You are not logged in.
The following article was at the MarsSociety.org website. I thought it was worth posting, since it appears that Congress had been made aware of Mars Direct, and more importantly questioned O'Keefe on the validity of it. O'Keefe, slyly, appears to have eluded questioning. If anyone can find a transcript of that dialogue, please post it.
Congressmen Take Note of Mars Society Campaign to Convert the Shuttle
Sept. 10, 2003
In hearings today, members of congress cross-examined NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe as to what he thought of the Mars Society's idea to converting the Shuttle to a heavy lift vehicle to open the way to human exploration of the Moon and Mars. The plan, which also involves shifting the human launch function from the Shuttle Orbiter to a much simpler and safer capsule system that could be launched at much lower cost aloft a medium lift launch vehicle, was explained in an op-ed Mars Society president Robert Zubrin published in the Sept. 8 issue of the industry weekly Space News. Such a plan, Zubrin said, would offer much greater capability and safety at much lower cost than NASA's current proposal to spend $17 billion to develop a complex mini-shuttle type Orbital Space Plane as its next major project.At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the Zubrin op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current app roach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."
Who is right? You decide. With the permission of Space News, the controversial Zubrin op-ed is here:
Convert the Shuttle
by Robert Zubrin
It is now apparent that the Shuttle Orbiter cannot be used much longer as a system for transporting crews to Earth orbit. The Columbia disaster has made it clear that the antiquated Orbiters are becoming increasingly unsafe. Moreover, even if the Orbiter could be flown safely, it is clear that using a launch vehicle with a takeoff thrust matching that of a Saturn V to transport half a dozen people to the Space Station makes about as much sense as using an aircraft carrier to tow water skiers. The Shuttle was designed as a self-launching space station. Absent a permanent space station on-orbit, such a vehicle had some justification. But with the establishment of the ISS, the rationale for using a flying Winnebago as a space taxi is no longer sustainable.
NASA has already begun to respond to this reality by starting the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, which will move the human taxi-to-orbit function from the Shuttle to a small capsule or mini-orbiter that can be launched on top of an Atlas or Delta. If constrained to the objective of producing a simple reliable capsule instead of a complex mini shuttle, such a program makes a great deal of sense. A simple capsule will be much safer than a more complex system, will have a much lower development cost, and can be made available for flight much sooner, thereby cutting short the risks and costs associated with prolonged Shuttle operations. Launched aloft a medium lift expendable launch vehicle, it could assume the Shuttle's crew transfer function at less than 1/5th the cost.
As rational as such an approach might be, however, it poses a direct threat to the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people associated with the existing Shuttle program, and to the bottom line of several major and many minor aerospace companies. For this reason, some people have been lobbying for making the OSP a complex mini shuttle program that would take many years to complete, and cost, at most recent estimate, some $17 billion.
This is the wrong approach. The raid upon the treasury it involves would sap funding for any other space initiatives, and the delay it would entail in Shuttle replacement would expose our astronauts to serious unnecessary risk.
The right way to extend the Shuttle's industry's career is not by delaying the Orbiter's replacement. Rather it is to employ the simple capsule approach accelerate the transfer of taxi-mission responsibility, and use the funds saved to convert the Shuttle launch stack into something really worth having.
The reason why the Shuttle is such an inefficient launch system is precisely because it is dragging around the huge inert mass of the Orbiter. If we relieve the Shuttle launch system of that burden, however, and replace the Orbiter with a simple cargo compartment, we obtain the configuration known as Shuttle C, capable of lifting 70 tonnes to low Earth orbit. This compares quite handsomely with the current STS 20 tonne payload capability. However, we can do still better if we insert a hydrogen/oxygen upper stage into the payload fairing. In that case, we obtain the Shuttle Z, analyzed by NASA and the Martin Marietta company in the late 1980's, capable of launching 120 tonnes to Earth orbit or sending payloads in the 40 to 50 tonne class on direct trajectories to the Moon or Mars.
Such a Shuttle-derived Saturn-V class booster would provide NASA with the primary tool it needs to launch human missions of exploration throughout the inner solar system. However its development can only be justified if NASA actually initiates such a program. The space agency is thus presented with a choice; either embrace human exploration now, or be forced to throw away a $10 billion asset that will be needed if human exploration is ever to be done later.
If NASA makes the negative decision, and opts to discard the Shuttle infrastructure instead of converting it, the agency will be making a statement that it really never intends to do human exploration at any time. Under such conditions, the public will inevitably question, with considerable force of reason, what the remaining justification is for the Space Station, the OSP, and human spaceflight in general. The result will be an implosion of the entire manned space program. NASA is in a box, and the only way out is forward.
The Shuttle catastrophe needs to be answered not with retreat, but with advance. Human space flight will always be risky, but we need to be doing missions that are worthy of those risks. We don't need humans in space to study ant farms in zero gravity. We need humans in space to explore the planets. Converting the Shuttle will make that possible.
Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of the Mars Society (www.marssociety.org) and author of The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, published by Simon and Schuster.
To find out more about the Mars Society, visit our website at www.marssociety.org.
Offline
Zubrin is pioneer of coming renaissance.
Offline
anybody read this?
Zubrin making big impact on hearing
been posting this around the boards like crazy, but is it true? The comment under the article sounds very cynical...
(please say it's true, or i've been postig around the last hour, making a complete fool of myself...)
Offline
If you are referring to the link to Rand Sinberg's article, that is interesting and it sounds like cynicism is part of his journalistic style. I saw various summaries of the hearing and they seemed to have focused on Wes Huntress's remarks. But now I am curious; I'll have to listen to the recording on the web.
-- RobS
Offline
Thx Rob, I'm probbly going to regret this but i replied to Sinberg's comment. That article is an editorial on MarsSociety web, Sinberg saying he's weird because he's talking about himself in the third person is just a showing of a barely veiled dislike for Zubrin.
Pffff. Another mail adress thrown to the wolves (FOXes(?)...) (don't like it to post in the open, but it was worth it)
(Not that it's that hard to get my adress, but getting a bunch of wild FOXes behind your a** doesn't sound like a lot of fun)
Offline
yep, pretty cynical tag there. i did wonder myself, though, who wrote the summary for the mars society. was it zubrin? of course any analysis the mars soc. puts forth is going to be slanted in order to 'rally the troops.' i read simberg's piece at fox and he seems a bit more objective... but the society's interpretation of the hearing was certainly encouraging if true. i do remember the senators coming back to a couple of zubrin's points, but i don't remember if this constitutes 'almost all' of the questioning involving him. the 'post-panel' events described by the summary certainly sound almost too good to be true. but hopefully they are true.
overall i have to say i was really encouraged by the second panel at the hearing, and i thought dr. z did a great job of presenting his case. he drew a couple of pretty good analogies that had some impact on the senators, esp. his 'sending henry the navigator a few hundred miles off the coast of portugal to monitor the health effects on sailors' bit. i was afraid he would simply read his prepared text (like i think tumlinson did) but this wasn't the case. he did a good job summarizing the main points and adding some color to the presentation to drive the points home. now i just hope somebody that matters will listen to him.
You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it. -Chinese Proverb
Offline
I can't believe it! my comment has been deleted, without any notice!
I didn't use swear words or call names or something like that... Can they just do that? I just said He jumped to conclusions, that it was not necc. written by Zubrin himself, that he was giving people a bad name...
Really, i' cannot believe this...
(BTW saw the stream, Senators *definitely* were positive towards Dr. Zubrin, esp. Sen Brownback(?) he was saying things like that such an aggressive mission/goal would be good for society, in the end he said he really wanted a book...
(Still can't believe they pulled my post....)
Offline
Rxke, I read your comment at the site before it was deleted and admit to finding it odd that the webmaster of a pro-MS website would delete a comment that defends Zubrin against a cynic. I don't particularly like Zubrin, but Simberg's attack seemed like a juvenile cheapshot.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
Hmmm. The reply is back, together with some others. weird.
Offline
i don't know if this is the right forum for this, but i'm curious to find out more about what drives zubrin's detractors. i've read a ton of his stuff but am not familiar with many (pro-space) positions against him. the limited impression that i've gotten is that some folks don't like him on the basis of personality. is this true? if not, what is it about his approach to space exploration that irks his detractors? (or, what is it about his personality that's unpleasant?) i know nothing about the guy beyond what i saw on c-span and what i've read in his books, so i'm genuinely curious. maybe somebody could point me toward some links if not respond outright?
You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it. -Chinese Proverb
Offline
A lot off people write him off as a zealot, i.e. a single minded 'crazy' guy who is only interested in his own case... And that this is not good for *The Cause*
This, and the 'fact' that he keeps repeating himself... And that his plan is overly optimistic.
Of course a big 'bone of contempt' must be the fact that he has a lot of inherent criticism embedded in his plans. With proposing Mars Direct, he is also kinda saying (well,... sometimes Dr. Zubrin can be quite outspoken), NASA et al are doing the wrong thing. A lot of people don't like that...
For what it's worth, that 'repeating' stuff his detractors keep talking about... If you got a good plan (or you think you have), it's only normal to keep talking about it, i'd say?
Offline
i'm not sure i've seen a lot indicating zealotry on his part... if you read 'entering space' he sure seems to have some enthusiasm for non-mars exploration. i think he just puts mars at the top of his list of space priorities. personally i think a lot of scientists whose grant money comes from robotic exploration feel threatened by him & his ilk. i've heard space scientists speak of "the mars lobby" like it's the NRA or some kind of conspiracy that wants to eliminate all other components of the space program.
and i have to agree about the repetition... it's necessary to get his point across to several different audiences. he's not speaking for the benefit of those who're already familiar with his ideas, but for those who are new to them. as for self-aggrandizement, it's never pretty, but so what? if his mars plan needs a sidecar for his ego i'm ok with that-- as long as it doesn't cost anything extra. let's get there first and THEN worry about egomania if necessary.
and i think his idea of funding 2 independent $30M teams to assess a mars mission would go a long way toward reining in any over-optimism. i'd rather spend that than blindly shelling out $17B on the OSP. (of course, the $30M per team may be overly optimistic...)
You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it. -Chinese Proverb
Offline
Indeed to me it seemed also overoptimistic about the 30M$ each but I think he had to say it that way just to shorten his 'time to speak' and indeed sometimes if you are limited in time to defend your case you have to (over)simplify things just to get the 'other(s)' interested and asking more questions (and that did happen ...) about that 'simple' approach.
And as long if you have the right answers and know the whole thing indepth (which Zubrin has) they can fire as many questions as they want until their kwowledge-of-the-subject is reached.
I thought he got his message through. Although the *weird* smileys on the other side of the table troubled me at one point but then Zubrins book got onto stage and that changed from *weird* smile into *interesting/curious* sort of smile.
I vote yes.
Dit anibodie sea my englich somwere ?
Offline