George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

flashgordon · 2003-12-03 21:51:32

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/p … 030858.asp

Ian · 2003-12-04 11:39:28

This doesn't mean that it will happen. It's kind of like the President's thing about hydrogen powered cars. Hydrogen powered cars are not practical right now.

sethmckiness · 2003-12-04 11:41:45

I'll keep my fingers crossed. Hopefully we will make a return. Maybe with China's plans some pressure will be evident!

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-04 12:56:27

Then again, everyone went ape shit about the State of the Union address and how Bush was going to send us to Mars...

Ian · 2003-12-04 13:23:08

How would a President get an entire nation to go back to the moon?

dickbill · 2003-12-04 13:38:14

Then again, everyone went ape shit about the State of the Union address and how Bush was going to send us to Mars...

The hydrogen cars was the only good point of his adress and worthy of investment IMO. But he never said anything about Mars, I don't remember, did he ?

whatever, after all that congress audit with Zubrin, I am disapointed. Going to the moon ? to do what ?
Zubrin made clear that if we want to go to Mars, we need to prepare to go to Mars, not to the Moon. I thought the congressmen understood that. The Moon and Mars are very different challenges. Actually the Moon is not a Challenge.The issues are different. 3 days trip versus 6 months for the trip, among other critical differences.
So, the moon OK, to do what ? what's the goal the rationals the quests the public interest etc.

Ian · 2003-12-04 13:59:07

I was just watching Msnbc and they were talking about Bush's Moon plan and they said that it might help the economy. They probably think that the moon is like training for going to Mars.

dickbill · 2003-12-04 14:27:32

They probably think that the moon is like training for going to Mars.

The big point of Zubrin recent adress to congressmen, is that the Moon is not a training field for Mars. How's the moon better than the ISS to test space suits for example ?
So NASA is going to spend money in the ISS AND the new Moon project AND Mars exploration AND ionic propulsion...hmmm isn't it to much ?

Ian · 2003-12-04 14:40:24

How much money will all these projects cost? I bet it
's less than the 87 billion dollars that the government wants to spend on Iraq's reconstruction or Earth Penetrating nucks. I think that spending money on space exploration is better than spending it on war.

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-04 14:55:29

To play devils advocate for a few minutes, what kind of real substantial economic benefit is there by spending money on the space program at all? To keep some aerospace engineers employed? There hasn't been any really serious technological benefit since the Apollo days... that $14Bn a year or so that goes to Nasa yeilds almost nothing tangible in return. I think that Nasa has been doing pretty good to keep the funding they have when the zeros swirl like snoflakes in a blizzard in the Congress.

I think that Nasa could do alot more if they were reorganized for real this time and were given an objective that they would be held to achieving. That being said, Nasa's budget is a little small, and I don't think its unreasonable to see it raised to the $18-20Bn range.

clark · 2003-12-04 15:02:35

GNC, I applaude you taking the color 'red', but come on, you gotta do better than that!

What's the weather going to be like tommorrow or next week? NASA had a hand in that.

Want to play a video game with actual 3-d rendering of actual earth geography? Nasa had a hand in that.

All these environmental sensors that are being used more and more? NASA.

New break throughs in material sciences? NASA has a couple fingers there.

Advances in hypersonic aircraft? NASA.

A better understanding of our solar system, and the universe? NASA.

The effects of solar radiation on humans and our environment? NASA.

A chance to believe that we can do the impossible? Thank you NASA.

Now, where am I going to find pictures of the landscape on Mars.... any ideas? :laugh:

dickbill · 2003-12-04 15:31:15

GNC, I applaude you taking the color 'red', but come on, you gotta do better than that!
What's the weather going to be like tommorrow or next week? NASA had a hand in that.
Want to play a video game with actual 3-d rendering of actual earth geography? Nasa had a hand in that.
All these environmental sensors that are being used more and more? NASA.
New break throughs in material sciences? NASA has a couple fingers there.
Advances in hypersonic aircraft? NASA.
A better understanding of our solar system, and the universe? NASA.
The effects of solar radiation on humans and our environment? NASA.
A chance to believe that we can do the impossible? Thank you NASA.
Now, where am I going to find pictures of the landscape on Mars.... any ideas? :laugh:

sure sure, but I don't quite understand what's so interesting in the moon, why not just to target Mars right now.
On the moon, robots might do a better job than human and for cheaper, if "science" is the real goal. On Mars, it's the reverse, on the long term, manned mission on Mars will be more scientifically productive than robotic missions. And if more than Science has to be considered, then Mars is a target way superior to the Moon.

Bill White · 2003-12-04 15:33:51

dickbill - its all about the military dominance of cislunar space. And to send a message to the Chinese that they will have competition if they decide to build a Chinese moonbase.

If the US did not do this, by the 2020s the Chinese might be in a position to dominate cislunar space.

In a word, pre-emption.

clark · 2003-12-04 15:39:48

Bill, too funny. Thank you.

Dickbill, The moon can do more for humanity at large than Mars can. The moon can tell us things about Earth, about impact rates, and act as a platform for future astronomical observatories.

Yes, Mars could do some of this, but not to the same degree, and not as readily as the moon. You have to really ask, which is the bigger gamble, the moon, or mars.

We all struggle with the economic justification for Mars. And the results are always the same- it makes sense economicaly once we start factoring in asteroids and the moon as exsisting as either suppliers, or demanders of future Martian products. Mars does more for a future 'space civilization', but the moon does more for our current 'earth civilization'.

We can't create fuel on Mars that will help us get into space from Earth. We can't build solar power sats on Mars for Earth. It will cost more, and take longer to build telescopes on Mars, than if we do it on the Moon.

We do need to practice *jogging* before we start running, and the Moon makes the most sense. Going to the moon, building an infrastructre for that will ensure that when we go to Mars, we can stay.

If we go now, before the Moon, then our hold will be tenous at best.

Go to the moon, to practice for Mars, means we one day go to Mars. Just going for Mars, without the moon, is hoping you don't crap out on the dice roll...

Palomar · 2003-12-04 15:44:58

dickbill - its all about the military dominance of cislunar space. And to send a message to the Chinese that they will have competition if they decide to build a Chinese moonbase.
If the US did not do this, by the 2020s the Chinese might be in a position to dominate cislunar space.
In a word, pre-emption.

*You answered my question by expanding on your original post (1 sentence) since I last checked this thread.

Yes, I agree.

If the Chinese go for the moon instead of Mars, I think it's safe to say our "goose is cooked" regarding any near-future manned missions to Mars. Hopefully they'll opt to go to Mars instead.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-12-04 15:57:21

If the US did not do this, by the 2020s the Chinese might be in a position to dominate cislunar space.

and thus the drums of cold war age, rage once more...

dickbill · 2003-12-04 16:07:31

Dickbill, The moon can do more for humanity at large than Mars can.

No, leave the moon for the chineses if this is the issue. We've got to go to Mars.

The moon can tell us things about Earth, about impact rates, and act as a platform for future astronomical observatories.

that is true, a big interferometric on the moon. sounds good.

es, Mars could do some of this, but not to the same degree,

yes, Mars is not good for that. that is also true.

We all struggle with the economic justification for Mars. And the results are always the same- it makes sense economicaly once we start factoring in asteroids and the moon as exsisting as either suppliers

sorry Clark, mining the asteroid is science fiction. I liked Titan AE the movie by the way.

Mars does more for a future 'space civilization', but the moon does more for our current 'earth civilization'.

well, maybe that is also true, except that what you call "space civilization", I would call "Humankind Destiny" and "Giant Leap for Humanity". You already forgot your own words ?

We do need to practice *jogging* before we start running, and the Moon makes the most sense.

No, I think I don't deform Zubrin's speech when he says that the moon cannot be a training. You can be ready for the moon, and still not ready for Mars.

Bill White · 2003-12-04 16:09:51

If the US did not do this, by the 2020s the Chinese might be in a position to dominate cislunar space.
and thus the drums of cold war age, rage once more...

Don't forget Europe:

Access to space
During the past 25 years ESA has created Europe?s own launchers (Ariane 1 to 5) and established a convincing European presence in unmanned and manned operations in orbit. Scientists and technologists in Europe can now pursue their own ideas and inventions, without deferring to decision-makers in other parts of the world.
Access to space also establishes Europe?s credentials as a spacefaring power, able to join in international projects as an equal partner and to speak influentially about the lawful uses of space. With its own commitment to strictly non-military goals, ESA promotes peace in space by fostering global collaboration.

Yeah, yeah I see the "commitment to non-military goals" yet if the choice is to stay non-military and lose the ability to speak influentially = OR =

This quote is from the official ESA web site.

This board has never discussed Galileo very much. Chinese JDAMs?

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-04 17:31:01

All the really useful tech that Nasa has come up with though, has been due to Apollo-era technology. More recently, Nasa has been doing little or nothing tangibly useful outside of tweaking a few industrial processes and making airplanes a few percent lighter. Even getting payloads into orbit is not markedly easier or more reliable.

To put it frankly, we are capable of sending men to Mars on a limited basis needed for scientific work, but we are NOT ready to expand humanity there for real, if for no other reason the distance involved. And until we are there, I don't think that we should go, for fear that it the politics will doom it to being a Martian Apollo.

Living on the Moon, however, is within our grasp. If the objective of space travel is to benefit man, and the wealth of space is too heavy to bring to the people of Earth, then space travel should bring the people of Earth to the wealth of space. The Moon is the best place to start.

Asteroid mining will never be practical to compete with minerals in a gravity well short of docking a rock with a space elevator to bring minerals to Earth, and I have my doubts that an elevator will ever be feasable. Alot of unknowns about them still... What they might be good for is building things IN space and for mining rocket fuel, but building anything big up there is still a long, long way off.

Enyo · 2003-12-04 18:43:04

The rumor I hear has no funding and is more of Bush's political BS. I just look at this as another chance for him to say nothing important but sound like he is profound. It's just more "Thanksgiving in Iraq" and flying on to an aircraft carrier for photo ops. :angry:

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-04 20:27:57

Yeah, that is sounding like a probability... I can already hear the congressmen's answer for a return to the Moon... "Why?" I think that Nasa does have the money for a small base in the long term, if the can do a few (hard) things:

-Build OSP/AAS below the bushells and bushells of green paper that Boeing/LockMart/et al want to gouge for it, with AAS being scaleable enough to manage large payload modules via EELV HLV launch.

-Get the ISS to core complete and not spend another dime on it than nessesarry, after which the manned Shuttle program will be mothballed and as much money from there is diverted as possible, with the exception of building SDV maybe and keeping Endeavour flight-capable just in case. And pull the plug on ISS as soon as possible without massive outside funding for Nasa's Mir II/SS Freedom frankenstein.

Then, using that money, build a really good DC-X style reuseable Lunar Lander/Orbital Transfer ship without costing a gajillion dollars that can make the round trip from LEO to the Moon and back without refueling with light weight astronauts on board, or make it to the Moon via a HiPEP/nuclear or HiPEP/solar ion tug and back with heavier loads (reactor/fuel plant, hab module, robot miners). Preferably weigh 25 tons wet with payload for EELV launch, but orbital fueling from a second launch would be acceptable while waiting for Lunar fuel to become available.

Then, with Nasa able to send heavy cargoes and people to the Moon with the versions of this craft, they could work their way up from there to a base when they get the money saved up. It would also be nice if Nasa abandoned the idea of putting people on the Shuttle again tomorrow, and made the whole thing unmanned.

jadeheart · 2003-12-04 20:39:21

The rumor I hear has no funding and is more of Bush's political BS.

we'll see. i too am skeptical. if only the chinese had said they're going to MARS. then W. would want to take us there.

the strategic interpretation of cislunar domination offered in this thread is, i think, as good an explanation as any for this upcoming announcement. IMO it fits pretty well with the current administration's view of everything being tied in with the US having the upper hand on the world stage. i just can't see this administration assuming any ideological burdens like space exploration for the sake of exploration. they'll want some solid political payoff and i'm sure keeping them godless commies from pre-empting us fits the bill. 'noble' idealistic payoffs like scientific advancement and PR value are just icing on the cake.

while a commitment to mars would be nice, a lunar exploration initiative is better than what we've got right now. i'd support it if it's forward-compatible with a future mars effort.

the bigger question is what other programs may be siphoned from to foot the bill for this. hopefully the money will come solely from the manned spaceflight branch and won't draw away from any of the other cool stuff that's in the offing. (SIM, TPF, Pluto Express, etc. etc.)

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-05 01:49:40

I really don't understand how people can imagine living on the Moon is a realistic idea.
The daylight lasts two weeks and the darkness the same. There are no volatiles except for rumours of water-ice at the poles, and even that most likely exists as a low percentage in the regolith, spread over hundreds of square kilometres - a nightmare to try and recover.
But the biggest factor against 'living' on the Moon is the gravity. Unless you plan to go there and stay there, a horrible thought given the desolation and general conditions, you will want to go home to Earth again frequently. How long can a human live in 1/6th g and yet return to Earth gravity and resume normal living?
I suggest crews would have to be rotated about every 6 months, longer is possible but this exacerbates the detrimental effects.
I know Mars presents essentially the same problem with its 0.38g but it has approximately 24-hour days, vast quantities of water and other volatiles, and the prospect of terraformation making it another home for humanity. The chances of getting people to go there on a one-way basis are very much greater than could ever be the case with the Moon.
While it is much further than the Moon, Mars has an atmosphere for aerobraking. Thus from Low Earth Orbit, getting payloads to Mars isn't fundamentally more difficult, in terms of rocket fuel, than getting the same bulk down onto the lunar surface. It just takes longer.
However, the prize is worth the journey time, since Mars is scientifically far more interesting than Luna.

If the U.S.A. is going to use Moon exploration as a cover-story for a major military build-up in the Earth-Moon system, I will be extremely disappointed. Such a scheme would undoubtedly put paid to any prospects of humans to Mars for decades, quite possibly for longer than I have available to me!

jadeheart · 2003-12-05 12:23:40

Some analysts say a Chinese-American space rivalry may prove healthy and lead to other benefits such as new drug products, but other White House hawks see Beijing's space program more as a warning.
They say China could use a space base to test new rockets or other technology that may prove threatening to the United States at some later date.

This is from one of the 'top story' pieces on CNN today. (Looks like somebody's been leaking from the white house again!) :laugh:

So apparently the pre-emption agenda Bill White proposed has occured to others. I wonder who "some analysts" are? Our neo-con white knights from Project for a New American Century?

I find it unfortunate that the white house would further turn our space program into a typical non-proactive gov't agency that can only respond to outside stimuli (in this case, the 'threat' from china). Lack of initiative will be our downfall.

At this point, if W. calls for a return to the moon it will only affirm my belief that he-- and those holding his strings-- have a terminal absence of vision.

jadeheart · 2003-12-05 13:22:42

you know, wouldn't it be more in bush's interest to wait until february after all the mars missions have landed to make some grand announcement like this? one of the lead stories on space.com today has the white house denying that any new proclamations on space policy are imminent. while the wright bros.' anniversary is good, waiting until public interest in mars (or in space at least) has been piqued by the rovers is better. maybe this is what they're waiting for. plus it gives them a little more time to hammer out details.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-03 21:51:32

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#2 2003-12-04 11:39:28

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#3 2003-12-04 11:41:45

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#4 2003-12-04 12:56:27

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#5 2003-12-04 13:23:08

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#6 2003-12-04 13:38:14

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#7 2003-12-04 13:59:07

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#8 2003-12-04 14:27:32

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#9 2003-12-04 14:40:24

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#10 2003-12-04 14:55:29

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#11 2003-12-04 15:02:35

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#12 2003-12-04 15:31:15

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#13 2003-12-04 15:33:51

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#14 2003-12-04 15:39:48

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#15 2003-12-04 15:44:58

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#16 2003-12-04 15:57:21

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#17 2003-12-04 16:07:31

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#18 2003-12-04 16:09:51

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#19 2003-12-04 17:31:01

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#20 2003-12-04 18:43:04

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#21 2003-12-04 20:27:57

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#22 2003-12-04 20:39:21

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#23 2003-12-05 01:49:40

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#24 2003-12-05 12:23:40

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

#25 2003-12-05 13:22:42

Re: George Bush Jr planning on kennedy speach - mostly moon, but as prep for mars

Board footer