Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-15 18:37:33

For starters, before we send anyone to Mars we need to understand extraterrestrial radiation better. Where better to do this than the Moon?

We know enough. At Mars orbit in space, without shielding, the radiation is only twice that off the ISS. This is fairly bad, but nothing to get worked up over. With some shielding proposed in Mars Direct, we should be fine.

Second, on Mars, the surface, the radiation levels are below that of the ISS. So once we get to the surface, there would be less to worry about. Only a few inches of regolith protect us just fine.

The Moon is closer to the sun than Mars. There is no atmosphere on the moon. Most technology related to shielding on the moon will be unusable or overkill for shielding on Mars. Thus it's a waste of time, as far as getting to Mars goes.

Secondly, going to the moon is still exploration.

We all know that, but we love Mars. The moon isn't our goal, so why should be jumping for joy when the President talks about returning with laughable cost projections?

If John Glenn says it's not dooable, then I'm with John Glenn on this one.

Going to the moon is definitely exploration, and you can't imagine how excited I get whenever I view the Apollo moon footage (from the extended missions). But the moon honestly doesn't offer much in the way of science.

There are obviously reasons for the moon, getting our manned exploration program back up to snuff, etc, but there are likewise good reasons for Mars.

And this is a Mars-oriented forum, after all.

I think a presidential candidate should run with Mars Direct, even though I've had my misgivings about Mars Direct before (primarily it's lack of proper CELSS).

RobS · 2004-01-15 20:01:37

But that is what has me so confused, Rob. Bush set some very specific agenda. A Crew Exploration Vehicle, capable of servicing the space station and flights to the moon, by 2008/2014. A return to the moon by 2014/2020, and a lunar outpost, where spacecraft can be launched on interplanetary missions.
He has set a very specific goal; a goal emulating science fiction. This does not seem to me like an efficient way to conduct human exploration of 'the cosmos'.
If Bush was expecting all this within the current budget, he clearly did not do his homework. I dunno, can't really think of a plan more difficult than this. I just hope 'difficult' doesn't mean 'too expensive'.

Let me try to be clearer. Bush had to be specific, but not too specific. A policy speech has to lay out some goals--finish up the station by 2010, go to the moon by 2014-2020, plan to go to Mars thereafter--so that the goals can be considered seriously and debated, but initially the plan can't have too many specifics. First of all, there hasn't been enough time to develop the specifics, and second, you want the overall idea to be debated and accepted first, then you fill in the details of vehicles, timetables, and expenses later. That's what he did.

The "Crew Exploration Vehicle" is a concept; the name is perfect for a speech like this. But what is it? We'll see in a few months. My guess is that its simply the Orbital Spaceplane with a catchier name and a few additional requirements, those needed for the moon. The OSP had been evolving that way already, after all. It started out, in the fall of 2002, looking like a small space shuttle, then after Columbia was lost it began to look like a capsule. People talked about the need to build something compatible with a return to the moon. Now that's what we're getting, and by 2008, which was the accelerated date for the OSP anyway.

All the discussion about going to the moon to go to Mars is reminiscent of NASA NExT's plans for the lagrange Gateway, discussed on Space.com a year or two ago. It is reminiscent of Duke's "Lunar Reference Mission" paper, which has received widespread attention and which is in dialogue with NExT's technology. Even Zubrin somewhere makes the comment that the NExT team has a good track record of predicting or setting the direction of NASA's future. NExT has talked about solar ion propulsion and encouraged solar thermal propulsion, which is also under development at NASA. Bush's plan says nothing about a heavy lifter, so we can assume it must rely on another technology for getting cargo out of LEO. Prometheus is developing nuclear reactors for JIMO and a recent article I saw somewhere said or implied the propulsion technology will be nuclear-ion. This makes sense; ion is now used quite a lot and is a mature technology. The nuclear reactor can power ion engines sometimes and scientific and communications equipment other times. Today's Space.com has an article saying Prometheus is being folded into the new office of exploration.

I suspect Prometheus will develop relatively small nukes, on the order of 25 kw. THAT'S plenty of power to push a 1-2 tonne spacecraft to Jupiter and perform science after arrival.

But if you plan to scale up the Deep Space 1's 2 kw Hall thruster ten times for JIMO, you can scale up the result ten times again and you have an ion engine able to push cargo to L1. There's a NExT article on the web that says 30 to 36 tonnes can be sent to L1 in six months with about 550 kws of power.

Who knows whether any of this will appear in the plan when it comes out; there's an article in Space.com that says the plan will be out in mid to late summer. The complete silence about nuclear thermal propulsion is significant, though; so far, it does not seem to be under consideration. That means gas-core is not being considered. I don't see anything about Vasimr either. But that may come along in the 2020s when the Mars portion of the plans are uder active development.

-- RobS

wgc · 2004-01-15 21:45:30

But that is what has me so confused, Rob. Bush set some very specific agenda. A Crew Exploration Vehicle, capable of servicing the space station and flights to the moon, by 2008/2014. A return to the moon by 2014/2020, and a lunar outpost, where spacecraft can be launched on interplanetary missions.
He has set a very specific goal; a goal emulating science fiction. This does not seem to me like an efficient way to conduct human exploration of 'the cosmos'.
If Bush was expecting all this within the current budget, he clearly did not do his homework. I dunno, can't really think of a plan more difficult than this. I just hope 'difficult' doesn't mean 'too expensive'.

This plan is a buyin for congress, ok congress you said nasa has no focus, ol here's the plan , we're not asking for a lot of extra funding initially, if you dismiss this than its not "my administration" thats at fault its you folks.

Much like the iss was able to survive because of its ties to international commitments, this one will be tied to the legacy of Columbia, the caib recommedations , and talent recruitment at nasa.

Short of another space race you need to find domestic reasons for continuing the program. The plans not brilliant no, but its pushing congress in a direction .. now is it sustainable...depends on a lot variables.

Ad Astra · 2004-01-15 22:34:11

A few observations:

Robert Zubrin had lots of praise for the plan when he appeared on Lou Dobbs' Moneyline. He said that this speech would be a defining moment in history, when humans stopped viewing themselves as a one-planet species. Or something to that effect. He must have a lot of optimism about this plan, but if it works out I will have to agree with him.

I'm hearing that John Glenn bashed the plan. It doesn't surprise me. It looks like the Democrats (Howard Dean in particular) plan on having their presidential candidate bash the plan, and I see John Glenn's reactions as being those of a loyal party man.

It seems to me that the moon and Mars got equal billing in the speech (of course, that's open to debate.) And both destinations are worthy of exploration and development. The key here is devoting equal energy to both efforts. The moon will be easier and will thus occur first, but much of the lunar hardware and subsystems will probably find their way to Mars. The moon and Mars are very different, but so are the requirements for different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter. We can find ways to maximize the commonality between the moon hardware and Mars hardware. And I don't think that NASA intends to use the lunar surface as a launch pad to destinations other than earth. If they do, I hope somebody talks some sense into them.

Overall, I like the plan, but I have premonitions that future administrations will lose the will to implement it. By that time, the shuttle will be gone and there will be NO American manned presence in space. International participation (which I believe the president fully intends on seeking for this plan) is what will make the plan sustainable for the 25-year timetable. And in terms of being an election year ploy, I doubt it, because space rarely resonates with voters. The Bush family has always hada fixation with space, and the reincarnation of SEI needed some kind of shock like the Columbia disaster before the nation would take it seriously.

wgc · 2004-01-15 22:40:06

If a president is serious about space he will do something big during his first year -- not in his reelection year.
Totally agreed, there. I don't think any more needs to be said. This is the single most important truth here.
Has Zubrin said anything about this yet? I can't find anything on Google news. I'm really interested in his take.

Not true, I think the Columbia incident changed a lot, just like 911 shaped the atittude about home land security.

Do you seriously think the president could push a Mars plan with this congress... your really into fantasy.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-16 00:19:36

Heres a brilliant article from the International Herald Tribune:

[http://www.iht.com/articles/125185.html]Forget the moon - go directly to Mars

Author Michael Benson has clearly done his homework on this issue.

I urge you to read his excellent article, and perhaps post it on to others.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 00:23:48

Heck yeah! Adrian linked that article in the semi-Zubrin bashing thread in Free Chat forum. I think. Yeah, that's the same article (different link). It's really fantastic. I've already written what I want to say to my favored presidential candidate, but I'm trying to make sure it's actually going to get on his desk rather than looked at by some lackey.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-16 01:18:34

And here's an article from ShreveportTimes.com which includes a few comments from Zubrin, surprisingly.

[http://www.shreveporttimes.com/html/E3D … 81A7.shtml]Ex-NASA Scientists Mixed on Bush Plan

I must say I expected Zubrin to make more of a fuss. But then again, I'm sure this is just a small piece of his comments on this issue. Let's hope we'll hear more from him and like-minded professionals in the days ahead.

And here's another great article from the Christain Science Monitor:

[http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0116/p10s01-comv.html]A Countdown to Mars

I'm slowly cheering as I hear there is still intelligent life in the universe

Enyo · 2004-01-16 06:16:52

For you all who wonder how can Bush just add a Billion to the NASA budget and expect to build the Moon rovers and CEV...

They plan to gut everything not Moon related.

That is to say all programs not directly related to Moon rovers and CEV will die. Mars missions don't need to restart for a decade...

wgc · 2004-01-16 06:36:50

For you all who wonder how can Bush just add a Billion to the NASA budget and expect to build the Moon rovers and CEV...
They plan to gut everything not Moon related.
That is to say all programs not directly related to Moon rovers and CEV will die. Mars missions don't need to restart for a decade...

Did you watch a different new conference than me???

I heard they would scale back on operations not related to the proposal , in particular non-life science aboard the ISS, but thats just backing away from some research that just isn't panning out. For all its hype that space based manufacturing boon just never happened.

And , yes I'm sure some programs will be cut.

Some robotic missions might get scapped

The james wood telescope, but I think the compromise would be to extend the life of the hubble.

Maybe some of the non related earth science programs.

They can't scap the iss too many international ties, the shuttle has to fly for some time, but they are going to save a bundle by not having to go through recertification.

I now most of us would of liked to see a bundle of money thrown at a full fledged Mars program.

But Congress has a big prepared stamp they would use.

DEAD ON ARRIVAL.....

prometheusunbound · 2004-01-16 07:14:04

I heard they would scale back on operations not related to the proposal , in particular non-life science aboard the ISS, but thats just backing away from some research that just isn't panning out. For all its hype that space based manufacturing boon just never happened.

To scale back would be to kill it. Nasa is largely a pork-barrel outlet for money right now, with so many diffuse and unrealated projects that it is not likely many of them will surrive budget cuts as they are already underfunded pork projects to begin with. The upcoming vote will determine NASA's surrival, a vote on the validatity of the space program, and in some ways it might be better to terminate the NASA program and start fresh and new.

wgc · 2004-01-16 07:41:18

I heard they would scale back on operations not related to the proposal , in particular non-life science aboard the ISS, but thats just backing away from some research that just isn't panning out. For all its hype that space based manufacturing boon just never happened.
To scale back would be to kill it. Nasa is largely a pork-barrel outlet for money right now, with so many diffuse and unrealated projects that it is not likely many of them will surrive budget cuts as they are already underfunded pork projects to begin with. The upcoming vote will determine NASA's surrival, a vote on the validatity of the space program, and in some ways it might be better to terminate the NASA program and start fresh and new.

Kill what, I think you need some coffee this morning. Because your statement doesn't make a lot of scense.

Killing the ISS would be bad internationally.... why do you think its survived so long.

Ad Astra · 2004-01-16 17:57:39

ISS will last until around 2018, but the US construction phase (and the shuttle era) will end in 2010. What will happen in the eight year span between completion and retirment? Hopefully the ISS will be put to good use by its international partners, possibly upgraded to increase its science capability. The US intends only for using it on long-duration weightlessness research, which is the most scientifically sound use for the station I can think of. After the US decides to shoot for the moon, the other nations that paid for it should put it to good use, which I fully expect to see.

wgc · 2004-01-16 18:14:39

ISS will last until around 2018, but the US construction phase (and the shuttle era) will end in 2010. What will happen in the eight year span between completion and retirment? Hopefully the ISS will be put to good use by its international partners, possibly upgraded to increase its science capability. The US intends only for using it on long-duration weightlessness research, which is the most scientifically sound use for the station I can think of. After the US decides to shoot for the moon, the other nations that paid for it should put it to good use, which I fully expect to see.

This is a plan in its earliest stages, I think it will change, evolve, there will be a lot of give and take. Some congressman will get their pet initiatives or they won't support it.

That said: I doubt the us will totally turn the iss over to another partner, it was built with mostly us money. You know I've always said an astronuat with a small telescope aboard the iss can probably do more that a specialized automonous system.

They needed better computers aboard the shuttle, what did they do they resorted to laptops. .. that was thinking outside the box.

Don't be surprised if their is a push in congress to restore the hubble servicing mission which was canceled, perhaps something will be worked out with the russians , perhaps development of the cev will be pushed forward who knows.

Enyo · 2004-01-17 04:33:02

Did you watch a different new conference than me???

I watched the one where Bush said we will be going back to the Moon several times (as in Apollo) and maybe making a Moonbase and maybe going to Mars someday...many years after he retires!

I should have said many things not directly related to human spaceflight. Case in point Hubble. This is only the beginning folks...

sethmckiness · 2004-01-17 09:11:17

Enyo, We won't be back to the moon before Bush is out of the White House.. The presidency is limited to two terms. Also, thats under the impression that he gets re-elected. Being that this is the first thing Bush has done That I like, I am not voting for him.

Enyo · 2004-01-18 02:36:09

Enyo, We won't be back to the moon before Bush is out of the White House.. The presidency is limited to two terms. Also, thats under the impression that he gets re-elected. Being that this is the first thing Bush has done That I like, I am not voting for him.

Right and the major costs happen about 7 or 8 years down the road in this "plan".

I don't plan to vote based on what a politician promises.

The CEV is vastly under funded, IMHO.

Rocky · 2004-01-18 23:59:14

I recommend reading this article. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=915

From it is seems Bush, O'Keefe, Cheney etc. are quite genuine in supporting this and have thought it through a LOT. I think it is a good plan.

--Rocky

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-19 02:17:25

I printed off this article (Space Ref: Inside Bush's Space Plan)as soon as the third installment became available, and studied it for clues. To me, it sounds as if Bush, Cheney and O'Keefe came up with the entire plan without consulting a single engineer. It's suggestive the CEV will be constructed in orbit from commercial launchers, and science return is not emphasized. No concern is made as to whether the plan is sensible (read: economical), so long as it can be done without a large budget increase. And there is no mention of the need to reform NASA's current mode of operations, only that NASA should be refocusing its efforts on manned exploration. It seems what we might gain from a lunar mission was not important; 'Just go there on the cheap, no matter the gain' seemed to be their mantra.

This will not help, Bush, Nasa; you'll only set a lower standard...

Enyo · 2004-01-19 04:00:31

I printed off this article (Space Ref: Inside Bush's Space Plan)as soon as the third installment became available, and studied it for clues. To me, it sounds as if Bush, Cheney and O'Keefe came up with the entire plan without consulting a single engineer. It's suggestive the CEV will be constructed in orbit from commercial launchers, and science return is not emphasized. No concern is made as to whether the plan is sensible (read: economical), so long as it can be done without a large budget increase. And there is no mention of the need to reform NASA's current mode of operations, only that NASA should be refocusing its efforts on manned exploration. It seems what we might gain from a lunar mission was not important; 'Just go there on the cheap, no matter the gain' seemed to be their mantra.
This will not help, Bush, Nasa; you'll only set a lower standard...

The three part article is BS written by BS-ers about BS-ers. Not worth reading! They plan a book to be out in July...no kidding...and it will be just as much BS! Cowing is now going around saying Howard Dean is anti-space because he wants to balance the budget before doing any new space programs! This is journalism in it's finest.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-20 11:16:43

It seemed to me that nobody ever told the President about the Mars Direct plan simply because of the moon idea. Hasn't Zubrin always said "If you want to go to mars, then go to mars. Going to the moon is not the way to mars." I do not think we need to test our mars lander equipment on the moon first simply because we have never done that in the past. Apollo went and landed on the moon with 1960's technology. Why doesn't anyone have faith that we can do that now? Actually I wouldn't be so upset about testing the equipment out on the moon except I really do not like the idea of the moon base. It's going to become another ISS where we have to constantly send supplies, fix problems, crew transfers...all for what? The astronauts there will be stuck with no real scientific purpose just like on ISS. All space missions have a bit of Russian roulette in them. It's the nature of the business. The problem with the probes in my opinion does not relate to manned missions. One of the probes was lost when NASA sent it the wrong information. A manned mission would be able to fix that.

you have some good points there but I don't know if all that is the right idea, there seem to be many other complicated issues right now so let's hope NASA can get going and do the right thing

cDelta · 2004-07-20 12:51:19

Well, it looks like it's going to be tough for NASA to get going, since it's budget has just been cut.

"NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million. "
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14633

clark · 2004-07-20 12:55:49

@#*%$!

We will have to see what Congress says, and what the Senate version says...

cDelta · 2004-07-20 13:02:45

Clark, you took the words right out of my mouth.
"@#*%$!" indeed.

It just strikes me as kind of odd that Congress would call for a new vision (after the loss of Columbia) and then they would refuse to fund it. This is why I despise politics.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-20 13:13:13

All that money cut from the CEV, how are we supposed to get to the Moon?... And Prometheous? We -have- to have a nuclear power plant to get anywhere, its a non-negotiable requirement for a Mars trip.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-01-15 18:37:33

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#27 2004-01-15 20:01:37

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#28 2004-01-15 21:45:30

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#29 2004-01-15 22:34:11

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#30 2004-01-15 22:40:06

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#31 2004-01-16 00:19:36

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#32 2004-01-16 00:23:48

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#33 2004-01-16 01:18:34

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#34 2004-01-16 06:16:52

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#35 2004-01-16 06:36:50

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#36 2004-01-16 07:14:04

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#37 2004-01-16 07:41:18

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#38 2004-01-16 17:57:39

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#39 2004-01-16 18:14:39

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#40 2004-01-17 04:33:02

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#41 2004-01-17 09:11:17

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#42 2004-01-18 02:36:09

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#43 2004-01-18 23:59:14

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#44 2004-01-19 02:17:25

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#45 2004-01-19 04:00:31

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#46 2004-07-20 11:16:43

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#47 2004-07-20 12:51:19

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#48 2004-07-20 12:55:49

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#49 2004-07-20 13:02:45

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

#50 2004-07-20 13:13:13

Re: Bush Sets Wrong Goal?

Board footer