?m surprised they would reach out and make that a political issue, especially since space exploration in America has historically been bipartisan,? he said. ?The last thing we want out of this mission is for it to become a partisan issue. The moment space exploration becomes partisan, just give up, go home, because space initiatives have longer baselines than political cycles. They can only survive if they?re not partisan.?

Since this threat will occur after Bush leaves office, his political power cannot be relied upon to sustain the vision.

And, GCNR, to attack Glenn's position because he is a Democrat tends to foster the partisan atmosphere that might well doom the Bush vision.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-17 10:00:37

Tyson is right about partisanship, but one shouldn't see debate from the other side of the table, with a differing opinion, as being partisan. I mean, the essential idea behind this commission is simply that the plan is layed out and that it's not going to change, and that they're doing everything in their ability to make it that way.

I frankly wouldn't mind if in 2010 some new president said "let's go to Mars, screw that old Aldrige commission stuff."

Bill White · 2004-03-17 10:42:57

Dr. Jeff Bell [http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04j.html]strikes again with detailed analysis of the CEV program.

Opinions on his commentary?

People who say that a manned moon mission could be assembled in LEO out of small pieces launched on existing boosters like the new EELVs are dead wrong. This option was never seriously considered by either the Red Team or the Blue Team back during the Moon Race. It vastly magnifies the chances of failure.

Clearly, someone at NASA HQ has added up the same numbers I have, and has decided that a Moon Base is impossible. My scientist friends have already been briefed by the Space Lords that there will be no Moon base in Plan Bush, and in fact no manned stays on the Moon longer than 14 days.

clark · 2004-03-17 10:57:25

And the kind of radical changes at NASA that would be necessary to bring the costs down would have upset too many political apple carts in an election year. The range of politically sellable plans was extremely small, and Plan Bush as announced is just about in the middle of that range.
However, 2005 will not be an election year. There will be a window of opportunity to change this unworkable program into one that might have a chance of sucess (especially if the Shuttle program collapses in early 2005 as now seems possible). In a future column I will outline what this program might look like.

Here's what's wrong, and here's my solution... self serving much? :laugh:

In the absence of enough information, interpretation works in a pinch. You're not wrong if you sound right...

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-03-17 10:58:58

A lunar colony would be a great thing, we could learn mcuh about space, biology and science with a base on the moon...but a lunar colony would only be useful if it was essentially self-sustaining, maybe this program will waste $1 trillion dollars of money?

Bill White · 2004-03-17 11:13:16

clark, Dr. Bell proves your other point.

2012 is the year that most matters. Unless funding is ramped up significantly, then, what we do now is irrelevant.

clark · 2004-03-17 11:24:08

Well, how far do you want constrain the possibilites?

He talks about how the Apollo program didn't use rendeavous technology- on orbit construction and self docking... well, yeah, but look at the state of technology then. I firmly believe that things are a bit different. We have a better idea of what to expect when we get out there- versus knowing nothing before.

We had ZERO private space launch service back during Apollo. Look around, we have more and more each year. We have private yahoo's gearing for sub-orbital flight. It's a matter of time before orbital flight is achieved by some more private yahoo's. NONE of this exsisted back during Apollo- our only baseline (from which we derive what is and is not possible and for how much... something 30+ years ago).

Let's just cut through the crap, okay?

I will tell you how to see the future, just watch the developments of the Shuttle and any possible HLLV. There in lies the truth. If we are constrained to use nothing but EELV's, then yeah, the man has a point. However, if we develop and SDV or some other similar HLLV, the man, and all like him, are blowing smoke out their ass.

I think HLLV is going to happen, if for no other reason than Prometheus is the wet dream of every warmongering president since Regan. And they are going to need an HLLV to get the darn thing up where it can be useful.

In the mean time, enjoy the cottage industry that lives off the vacumn created by the fact that the plans to implement the vision are currently being worked out. Everyone is trying to get their 2 cents in so they can claim victory (see, i told you so's) or defeat (more wrong headed approachs by NASA and this administration, blah,blah,blah).

Bill White · 2004-03-17 11:51:07

I will tell you how to see the future, just watch the developments of the Shuttle and any possible HLLV. There in lies the truth. If we are constrained to use nothing but EELV's, then yeah, the man has a point. However, if we develop and SDV or some other similar HLLV, the man, and all like him, are blowing smoke out their ass.

Hey wait a minute. I remember saying stuff exactly like this in late January and early February. Jeez, I almost started arguing against myself.

clark · 2004-03-17 11:52:50

hehe...

When you're right, you're right Bill.

Lars_J · 2004-03-17 12:11:39

I think HLLV is going to happen, if for no other reason than Prometheus is the wet dream of every warmongering president since Regan. And they are going to need an HLLV to get the darn thing up where it can be useful.

I'm not sure what project "prometheus" you are referring to - But NASA's project prometheus - now incorporated into the JIMO program will not require a HLLV at all. Current plans call for it to launch on top of a Delta IV-Heavy, and the unfold in LEO to its full 25+ m length.

Bill White · 2004-03-17 12:18:07

I think HLLV is going to happen, if for no other reason than Prometheus is the wet dream of every warmongering president since Regan. And they are going to need an HLLV to get the darn thing up where it can be useful.
I'm not sure what project "prometheus" you are referring to - But NASA's project prometheus - now incorporated into the JIMO program will not require a HLLV at all. Current plans call for it to launch on top of a Delta IV-Heavy, and the unfold in LEO to its full 25+ m length.

space.com did an interview with the fellow in charge of JIMO and he said that folding into a Delta IVH remained quite a challenge and there were features and additional components he really wanted to include, which were only feasible if shuttle C were available.

A shuttle C launched JIMO would be more robust and more capable by far and at least in the space.com article shuttle C or comparable was hoped for.

clark · 2004-03-17 12:29:19

Um, yeah, Politicans are really excited about exploring the Moons of Jupiter. A self-declared War President can't wait for nuclear propulsion for the sole purpose of advancing esoteric scientific thought...

A nuclear reactor in space powers big weapons that can pierce the atmosphere and cause a human target to disappear in a cloud of smoke and dust.

But to do that, you need to lift a lot of weight (weight of the reastor, and weight of the shielding that makes the darn thing disappear on radar).

Prometheus was folded into the Exploration program to protect it, and allow for easier transfer of funds from other Exploration projects to Prometheus if and when neccessary. It's no longer a line item because they so desperatley want to keep it (remember, Prometheus had backing way before any of this other space policy stuff- the space policy can be argued to support Prometheus, not the other way around)

Lars_J · 2004-03-17 12:31:56

Of course, a larger launch vehicle would offer more margins - But JIMO itself is not going to be a big enough program in itself to be able to support the development of an HLLV. If an HLLV is not available, they'll certainly have to manage with a D-IV-H.

Lars_J · 2004-03-17 12:33:14

A nuclear reactor in space powers big weapons that can pierce the atmosphere and cause a human target to disappear in a cloud of smoke and dust.

Huh?

Prometheus was folded into the Exploration program to protect it

Yeah, because we all know NASA/science programs are much more immune to budget cuts than defense programs. :laugh:

clark · 2004-03-17 12:40:33

Sorry, star wars. Nuclear powered sats with laser systems that can shoot down missles (part of the proposed missle defense shield, layered defense in air, land, sea and space)

This was a Regan era goal (80's president in the US), but the major stumbiling block is the size and power output of the reactor. Prometheus promises a solution to all of this, but the thing is going to big. It will be in geostationary orbit (don't want ready access to it for other nations), and it will mroe than likely need to be sent up covertly, and in one piece, to minimize down time and those watching for such things.

Much of the Prometheus funding is taking place under Los Alamos nuclear lab. There is collaboration with Navy programs, and other military organizations (like NRO and Airforce research). This is all part of the collaboration spelled out by US leaders for NASA.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-03-17 13:17:08

some links on what I have mentioned above

[http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ID=4501019]http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....4501019

[http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04j.html]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04j.html

Bill White · 2004-03-17 13:50:53

This bit from dear Dr. Bell is pretty good as well:

Another big difference between Apollo and Constellation is the funding profile. Apollo was front-loaded with most of its funding concentrated in the early years. While a lot of this was sucked up by construction of facilities, there was still enough to hire an army of engineers and do the detailed design phase on a rush basis. Constellation is on a strict diet until at least 2010. This is what John Pike means when he says that the budget "won't even pay for the artwork."
(Pike is exaggerating the situation by a factor of about 2. I am not aware of any single NASA program costing more than about $3B that produced only artist's concepts. X-30/NASP cost about $7.5B in current dollars, and part of one X-30 fuel tank was actually fabricated.)

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-17 18:58:00

I don't think Dr. Bell is really meshing with the concept that alot of the hardware we would need to get to the Moon would not need such huge investments as he paints...

-Shuttle-Derived HLLV won't be that hard to make, efficent cryogenic engines like RL-10 and RS-68 exsist already. No need to build the giant F-1 or the J-2 engines from scratch, all you really need new is a big tank and guideance hardware. Make a stretch version of the Centaur-G upper stage and adapt exsisting EELV flight controls.

-Apollo capsules' aerodynamic development and construction base won't have to be repeated, we can build them now using essentially exsisting facilities. And the materials and computers we have today are capable the same task much easier than ones of old. Rad-hard computer CPUs already exsist, and computer modeling simple shapes is a snap for those already-built design houses at Boeing/LM/et al. Rocket? Delta-IV Medium+ 5,4 or HLV, check, already got it.

-Each Lunar mission need not throw away the entire vehicle; design the lander/cargo stage to be reuseable and sport' an aerobrake to return to Earth orbit. Launch TLI boost stage fuel and mission cargo in one shot of the HLLV, perhaps supplimented by 1 Delta-IV HLV/Atlas-V HLV for cargoes. Launch one Delta-IV Medium manned CEV per trip to rendevous. The lander/aerobrake stage need not return anything on a TEI except itself empty and the CEV and can be tailored for space-only operations.

-Lots of the cargo mass that is needed to sustain an ISS crew is... well... water. You don't need that if you can dig it up on the Moon with robots... and speaking of building a Lunar habitat underground, this would not be too difficult, just bury a TransHab and have stairs leading down to it... Astronauts won't be wandering large distances from their base on the Moon anyway.

You get the picture... the two biggies though, is that #1 we are better than we used to be at building spaceships because of our technology, and alot of the hardware can be off-the-shelf like the AR2-3 engine for CEV planned for use on the X-37 which you can just buy from Rocketdyne, and simply alot of the engineering that made Apollo such a feat is not as hard today or it is already done. The big-big one though, is that he's convinced that Nasa is incompetant... Nasa can do great things when it is given a motivation - beat the Communists in the war of idealogy - or even better is to make progress or face eventual destruction by an uncaring Congress now that the end of the Shuttle/ISS gravy train is near.

Next item... Project Prometheous and the Evil VRWC "Bushaliburton" conspiracy to use Nasa to build a Death Star in GEO...

Nonsense. If you want to build a high-power laser, you use a chemical laser, which is much better suited to producing the short bursts of photons than a conventional electric one. You would also need a reactor of rediculus proportion to make it work, the one proposed by Prometheous for JIMO would make a mere 100 kilowatts. It would also have to be fielded in LEO or MEO since it would be hard to focus any beam that far (24,000mi!).

Speaking of which, the reactor itself would probably weigh less than three metric tons... I think Nasa must be nuts and building the thing in the shape of a copper bullet for unessesarry reentry safety or Space.com misquoting or somthing... Nasa really has lost it if they can't build a probe with the other 22 tons a Delta-IV could lift.

clark · 2004-03-18 07:10:20

Next item... Project Prometheous and the Evil VRWC "Bushaliburton" conspiracy to use Nasa to build a Death Star in GEO...
Nonsense. If you want to build a high-power laser, you use a chemical laser, which is much better suited to producing the short bursts of photons than a conventional electric one. You would also need a reactor of rediculus proportion to make it work, the one proposed by Prometheous for JIMO would make a mere 100 kilowatts. It would also have to be fielded in LEO or MEO since it would be hard to focus any beam that far (24,000mi!).

I agree, JIMO will not produce a reactor capable of powering a laser in space. A human rated one will.

Mission to Moon or Mars, by astronauts, will require megawatts of power (which they are working towards) from a nuclear reactor. Chemicals also don't have the same life-time potential that electric has- or am I mistaken? But all of this is neither here nor there.

I agree that NASA can achieve what has been outlined. I believe they could achieve more if given just a bit more resources, and a bit less constraints.

Bell is just suffering from some tunnel vision here, IMO.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-03-12 22:23:25

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#77 2004-03-12 23:18:19

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#78 2004-03-15 12:48:53

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#79 2004-03-15 13:40:46

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#80 2004-03-15 14:34:53

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#81 2004-03-17 08:16:32

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#82 2004-03-17 08:25:17

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#83 2004-03-17 10:00:37

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#84 2004-03-17 10:42:57

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#85 2004-03-17 10:57:25

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#86 2004-03-17 10:58:58

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#87 2004-03-17 11:13:16

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#88 2004-03-17 11:24:08

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#89 2004-03-17 11:51:07

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#90 2004-03-17 11:52:50

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#91 2004-03-17 12:11:39

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#92 2004-03-17 12:18:07

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#93 2004-03-17 12:29:19

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#94 2004-03-17 12:31:56

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#95 2004-03-17 12:33:14

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#96 2004-03-17 12:40:33

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#97 2004-03-17 13:17:08

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#98 2004-03-17 13:50:53

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#99 2004-03-17 18:58:00

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#100 2004-03-18 07:10:20

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

Board footer