Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

nirgal · 2002-05-16 16:33:16

That's exactly how I feel, Canth. But sadly I'm not a US citizen. Does someone know if the Mars Society, Planetary Society or other space advocacy groups support the bill?

nirgal · 2002-05-16 16:43:50

I checked: Both the Mars Society and the Planetary Society support the bill (of course ).

Canth · 2002-05-17 14:29:39

I beleive that the bill is already bipartisan. There are seven cosponsers to the bill. On lampson's website there is a section on the bill. Here is a link to it.

nirgal · 2002-05-17 15:40:25

The link doesn't work for me.

Canth · 2002-05-17 16:52:31

Apperantly my former link was not to a linkable place. Here is a link which is almost where you need to be. Lampson In Congress
Just click on sponsered under legislative resources and then scroll down to the bottom, it is bill number 10, the very last one.

nirgal · 2002-05-17 17:58:03

Thanks. Look at bill number 5 :"To promote the development of the United States space tourism industry" This guy is on our side.

Canth · 2002-05-17 20:40:35

Definately, The question is whether he has the power and the support to pull it off. I hope he does.

Canth · 2002-05-28 12:41:35

Some small news abou the bill.

5/20/2002:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

It is moving slowly along.

Mark S · 2002-05-28 17:15:24

After the discovery of underground H2O on Mars, Rep. Lampson's bill seems both timely and necessary. NASA insiders say that Mars Sample Return is a priority again, and that a manned mission will take place in 20 years. Rep. Lampson's bill will allow this to happen.

On the downside, the Lampson bill sounds too much like the Space Exploration Initiative, and its goals may be too rigid, in the sense that the initiative will fall apart if one of the goals isn't met. I agreed with the Space Exploration Initiative and its goal of a long term, national commitment to space exploration. Unfortunately, Congress didn't, and I do not think that their collective opinion has changed.

The Lampson bill also reminds me of LBJ's support for Apollo: he saw it as a federal jobs program that would benefit Texas. Congress rarely supports programs if they do not have pork barrel spending attached. In order for space to become a national priority, every state needs to gain something economically from the space program, and the lawmakers need to realize the benefits of space funding.

robcwillis · 2002-06-02 17:19:39

I am here to rain on the parade. Although the appearance of the Space Exploration Act is positive in the sense that it at least brings more public attention to the idea of sending people to Mars, everything falls apart in the details. Reading the full text, the "plan" greatly resembles the George Bush Senior "Space Exploration Initiative" of 1989. SEI resulted in the nightmarish "90 Day Report" which also called for a massive, long, drawn out programme that included build up of orbital resources, new fully re-useable launch vehicles, the construction of a moonbase, all of which had to be achieved before a Mars landing could be considered. All this resulted in a cost estimate of $450 billion.

Contrary to what it claims to represent, there is no single coherant goal manifest in the Space Exploration Act. We don't need to spend $500 billion for flights to or landings on asteroids, fully re-usable spacecraft and launch vehicles, or a moon base or missions to Phobos to possibly help get us to Mars in 25 years. We need Mars Direct, or something like it, to be funded NOW!

Mark S · 2002-06-03 08:51:23

The Space Exploration Act would be a lot more realistic if reusable spacecraft were not required. Granted, a fully-reusable RLV for transport to earth orbit has been long overdue, but the first landing on Mars will be too difficult to accomplish if we must wait for someone to develop an RLV to take us there and back.

I really can't say whether a lunar return or an asteriod landing is essential before we go to Mars. I've always thought of lunar return as more of a private venture instead of a NASA project. Still, a lunar return will give us much needed experience in living for long periods of time in reduced gravity and building closed-loop life support systems.

If we choose Mars Direct as a baseline, there needs to be some kind of demonstration flight which proves that humans can survive the flight to Mars and the surface stay in reduced artificial gravity. Although we will still need a test of the machinery that will spin to provide the artificial gravity, an extended stay on the moon will help us to study the effects of Martian gravity much more realistically than an extended stay on the ISS.

nirgal · 2002-06-03 15:49:29

I have my doubts, too. Why have the space vehicles to be reusable? Expendables will do just fine. I have the bad feeling that Lampson doesn't know very much about spaceflight, e.g. that staging makes things so much easier...

Nevertheless we should support this bill. It would get us out of LEO very soon and that's essential. I'm all for lunar/asteroid missions (although I would prefer a Mars Direct style mission) prior to the first Mars mission. Let NASA take care of the details (make these spacevehicles expendable! ) and it'll all be fine...

Mark S · 2002-06-27 09:44:29

I've thought of an outline for an amended Space Exploration Act that incorporates realistic goals that will still inspire the nation and lead to men on Mars.

1) Within eight years, an unmanned sample return of Mars will be launched in order to test propulsion technologies and to repeat the Viking Labeled Release experiment in a laboratory on earth.

2) Within ten years, humans will land on a near-earth asteroid to perform geology, allowing engineers to devise a method for protecting earth from asteroid impacts.

3) Within 14 years, humans will land on Mars and begin a scientific exploration, the primary goal of which is to determine whether Mars ever contained life.

4) Within 20 years, a permanently tended base on the Moon will be established.

5) Within 30 years, a permanently tended base on Mars will be established. Terraforming may begin after any Martian life has been thouroughly investigated.

nirgal · 2002-07-05 17:18:20

Is there any news regarding the bill? Is it moving forward?

Phobos · 2002-07-06 14:51:09

I've thought of an outline for an amended Space Exploration Act that incorporates realistic goals that will still inspire the nation and lead to men on Mars.
1) Within eight years, an unmanned sample return of Mars will be launched in order to test propulsion technologies and to repeat the Viking Labeled Release experiment in a laboratory on earth.
2) Within ten years, humans will land on a near-earth asteroid to perform geology, allowing engineers to devise a method for protecting earth from asteroid impacts.
3) Within 14 years, humans will land on Mars and begin a scientific exploration, the primary goal of which is to determine whether Mars ever contained life.
4) Within 20 years, a permanently tended base on the Moon will be established.
5) Within 30 years, a permanently tended base on Mars will be established. Terraforming may begin after any Martian life has been thouroughly investigated.

Good plan Mark S. But we should chuck #4 and #2 and go straight to #5.

Canth · 2002-07-06 22:06:52

I beleive that the reusable launch vehicle clause is there to prevent a flags and footprints approach to space exploration. Rep. Lampson is proposing building an exploration fleet, not the ridiculous excesses of the old massive exploration plan which dominated before mars direct but a permanent exploratory fleet. Mars direct is too abortable after completion, reusability is necissary for permanence, at least so my reasoning goes. Don't you think the space shuttle would be dead except that congress can't condone destroying something useful which they have already built. Reusability protects against the vagaries of political change and insures the continuation of missions into the future. It is more a political than an engineering move.

nirgal · 2002-07-10 13:47:53

Can anyone tell me what is required for a bill to get passed and how long the process usually takes? I'm not familiar with the US governmental structure but I guess such a bill had to be approved by the president in the end, no?
Another question: Does anyone know if similar bills have been introduced before and if they have succeeded?

Mark S · 2002-07-10 14:29:57

It takes a while for a bill to be passed into law. Here is a brief summary of what goes on:

1. The bill is referred to committee in the house where it originates

2. If the bill passes through committee, it is brought before the full house for a majority vote.

3. If the bill passes, it is brought up for consideration in the appropriate committee of the opposite house (in this case, the U.S. Senate.)

4. The Senate committee will submit its version of the bill to the full Senate if it passes muster. Again, a majority vote is needed.

5. A joint committee is formed to reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill

6. The joint bill is put up for a vote in both houses of Congress, and it must have a majority in each.

7. The bill goes to the President, who either signs it or vetoes it. If he vetoes it, the bill can still be passed by a 2/3 majority vote of both houses of Congress.

Sound complicated? Well, it is, and it's a wonder that any legislation gets passed. For the Lampson bill to pass, it will need the support of Dana Rohrabacher and Dave Weldon, the chair and vice-chair of the House Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee. Lampson may have an ally in the Senate if this bill does see the light of day--Senator/Astronaut Bill Nelson.

nirgal · 2002-07-10 14:56:43

Thanks for your detailed explanation.
So currently the bill is at the very beginning...

Dayton3 · 2002-07-10 18:37:39

This kind of legislation would kill the space program. I haven't read the whole thread, but insisting on "reusability" for each mission will mire every program in the kind of development hell that is called the space shuttle.

Just what the hell is the point of reusability? For Mars, at best you are only going every 26 months at most. Just bolt together the simpliest stuff you can get by with an go.

Ryjaz · 2002-07-18 10:07:20

Just what the hell is the point of reusability? For Mars, at best you are only going every 26 months at most. Just bolt together the simpliest stuff you can get by with an go.

The biggest point of reusability is in the ability to lower costs. So long as costs are high, they continue to be a deterent to space exploration.

Sure, we could fund a non-reusable mission to mars, but it would probably end up a similiar fate as the other non-reusable piece of hardware nasa created, the apollo module.

Reusability to me is a key to providing for a long term, sustainable space exploration plan. I am not saying this is a key for all missions to Mars, but for human exploration I think it is.

nirgal · 2002-07-18 14:11:18

ryjaz

I disagree. Desingning these space vehicles to be reusable will make their development much more expensive. So it won't lower costs (only in the very long term) but raise them. And what makes you think that a Mars program flown with reusable vehicles (at higher cost than with expendables) wouldn't end up the same way Apollo did?

Mark S · 2002-07-19 08:11:23

From an engineering standpoint, it will be impossible to conduct a fully reusable mission to Mars on our first try. Of course, certain parts of the mission can be designed for reuse. These include the habitat lander (as a backup habitat for a future crew), nuclear transfer vehicles, the earth return capsule, and flyback boosters on the launch vehicle. But designing for full reusability will be too tall a hurdle for the engineering community.

After mankind has made a few landings on Mars, you just might see full reusability. A cycler, built from a shuttle ET and using some form of electric propulsion, will travel continually between earth and Mars. A National Aerospace Plane will ferry astronauts from earth to the cycler, and NIMF hoppers will ferry astronauts between the cycler and Mars.

Ryjaz · 2002-07-19 10:02:48

You are right in saying that it is much more expensive to design for reusability. I am not arguing the short term costs. What I am concerned about is building a long term "sustainable" program of human exploration of mars. The key here is in sustainability. Apollo for all its greatness was not sustainable and a single budget cut was able to destroy the program forever.

IMHO, the greatest problem with Mars exploration is not engineering, but long term funding. Congress and the presidency has shown a pattern that it cannot commit to long term funding of space projects. They demonstrated this in the 70s at the end of Apollo and again are showing this in terms of the ISS.

In order to decrease this risk factor of sustaining long term funding, the biggest chunk of funding needs to be done at an early stage so in the future, when the budget cuts come in, it can sustain itself. This sustainability would come from private enterprise.

Private enterprise cannot and will not pay the upfront costs associated with the first 5-10 years of Mars exploration. There is just not enough tangible benefits to attrack them. Right now a similiar problem is happening in the telecom sector. It costs anywhere between $5000-$10000 per pound to launch something into Geosynchronous orbit. This cost has not decreased in the past decade or so! In fact it has increased. During the economic boom of the 90s, many companies were able to accept this cost and put up networks. This allowed for great expansion into space for a very short period. However, many of these companies (like globalstar and iridium) have since gone bankrupt and the money has dried up. Private enterprise have abandoned the space sector in droves. Traditional commercial space manufacturers have had massive layoffs and have had to realign themselves back with the government. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are great examples of this. Boeing has even gone so far as to claim that the commercial sector will be unable to invest in space again at a sustainable level for the next decade, if ever!

The point here is that one of the largest barriers to SUSTAINABILITY in any space field is space transport. Going with an ELV (expendable launch vehicle) is great for thinking short term. It worked for Apollo and the Moon. However, I want more from Mars. I want there to be a sustained effort
that last forever and will not just be a flag planting exercise.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-05-16 16:33:16

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#2 2002-05-16 16:43:50

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#3 2002-05-17 14:29:39

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#4 2002-05-17 15:40:25

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#5 2002-05-17 16:52:31

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#6 2002-05-17 17:58:03

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#7 2002-05-17 20:40:35

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#8 2002-05-28 12:41:35

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#9 2002-05-28 17:15:24

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#10 2002-06-02 17:19:39

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#11 2002-06-03 08:51:23

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#12 2002-06-03 15:49:29

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#13 2002-06-27 09:44:29

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#14 2002-07-05 17:18:20

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#15 2002-07-06 14:51:09

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#16 2002-07-06 22:06:52

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#17 2002-07-10 13:47:53

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#18 2002-07-10 14:29:57

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#19 2002-07-10 14:56:43

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#20 2002-07-10 18:37:39

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#21 2002-07-18 10:07:20

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#22 2002-07-18 14:11:18

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#23 2002-07-19 08:11:23

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

#24 2002-07-19 10:02:48

Re: Rep. Lampson to Introduce Visionary Space Legislat - what do you think about this?

Board footer