You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
One of the first thing that strikes you in the face when you look at Bush's Mars plan is that everything it proposes happens at least five years into the future, that is, after Bush will be out of office. That should raise immediate skepticism as to whether this is a serious plan or not. When Kennedy proposed putting men on the Moon, they didn't wait around five years sitting about the table before doing anything.
The second thing we should consider comes into play if we assume somebody makes a serious attempt to implement this plan. Clearly, the plan is a huge corporate welfare ("pork") bonanza. It will likely cost at least a few hundred billion dollars. Yet the timetable for the plan is one that clearly indicates there is going to be a lot of waste--because the only reason for such long time tables is to meter out a steady source of support for industry and big corporations. So we should understand that if this is implemented, there is definitely going to be a huge amount of waste, probably at least as large a proportion as has been wasted with the ISS and the Shuttle.
Finally, with that understanding, we should be skeptical that this plan will actually produce serious results. I don't want to say it couldn't--after all, the Shuttle and ISS have, incredibly wasteful though they have been, at least have produced something.
In summary, this is a plan that will probably produce at best mediocre and, at worst, disasterous results, and which will cost a tremendous amount of money regardless.
Offline
I agree entirely.
I'm definately not convinced this will get NASA out of the wasteful 'Shuttle Mode' of operation.
Without a heavy lift booster NASA will find itself designing the same expensive 'international space staions' stuck in 'low earth orbit'.
The only difference: these ones will be stuck in Lunar orbit
Bush's Space Plan has addressed the wrong problem.
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
The delay of several years is necessary because we have commitments to other countries to complete ISS, and that requires the shuttle to lift the existing Japanese and European modules to it. The shuttle and ISS suck up a lot of money. It's amazing they committed to phasing out the shuttle at all, and are refocusing ISS on long-duration human spaceflight. It'll be 2010--a mere six years from now--before the ISS is done, the shuttle is retired, and the money is free.
Kennedy didn't have to worry about phasing out space projects.
-- RobS
Offline
I think with regards to Bush's plan, this article is worth looking at:
[http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, … 37,00.html]http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, … 37,00.html
I think McCurdy is, at least, worth paying some attention.
Offline
I think the true acid test for this whole thing will be the upcoming election. If Bush is elected, it will become obvious pretty quickly whether or not he was blowing smoke on moon/Mars. If it was an election-year ploy I think we will see the project lose momentum over the next 2 or 3 years.
If a Dem wins I have no idea what'll happen. Their position on space has been vague at best. One or more of them should take some initiative and propose a counter-plan. There is a ton of room for improvement on Bush's plan and it would be easy for one of his opponents, with a little consultation w/ some space experts, to come up w/ something better. (For that matter, Bush could do the same thing at some point in the future.)
Some good will come out of all this, it's just a matter of how much & if it'll be enough to get to Mars in our lifetimes.
BTW, MarsDirect would not cost a few hundred billion, even factoring in the inevitable waste.
Oh, one other thing. Alexander mentions the 5-year time frame being suspiciously coincident with Bush's latest possible exit from office. I hate to wax political here, but I think this is an astute observation. If you look historically at where politicians go when they step down, you'll see that (esp. with Repubs) they go to well-paid positions in industry. (ref. Bush sr. w/ Carlyle group, Cheney w/ Halliburton, etc.) W. is doing himself a favor here any way you slice it. (And Halliburton does benefit from the space program, they have at least one subsidiary that has an operations contract at JSC.) While RobS makes a valid point about phaseouts, I don't think that is the sole reason for the delay. W. will surely go into a position in Big Oil or Halliburton or Carlyle when he leaves office, and birthing a piglet now that will be an oinker in 5 years is a good investment-- for W. at least.
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
If a Dem wins I have no idea what'll happen. Their position on space has been vague at best. One or more of them should take some initiative and propose a counter-plan. There is a ton of room for improvement on Bush's plan and it would be easy for one of his opponents, with a little consultation w/ some space experts, to come up w/ something better. (For that matter, Bush could do the same thing at some point in the future.)
Here's why the Dems haven't and won't propose any ambitious space program. The Democratic Party is composed of several smaller groups, each of whom demand certain things. Space exploration helps none of them, therefore the Democratic Party is unconcerned with it. It doesn't feed anyone, it doesn't provide healthcare, it doesn't subsidize housing (well, for astronouts it does), help minorities, pander to homosexuals, peaceniks, communists or anyone else and it doesn't appeal to any significant block of Democratic voters. The Dems treat Space exploration with the same contempt as they do Defense, only NASA is an easier target because it doesn't really perform any vital function.
Twice a US President has called for a manned Mars mission. Republican both times. This is not a fluke, it is simply the nature of the beasts. Space exploration helps defense contractors, there are no "we only make rockets for peaceful uses" corporations in the game. Space exploration depends on defense contractors. The elephant likes to keep them happy. The donkey has other things to worry about.
In short, if you really want an ambitious space program, vote Republican. If we get enough real conservatives in they'll actually start running NASA like a business and we'll really see costs come down.
That said, Bush's plan sucks on so many levels I don't know where to start. But at least Mars is on the table.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
If we get enough real conservatives in they'll actually start running NASA like a business and we'll really see costs come down.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
That said, Bush's plan sucks on so many levels I don't know where to start. But at least Mars is on the table.
Yep. I have to hand it to George, if nothing else he's got people talking again. A good thing. I only hope that wiser heads have the opportunity to refine and change W.'s broad strokes.
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
Sigh. So much for refining and changing.
Looks like we're going to the [http://www.space.com/news/aldridge_040119.html]moon first no matter what.
I wonder if it'd be different if they'd gotten an astronaut who's already been to the moon?
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 wonder if it'd be different if they'd gotten an astronaut who's already been to the moon?
Hehe, well said. :;):
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
I wonder if it'd be different if they'd gotten an astronaut who's already been to the moon?
He is not really an astronaut at all, but it would not matter much if he were.
The commission will offer advice on Bush's plan but will not pitch alternative ideas, Aldridge said -- like skipping the Moon and heading straight to Mars.
"The purpose of going to the Moon is a step to go to Mars,'' he said, and the commission won't challenge that concept. "We're not going in and saying, 'Well, Mr. President, we believe you're wrong.'''
So the commission is not allowed to suggest major changes in the plan. They will probably end up endorsing a plan that they know is stupid.
Offline
Fmr. Sec. Aldridge wouldn't have been appointed if he didn't agree with the plan. That being said, his team is going to put "meat" on the bare bones of the president's vision. Once we actually know what a CEV is and what it can do, we can get a better estimate for a timetable. Right now we're saying "CEV between 2008 and 2014" and "moon landing between 2015 and 2020." Announcing these windows anticipates delays, as is the norm for NASA.
The time for debating the actual vision already passed during the spring, summer, and fall 2003, when Sean O'Keefe and the NASA higher-ups started talking to the experts, listening to the congressional testimony, and putting together a workable vision. The Mars Society die-hards might not like it, but this is something the experts agree on. And it's not just the NASA experts; the European Space Agency came up with a very similar time table for their "Aurora" initiative.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Pages: 1