July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

cIclops · 2007-09-17 08:11:53

Indeed NASA had its exploration budget heavily cut in 2007 by the Continuing Resolution set by Congress. Your $12.6 billion figure seems to be the total exploration budget for FY 2005 through FY2008 (until Oct 2009). This included $2.5 billion for Human System Research and the Prometheus program. So about $10 billion went directly into the lunar program, and negligible funding was spent on the human Mars mission because it's only in the study phase.

Right, Bush is not JFK and 2007 is not 1962, the world is very different. The reasons that drove the Apollo program no longer exist and so space is barely on the agenda. NASA's $17B is only 0.6% of the president's budget, the other 99.4% gets his attention. The public, industry and academia support space, only by increasing public support can space be moved higher up the list of the priorities. If everyone actively supports the VSE (which is Moon and Mars) and NASA's plan to achieve it, the first mission to Mars will happen far sooner.

cIclops · 2007-09-17 12:03:00

At the first NASA 50th anniversary lecture today, Mike Griffin said:

"I personally believe China will be back on the Moon before we are"

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-17 13:17:09

NASA has already seen cuts, another question is whether Bush will ask for enough money to keep the vision on track and freeze spending not related to security or missile defense. NASA's budget for the Moon-Mars mission until 2008 is $12.6 billion, but only $1 billion of that is new funds; the rest will be diverted from other activities. the Bush speech was nothing like that made by JFK, public interest in Mars exploration isn't really there anymore people are more concerned with other issues such as social security reform and Iraq. The next obvious step is to look at the people who are currently being promoted as possible presidential candidates for the 2008 election and who would be best for NASA.

Congress is packed full of Bush bashers, they are not interested in listening to anything Bush has got to say, and the next opportunity for Republicans to regain the House and Senate comes after Bush's Presidential term expires. Hardly matters anyway, the current Congress wouldn't listen to JFK either. Joe Liberman of Conneticut is a JFK Democrat, one that believes in winning America's wars, JFK believed in that too, not so with todays Democrats. If today's Democrats thought China was going to beat the USA to the Moon, they'd deliberately cut NASA's budget to make sure that happens. I think you put too much stock in speeches, If congress would automatically call General Petaeus a liar because he doesn't speak doom and gloom about the Iraq war, I don't see how any speech that Congress doesn't want to hear is going to make a difference, and the Media, which ever way Bush goes, they'll argue the opposite, the only thing that matters to the Democrats and the Media is who's in the White House and who's in Congress, every other issue is just a potential weapon to use against Bush, there is an informal war going on between the branches of government and the Democratic and Republican Parties, power is all that matters to them and nothing else.

cIclops · 2007-09-17 22:47:48

If today's Democrats thought China was going to beat the USA to the Moon, they'd deliberately cut NASA's budget to make sure that happens.

It's hard to say how the Democrats would react to a manned Chinese lunar program, but the effect of it will be long after Bush leaves office and they surely won't want a Democrat president embarrassed. Boosting NASA's budget, as with increasing almost any government budget except defense, is usually supported by Democrats.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-18 22:51:34

I know how John F. Kennedy would react if her were alive today, but I don't know how today's crop of Democrats would react. The historical JFK was in many ways out of step with what today's democrats are proposing. Remember Kennedy's speech, "We will bear any burden... etc"? Seems to me that JFK would have been firmly in Joe Liberman's camp with regards to America's place in the world, retreat or defeat were concepts unfathamable to him, he fought in World War II and was himself a part of America's "Greatest Generation". To today's Democrats, defeat or just giving up and quiting are viable options that are seriously considered whenever the going gets tough. "Unwilling to see the Iraq War through," might translate to unwilling to spend the money to compete with China in space. Most Democrats have in their mind the redistribution of wealth and income. Kennedy's Apollo program was brought down mainly by Democrats in Congress and the Senate, promenent among them was a fellow called Jesse Jackson, who wrote an editorial critical on the Apollo Program in the July 21, 1969 edition of the New York Times. Jimmy Carter had a rather unspectacular manned space program, the Clinton Administration canceled George Bush senior's Mars program, he gave a great speech about landing on Mars by 2019, but the Democratic majority in Congress didn't authorize the money, when his son made a similar speech calling for a return to the Moon and Mars, he got some criticism from Democrats, but as there was a Republican Majority at the time, he didn't have a problem getting started like his Father did.

Alot of scientists working for NASA are Democrats, perhaps they missed the part about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, not being the greatest pro-space presidents of all time, you have to go all the way back to LBJ to find a supporter of an ambitious manned space program Lyndon Johnson was really the President that made the Apollo program happen, when he left, the rest of the Democrats lost interest and cooked up giant welfare programs and raised taxes instead.

SpaceNut · 2007-09-28 05:52:52

I did a search on candidate to see what would be the best thread to post to and found that we had Newt Gingrich - Space President? and yes another one for Newt Gingrich vs John McCain: Who'd make a better President but of course none have said much about the vision, funding of nasa or of going forward as this would said a message that they do not care about the american people that are poor as well as there spevific issues which we already give to much in funds as compared to all other issues.

So there should be no surprise when they are comfronted that they quickly leave the sceene of the events leaving only the lesser candidates to voice any opinion on the issue of space in general.

What minor presidential candidates think about space (not much)

Armin Ellis, who attended a presidential campaign debate in New Hampshire this week, posed the question “What is your vision for America’s space program?” to several of the candidates after the debate.
The three leading candidates—Clinton, Edwards, and Obama—didn’t hang around, but Ellis was able to talk with Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson.
Not surprisingly, the answers the question elicited weren’t terribly deep. Dodd said that “we’re doing okay” and left it at that. Biden professed his support for robotic programs, and when asked about human spaceflight, said, “With clear leadership we can do anything, good luck.”
Kucinich said he would double spending “across the board on civilian projects and privatize where we can”, and gave a shout-out for NASA Glenn Research Center, in his district.
Richardson said spaceflight was “important” and added that “we should also encourage private companies”, as he has been doing in New Mexico.

Why am I not surprised at the stomping for there own districts for these high tech jobs....

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-09-28 08:31:45

NASA is not a jobs program, it is about accomplishing something, preferably quickly. There is a disease in government programs about paper-studying a problem to death before proceeding with the construction. We see this happening with the replacement of the World Trade Center. All these wheels spinning accomplishing nothing. The Space Station has also been paper-studied to death and billions of dollars were wasted before anything was build. Of course the people who were doing the paper studies had jobs. What I worry about is the people who want jobs for their districts being at cross-purposes to those people who want to get something accomplished. We can study the Orion to Death, we can study the Ares V to death, we can think about all sorts of "what if" scenarios about what can go wrong during the mission and spend billions of dollars on counter-measures and back-ups, but at some point we have to stop doing all that and start building something. NASA has had a history of doing studies that don't lead to anything, the Delta Clipper comes to mind, and so does the National Areospace plane. The rehash of Apollo should be simple, just build the thing and get back to the Moon, it is a rather simple test for NASA to see if it can still do what it had done before - oh with incremental improvements of course.

That said< i like Newt Gingrich's Mars Prize Idea, and they say he may be entering the Presidential race soon. I think if NASA offers a prize for going to Mars rather than saying how we should get to Mars, we may accomplish something sooner. I think NASA's Business-as-Usual plan hasn't gotten us very far. I would like to see private industry getting us to the Moon and Mars. NASA's pace has proven much too plodding for my taste and lifespan. I was born in 1967, almost ten years after the start of the so-called space age with the launch of Sputnik, when I was born we were getting ready to land on the Moon, by the time I was old enough to appreciate what was happening the Moon landings had already happened, and we had this dead space for 6 years where we didn't even send any people into space, while the Russians launched mission after mission to their space stations in low Earth orbit - The Democratic President at this time seemed to revel in National humiliation at the hands of the Russians and the Ayatollah and his hostage takings. Carter and his fellow Democrats in Congress didn't seem to be doing much for the Manned Space Program, all they seemed to want was government jobs, not results. Ronald Reagan really should have done more for the Space program than just give speeches, there was the NASP and the space station, Even SDI didn't produce much hardware in orbit, the only thing we did was launch more shuttles and look for missions for those shuttles.

George H.W. Bush made a fine speech about returning to the Moon and Mars for the 50th anniversary of Apollo, which is 2019, and that is the yardstick I am using now. I think we should try for that date rather than being "fat and happy" with endless government jobs programs for certain districts and proceeding into the 2030s at the full plodding rate of a tortose. The Wright Brothers didn't wait til the 1930s for the first commerical flights. Why do we have this slow distant time horison that more concerned about jobs programs than accomplishments? I think Space Races are essential to getting thigs done.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-10-06 22:49:28

Reposting what may have missed:
One might say that all presidential candidates will be facing this very issue and there stance will weigh heavily on the decisions of the voters when they cast there vote.
McCain Presidential Bid Linked to Iraq
John McCain, his presidential bid faltering and his support for the unpopular Iraq war unflinching, is seeking to convince Americans that the conflict is 'necessary and just.'
Yes you have served your country, so your view of the war is understandable but it is the insurgents culture that needs a less than civil display to get them to stop. Setting timetables of dates with no checks and balances for milestones of transformation towards democracy is not the way to go either.
The question is how is Afganistan different with our actions versus those in Iraq?
But what are the views for Nasa and space exploration? That amoung many other questions would need answering before it is time to vote.
So who are the players in the next act, Where might we find a complete list?
2008 race has the face of a changing America
'08 RACE FOR PRESIDENT

Edwards

Giuliani

Obama

Clinton
Romney
Other Republicans: Brownback | Gilmore | Hagel | Huckabee | Hunter | Pataki | Romney | Tancredo
Other Democrats: Biden | Clark | Dodd | Edwards | Kucinich | Richardson | Sharpton
Thompson to run for president in 2008

I am sure there will be a changing status on all of this as the time grows near.

Clinton and McCain could easily gut manned space flight, they don't seem to be pro-Mars. Some Democrats are pro-NASA some are very anto-NASA, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich has been criticized in his district for missing congressional votes on crucial issues like NASA funding and regional economic development while campaigning for president. Rudy Giuliani is a bit of a Republican dunce head, he tried to milk his Churchill mime as much as possible but he rubs Republicans he wrong way on issues like gun-control. Rudolph turned up at the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville for a press conference, he never mentioned NASA once and instead decided to talk about the war in Iraq and Abortion. Mitt Romney is an oddball, he reads Hubbard, I thought he was Mormon not a Scientologist ?

If space advocates don't act soon any NASA plans for space activities will be changed after the next President is selected and Mars will remain decades away until the 100th Sputnik anniversary.

cIclops · 2007-10-07 00:40:04

Clinton is the only one of the bunch to say anything much about Space, and it wasn't much either. Let's face it, Space is a low priority program, it gets its yearly funding plus or minus and except for the micro managers on the House committees it is left alone. NASA still delivers outstanding success and when it has failures it recovers from them. Although spectacular, the failures focus attention on improving the agency not gutting it.

The answer is simple. A way must be found to give NASA a massive increase in funding. With funding almost everything is possible: Mars, Moon, NEOs and all the science that can be imagined. It can be done with the stroke of a pen. The benefits to society, education and the economy will far outweigh the cost. Let's move NASA to the next level and get to Mars!

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-07 04:51:52

The United States President warned he would veto the $1 billion appropriations added to NASA’s budget. With a “Democrat” Congress, GW has finally decided to cut down on any tax cuts and any unnecessary spending, something been failing to do for two-thirds of his presidency.

Talk about great timing eh ?

EuroLauncher · 2007-11-01 13:04:03

NASA points to foreign competition to spark support
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/spa … 0181.story

But three years after President Bush charged NASA to return to the moon by 2020, Constellation exists only on engineers' drawing boards and in dreams. There's a five-year gap between the last shuttle launch in 2010 and Constellation's first orbital flight. And there's no assurance that the new president who takes office in 2009 -- let alone the American public -- will endorse a repeat trip to the moon.

cIclops · 2007-11-01 13:53:55

NASA points to foreign competition to spark support
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/spa … 0181.story
But three years after President Bush charged NASA to return to the moon by 2020, Constellation exists only on engineers' drawing boards and in dreams. There's a five-year gap between the last shuttle launch in 2010 and Constellation's first orbital flight. And there's no assurance that the new president who takes office in 2009 -- let alone the American public -- will endorse a repeat trip to the moon.

Once again the media should check their facts. Orion 1 is the first Orbital flight of Orion (Constellation is the name of the program not a space vehicle or launcher) and it's planned for March 2013. Shuttle will be retired at the end of 2010, that's about two and half years, not five.

EuroLauncher · 2007-11-02 09:55:47

Once again the media should check their facts. Orion 1 is the first Orbital flight of Orion (Constellation is the name of the program not a space vehicle or launcher) and it's planned for March 2013. Shuttle will be retired at the end of 2010, that's about two and half years, not five.

Yeah the Media have some of their numbers wrong, but it would be foolhardy to hype up the success of the VSE, yes they tested TEM-13 burn but there are still many tasks ahead. I'm not sure how much weight I'd put behind 'briefings' because these are subject to change all the time as they try to put a bit of spin on things. According to other briefings JWST would be flying in 2011 and Shuttle was going to provide cheap access to space

PDF link missions
PDF linked missions

Some of these other report say the 2013 date is just a test launch, it could be a success and it could be a disaster but whatever the result it is a mission test and will not be manned. The Project Constellation Lunar Surface Module and the Ares Heavy Lift won't be flight tested until the 2018-2019 date, before then Griffin's plan is to use the Stick to truck payloads and astronauts to the ISS. Dates seem to be slipping as NASA overcomes problems and remains undecided on the alternative Ares-4 rocket, the Orion spacecraft might not be flying to the space station until the beginning of 2015. Post 2008 its hard to predict how the next President will react to the VSE, Griffin might be supprted or he could be gone. The next President might have some good or bad ideas, he/she could love it and greatly push forward for the Moon and Mars but without political support and adequate funding Ares-V could be canceled by the time we see a return of the US manned launcher.

cIclops · 2007-11-02 10:34:54

The VSE is an audacious undertaking, exploring the moon then going on to Mars is an ambitious, very gutsy long term program. Yes, it's way too early to talk about its success. Only the very first part of the VSE has been accomplished, that is returning the Shuttle to flight.

There are many test flights planned before Orion 2 (the first manned orbital flight in September 2013) and there will be two more manned flights before Orion is operational in March 2015. Sure, test flights can fail, that's always a risk during the development process. NASA is working hard to bring the dates forward, but the test program is constrained by the J-2X work and lack of money. NASA has a good doable plan, it's low risk and quite achievable with full funding.

Right now the priority is finishing the ISS and developing Orion & Ares I to replace the Shuttle. Ares V uses much of the Ares I hardware, so its development and the Lunar lander can be accelerated given the funding.

The future is always uncertain, even 2012 when the first complete Ares I test vehicle is planned to fly is a long way ahead, in comparison the 2019 date for the seventh moon landing is far ahead. As the saying goes, making predictions is difficult, especially about the future.

publiusr · 2007-11-09 14:56:00

Thanks for the contact info!

publiusr · 2007-11-09 15:03:44

The Planetary Society did try to launch a solar sail, but the rocket it was on exploded.

Both attempts to launch the solar sail failed. Stupidly, they tried to launch on an aging SLBM that sloshed around a boomer for quite some time. They dispose of missiles by removing the warhead and firing them off into the sea (VOLNA). Some of their smaller SLBMs (liquids) have the nozzle of the upper stage submerged inside the upper propellant tank of the first stage. Something like primacord cuts the rocket in two to stage explosively.

But like a lot of the pointy-heads and white coats--the Planetary Society wonks overthought the payload while learning nothing of launch vehicles.

And now the head of the Planetary Society dares to critique Griffin on spending too much on LV development?

But scientists never had much use for engineers anyway.

Planetary Society repeated its mistake, after I tried to contact their office and warn them not to use Volna.

You can't tell them anything. They're spoiled brats used to chain smoking Delta IIs.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-11-17 03:12:44

Keith Cowing from NASA Watch wrote :

QUOTE :
November 15, 2007
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/ … _on_3.html
"Mike Griffin on VSE Woes: "I did not put us into this position"

Editor's note: At one point in the hearing Mike Griffin lamented "I'm doing the best that I can to chart our course out of it. I did not put us into this position, I'm doing the best I can to get out of it but if you think I like it, you would be wrong."

I beg to differ, Mike. You most certainly did get the agency into the predicament that it is in today. Instead of going off and reinventing the wheel (Ares 1) you could have bought EELVs off the shelf from a ULA catalog and focused only on CEV development. You forced a rigid and recycled architecture upon the agency - one that requires large monolithic launchers - when in fact you could have come up with one that used existing launchers or straightforward derivations thereof.

This happened on your watch, Mike. It is about time that you started to accept the responsibility for it."

cIclops · 2007-11-17 03:57:37

Aside from the tone of Cowing's personal attack on Griffin, there is no EELV on the shelf that is human rated, powerful or safe enough to lift Orion. What is a "monolithic launcher"?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-11-24 06:10:39

I think if every Congressman and Senator got 10 detailed letters calling for a manned Mars program it would make an impact.
That's only 5350 letters. Which should be achievable I would think.
But we can do better. Target their campaign managers and Chief of Staffs for mailings as well. The people who write their speeches and actually write the bills they introduce.

Mars is not an immediate concern for American politicians. However with Shuttle set to retire soon Florida is worried about a new manned flight gap. More money from Congress might have done the trick but then there's that veto business. Only Democrat Hillary Clinton, GOP McCain and Republican Mitt Romney support the idea of going to Mars. Romney looks to be a religious fanatic while Hillary is very divisive and not very loved by some voters.

Here's one from Nature dot Com

The presidential space race - November 21, 2007
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe … _race.html
Not many of the leading US presidential candidates have spent much time campaigning on space policy. If you’re going to talk about research on the campaign trail, it’s much hipper (and plays better in Iowa) to talk about things like cellulosic ethanol.
But yesterday Barack Obama actually brought up NASA – because he wants to delay its moon/Mars exploration program to pay for his new $18 billion education initiative.
http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdf
That would be news to NASA, which is moving full steam ahead on its plans to develop a new manned spaceship to replace the space shuttle.
Obama is edging ahead of his main rival, Hillary Clinton, in the polls in Iowa. For her part, Clinton last month made space exploration a vague-sounding cornerstone of her platform on how she would promote scientific research if elected.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/rele … w/?id=3566

cIclops · 2007-11-24 06:39:41

Only Democrat Hillary Clinton, GOP McCain and Republican Mitt Romney support the idea of going to Mars.

Got any sources for this claim?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-11-24 09:09:13

Are you accusing me Ciclops of posting anti-american, pro-communist propaganda ? Surely I've been here on newmars long enough and posted good material for enough time to be given some due credit.

I've tried to dig around for sources but not being educated in American politics I had trouble find some stuff.

Controversial Democrat Howard Dean was a supporter of Mars missions,
but Howard Dean is not running this time round
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/79/1
McCain supports a Mars outpost but is concerned about taxpayer dollar costs
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5182

As you may have heard Obama may cut the VSE to pay for education
(I assume no links are need here)

Romney's "campaign" responded on the space issue

http://spacereport.blogspot.com/
by providing an article from the Florida Today newspaper that said: "During the first campaign visit to the Space Coast by a 2008 presidential candidate, Republican Mitt Romney said he supports Bush's vision for space exploration and has no reason yet to propose a new direction."

Only Clinton's official Web site appears to mention NASA or human space exploration specifically, everybody else avoids the word NASA.

As of today Giuliani as a space president should not be taken seriously at all,
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4bf_1173972015&o=1
the last time he turned up at a Space center was to chat about Abortion and the Middle East. The only thing that concerns Rudy on the issue of Space are Alien Invasions and NASA employees who may or may not take part in gay-marriage

For Ron Paul, I don't have anything in writing but Ron Paul looks like he's anti-big-government and perhaps anti-NASA

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-09-17 08:11:53

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#27 2007-09-17 12:03:00

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#28 2007-09-17 13:17:09

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#29 2007-09-17 22:47:48

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#30 2007-09-18 22:51:34

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#31 2007-09-28 05:52:52

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#32 2007-09-28 08:31:45

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#33 2007-10-06 22:49:28

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#34 2007-10-07 00:40:04

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#35 2007-10-07 04:51:52

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#36 2007-11-01 13:04:03

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#37 2007-11-01 13:53:55

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#38 2007-11-02 09:55:47

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#39 2007-11-02 10:34:54

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#40 2007-11-09 14:56:00

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#41 2007-11-09 15:03:44

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#42 2007-11-17 03:12:44

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#43 2007-11-17 03:57:37

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#44 2007-11-24 06:10:39

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#45 2007-11-24 06:39:41

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

#46 2007-11-24 09:09:13

Re: July 20th, 2009 Should Be Our Goal

Board footer