New Mars Forums

wgc

Banned

From: Michigan

Registered: 2003-12-09

Posts: 110

Website

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

"It would still be our only means into space, shortsighted no matter how you look at it."

Really? Why?

ANYTHING has to be better then Shuttle is, an upgraded Delta-IV Medium with a $50-100M CEV would cost roughly a quarter what a Shuttle launch does, maybe less, and be several times safer. And if it does what we need it to do, I see no reason why such a vehicle could not provide for NASA's launch needs with higher reliability and a fraction of the price until it is time to start thinking HLLV. The EELV rockets were designed with modularity in mind you know, a single-core vehicle for light and manned LEO flights, tripple-core for medium payload up to 30MT (ISS cargo?), and tripple-core + SRMs for loads up to 40-45MT for Lunar missions.

And yes, without a project for NASA to "do," then the money will be too tempting and it will probobly go away... that is really why we got Shuttle you know, that NASA wasn't going to have the money to use Saturn-V for any kind of sustained Lunar program, nor build a giant space station with the remaining launchers after Apollo, so NASA needed somthing else to draw in the dollars... NASA has suceeded in almost everything it has ever done, and Shuttle's true purpose - keep engineers employed at any cost - has been perhaps even more sucessful then Apollo...

We have been told that so many times it like a mantra

Shuttle bad, cev good... Shuttle bad , cev good.

Owell called that group think I beleive.

Both programs should continue.

Shuttle either manned or unmanned for heavy lift.

CEV for rapid and cheap crew transfers, and modulality for future missions.

Again this is the same thinking that caused us not to try to salvage skylab and scuttle the entire lunar program.

Space good ... Politicians stupid ... Space good ... Politicians stupid.

---

portal.holo-spot.net

BWhite

Member

From: Chicago, Illinois

Registered: 2004-06-16

Posts: 2,635

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

Bush vs Kerry? Gawd, I am getting so weary of that.

But Sol-III does look like it could become a pretty cool blog. See my comments in Free Chat.

---

Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Euler

Member

From: Corvallis, OR

Registered: 2003-02-06

Posts: 922

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I think that the CEV program combined with a new Lunar lander and updated EELV rockets can get us back to the Moon with the budget that Nasa has, give or take a billion, if we didn't have Shuttle and ISS weighing us down to the tune of $8 billion a year.

Yes we could probably get to the moon with that much money, but we would not be able to do much serious work there.  NASA would still have less money than it did during Apollo, and it would be spread over more projects.  All that we would be able to accomplish is a few more flags and footprints missions.

An Apollo-scale Lunar mission can be accomplished with only four flights of modified Delta-IV (Lithium tanks, regenerative RS-68 mod, RL-60 upper w/ modified Centaur, and quad-pack of standard SRMs). Thats only about one billion per mission worth of rockets not counting modification money.

Yes, but the rockets have always been the cheap part.  We should expect the CEV to cost more than the launchers.

ANYTHING has to be better then Shuttle is, an upgraded Delta-IV Medium with a $50-100M CEV would cost roughly a quarter what a Shuttle launch does, maybe less, and be several times safer.

I'm not so sure that it would be several times safer.  The safety record of the Delta family of rockets is much worse than the safety record of STS, and that doesn't take into account any problems that there might be in CEV itself.  Certainly we should expect each trip to the Moon to be significantly more dangerous than each trip of shuttle into LEO.

Still, shuttle has been an economic failure.  It was the wrong vehicle at the wrong time.  We just should not delude ourselves into thinking that the CEV will be some sort of wonder vehicle that won't have any problems of its own.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I really don't think you are fathoming how horrible Shuttle is... NASA will never ever be able to do anything other then what it is doing now as long as Shuttle keeps flying. It costs about four billion dollars a year to keep the fleet & facilities ready, every year, even with zero launches. Closer to five billion a year with 4-5 flights... The ISS soaks up in the region of $2Bn/yr as well.

Its real simple. As long as Shuttle flies, NASA can't really DO anything. It HAS to go, period... keeping both programs going is simply not an option, not "group think."

The CEV on EELV+ is therefore the logical option for all manned launches and all payloads from Delta-II sized to about 40-45MT, the limit that the EELVs can be extended without radical modification or infrastructure change.

It would be safer then Shuttle, because there would be escape options at any time in Earth orbit with a good heat shield and escape rockets. Sure a Lunar mission would be a little riskier, but for a LEO flight it would be much safer.

Turning Shuttle into a heavy lift rocket sounds like a great idea at first, but I have reservations... It is not going to be practical to build a Shuttle-derived vehicle that can lift more then about 120MT, that is the limit that you can do without changing it so radicly that you may as well start over. 120MT may sound like alot, but its borderline unfeasable for a manned direct-flight launch to Mars.

MarsDirect is cut to the bone to accomodate the launcher, which makes the whole arrangement risky and cuts deeply into capability. For anything bigger than MD, either you need a more powerful booster, or a nuclear TMI engine. Back in the latter days of Apollo, NASA was considering a stretch Saturn-V with Titan SRMs to tripple the payload for a Mars mission.

And finally, I think it is a valid question if NASA is capable of restructuring the Shuttle program to cut operating costs on the order of 66-75% simply by eliminating the orbiter and reducing the flight rate. If NASA can't do this, and it costs over ~$1.5-2.0Bn/year or >$1Bn a flight for the Shuttle-derived HLLV, it would be cheaper in the long run to build a new HLLV with SRB-II+RS-68R or RD-170+RS-68R that would be much more powerful.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I think that NASA can get somthing really accomplished for $8Bn a year, since getting to the Moon isn't going to be quite so hard this time... a launcher is basicly already in hand with limited changes, really just modifying the RS-68 nozzle, where NASA back in the Apollo days had to sink so much money into building the Saturn-V. We are better at the smaller things now too like computers, light weight construction, and that sort of thing. Returning to the Moon is not going to be so hard this time.

That said, yes the CEV will cost quite a bit if we do it right, but I think it can perform as advertised after we shake the bugs out. The technology is simply not that difficult, much of it will be on hand by then... heat shield, parachutes, docking guidence (DART demonstrator), escape motors (Lockheed's PADD), OMS engines (X-37 derived?), all that will be done before the CEV project even begins in earnest. I think it can perform the same function as the Apollo CSM and perhaps become an "American Progress" light cargo hauler too without costing more then $100-150M-ish per copy.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

comstar03

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2004-07-19

Posts: 329

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I think that depends on what Candidate gets in , depends on the progress of the space exploration timeline.

As a strong supporter for private enterprise taking the chief role in space, but again depends on the Political climate and industry control over the government decision making processes.

As American's don't like another country get ahead of them, in technology, marketplace or historical events. Before we talk about " What is National Interests ?."

I know that America isn't ready for a major private enterprise competitor in the space development, launching and exploration, but its coming and when it happens they will change laws and increase duties to protect their industries and not innovate out of their mess.

Commodore

Member

From: Upstate NY, USA

Registered: 2004-07-25

Posts: 1,021

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

That said, yes the CEV will cost quite a bit if we do it right, but I think it can perform as advertised after we shake the bugs out. The technology is simply not that difficult, much of it will be on hand by then... heat shield, parachutes, docking guidence (DART demonstrator), escape motors (Lockheed's PADD), OMS engines (X-37 derived?), all that will be done before the CEV project even begins in earnest. I think it can perform the same function as the Apollo CSM and perhaps become an "American Progress" light cargo hauler too without costing more then $100-150M-ish per copy.

I really don't see the CEV as being that expensive if we keep our expectations reasonable. Its a quick, reusable people/light cargo hauler.  It doesn't need to be any more than a Command Modual II for 6-8 people. If we want a service modual, send up a permenent inflatable and dock with it. Anything else we want to use can dock with it too.

---

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

Euler

Member

From: Corvallis, OR

Registered: 2003-02-06

Posts: 922

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

It would be safer then Shuttle, because there would be escape options at any time in Earth orbit with a good heat shield and escape rockets. Sure a Lunar mission would be a little riskier, but for a LEO flight it would be much safer.

Delta rockets have about a 5% chance of failure.  There is also a chance that something will go wrong with the life support, heat sheild, landing system, etc., so I don't see why you can be so certain that it will be safer than a vehicle that has 98%+ reliability.

comstar03

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2004-07-19

Posts: 329

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I think you both are missing the point, Does kerry benefit the space industry or does Bush benefit the industry ?

Its not what technology is used in the development and exploration of space, but does the leadership of the government going to be their for the years and decades ahead.

We have alot of years and hard decisions ahead and I don't think that the candidate (kerry) for President will add the development of space over the next four years that will build the foundation for expanding into space.

If, John Kerry gets in, resources will be diverted to social programs from NASA and won't help expand our knowledge, understanding and new processes to add the continued growth in American Industry.

It will add the other countries in the world to caught up in the space race. Example - Similar to Microsoft getting slowed down by legal action - the people could decide to put the brakes on space exploration by electing kerry thus slows the drive to expand permanently into space from the government.

It will be interesting for seeing the public's view on what they want. I don't care about the decision because my corporation works on our developments without government funding thus we are purly private enterprise and run to different agenda and objectives even to other private enterprises in this industry.

Yang Liwei Rocket

Member

Registered: 2004-03-03

Posts: 993

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

It is quiet possible that
Neither Bush or Kerry will have anything great to do for NASA and getting people in Space

However the Bush ideas seem much worse, so Kerry wins out becuase the Bush plans are bad or just won't happen and Kerry would be better for space

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewt … hp?t=15147

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ … ...RL=http

Some papers were just plain mean. Britain's Guardian documented Mars' irrelevance to everyone but red rock aficionados and then turned its biting sarcasm directly at Bush: "Take-off is planned for the year 2020, or later if they let Dubya do the final countdown from 10 to lift-off."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/ar … 2003091871

So Kerry wins

---

'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )

Cobra Commander

Member

From: The outskirts of Detroit.

Registered: 2002-04-09

Posts: 3,039

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

However the Bush ideas seem much worse, so Kerry wins out becuase the Bush plans are bad or just won't happen and Kerry would be better for space

Well I know I'm convinced by this cogent argument. 

---

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.

~Eternal~

Member

Registered: 2003-09-25

Posts: 211

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I find myself in more support of Kerry's space policy than Bush's.

Bush's was a politcal stunt with not realy cost projections, while Kerry says the scientific community should run NASA with a well-to-do but not overly-done budget.

---

The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on  October 26, 2001.

wgc

Banned

From: Michigan

Registered: 2003-12-09

Posts: 110

Website

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I find myself in more support of Kerry's space policy than Bush's.

Bush's was a politcal stunt with not realy cost projections, while Kerry says the scientific community should run NASA with a well-to-do but not overly-done budget.

Kerry visits Nasa HQ and doesn't even mention space in a speech, Kerry would continue the shuttle and international spacestation, thats it. And thats only because of the international ties. You folks are just looking for a reason to vote for Kerry... if it has anything to do with space or the war on terror.. you're going to have to look very hard.

Maybe you should do some research on his congressional record and than come back.

Kerry is strong on economics and Bush wiped the floor with him ..

I admit there are other reasons I don't like Kerry, Like my late father beging a viet nam vet that got the backlash from Kerry's anti war statements, or that his running mate john Edwards is with Orin Hatch on the Induce Copyright act.
But I think Kerry's record on space speaks for itself.

---

portal.holo-spot.net

Yang Liwei Rocket

Member

Registered: 2004-03-03

Posts: 993

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

The Bush plans for Mars, a real class act !! 

http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/i … _small.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BushLig … aughon.gif

George Bush tryin' a Fool us with a nice Martain stunt

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library … olbush.mov
The IMF warned that increased federal debt from the deficits would make funding social security and healthcare more difficult.Robert Rubin, former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, along with other senior economists, last week published a report warning that the Bush administration's record deficits will have "severe adverse consequences" for all Americans and is unsustainable. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is sounded a note of caution
"Cost estimates for the new programs range from $550 billion to $1 trillion," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "Until the federal government brings the record deficit back down to Earth, it should not launch expensive new space programs of questionable scientific value."
The Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday that the federal budget deficit would swell to $477 billion this year, a record in terms of the sheer number of dollars involved
Bush hasn't offered any more specifics for cutting the deficit, and -- according to some analysts -- what plans he has proposed seem more likely to grow the deficit, including:
What's more, spending on Social Security and Medicare -- "mandatory" budget expenditures -- will skyrocket by the end of the decade, as millions of baby boomers begin to retire, de Rugy and other analysts say.

"This is like running up a credit card debt and asking our kids to pay for it in the future -- it's fiscal child abuse," de Rugy said.

NASA gets cut down on Apollo 11 Anniversary

I wonder why

[

  :angry:

---

'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )

wgc

Banned

From: Michigan

Registered: 2003-12-09

Posts: 110

Website

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

The Bush plans for Mars, a real class act !! 

http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/i … _small.jpg

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BushLig … aughon.gif

George Bush tryin' a Fool us with a nice Martain stunt

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library … olbush.mov
The IMF warned that increased federal debt from the deficits would make funding social security and healthcare more difficult.Robert Rubin, former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, along with other senior economists, last week published a report warning that the Bush administration's record deficits will have "severe adverse consequences" for all Americans and is unsustainable. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is sounded a note of caution
"Cost estimates for the new programs range from $550 billion to $1 trillion," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "Until the federal government brings the record deficit back down to Earth, it should not launch expensive new space programs of questionable scientific value."
The Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday that the federal budget deficit would swell to $477 billion this year, a record in terms of the sheer number of dollars involved
Bush hasn't offered any more specifics for cutting the deficit, and -- according to some analysts -- what plans he has proposed seem more likely to grow the deficit, including:
What's more, spending on Social Security and Medicare -- "mandatory" budget expenditures -- will skyrocket by the end of the decade, as millions of baby boomers begin to retire, de Rugy and other analysts say.

"This is like running up a credit card debt and asking our kids to pay for it in the future -- it's fiscal child abuse," de Rugy said.

NASA gets cut down on Apollo 11 Anniversary

I wonder why

[

  :angry:

I fail to see your reasoning. Maybe this would be more appropriate in a political forum.

Since Bush announced his plan Nasa has been moving to reorganize around the new vision. This is a good start.

Many programs that were kind of under the "covers" have suddenly surfaced.

What do you think Kerry will bring to the space table? The guy doesn't impress me. Sorry.

---

portal.holo-spot.net

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I guess what bothers most about the space vision has been the lack of support for it and of going forward with it from the Bush camp. He has been focussed on the terrorist mission abroad and continues to ask for more funds in order to complete its goal. With these kind of funds the moon, mars, ISS and yes even the shuttle could be all continued but that is not the case as we have seen from our space beloved congress.

Congress Approves $420 billion For Defense
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-04za.html

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I really dont think either of the two candidates have a particular interest in the future of space. Frankly for one of the two candidates to call for a mission to Mars and the Moon and then provide no support in real terms or for another to go to the center of the space Industry in the USA and not mention space once is well, disapointing.

If there will be no goverment funds coming there will be no real push for space. NASA is handicapped by its having to support the Shuttle and ISS and will still be for many years to come. I really do not expect much progress on the manned space front for many years to come coming from NASA and unless private enterprise or the military succeed I doubt ill still be alive to see the first man on Mars.

---

Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Commodore

Member

From: Upstate NY, USA

Registered: 2004-07-25

Posts: 1,021

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

Who here really thinks that were anyweres near ready to start throwing large sums of money at this?

Were doing exactly what we should be doing, exploratory studies to figure out the best way before we throw money at it, and handing out technology grants to help towards that effort.

---

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

comstar03

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2004-07-19

Posts: 329

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

I see the agreement of people regarding the hard facts of space budgets and resource allocation under governments. Yes, things need to change regarding the commercial benefits for space and the marketing of space as a new marketplace to expand into for humanity.

~Eternal~

Member

Registered: 2003-09-25

Posts: 211

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

As I have stated before, anyone who is voting for a president on their space policy obviously has not sent their priorities straight.

---

The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on  October 26, 2001.

comstar03

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2004-07-19

Posts: 329

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

Eternal,

when you look at what a president we should have, you need to see if he / she will maintain and grow all what means to be america. If they don't then look for the best on your assessment, and depends on your priorities.

Personally, I will work around any issues that come my way from either government that conflicts with goals set for space development and expansion.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

Is this truely how our only candidates feel:
:down:
Space can wait until after Nov. 2
Candidates both say they support NASA, but other issues come first

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2852650

LtlPhysics

Member

From: north of the equator

Registered: 2004-02-24

Posts: 76

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

Kerry avoids the word 'NASA,' like Reagan avoided the word 'aids'. No guts.

Shaun Barrett

Member

From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Registered: 2001-12-28

Posts: 2,843

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

As I've said before, I'm not American and I have no real business getting involved in U.S. politics, beyond two specific areas - one of them of crucial and direct importance to me and the whole world, and the other a more selfish and personal interest.
    The first area involves my take on world terrorism and how to tackle it. I've probably said more than enough about that, though I can't guarantee I won't say more - it depends on how upset I get about it!
    The second area is space exploration and, although I don't pay taxes in America and therefore shouldn't really express opinions, I have such a burning interest in it that I just can't shut up! And I'm stuck here in my home country of Australia, which doesn't have a space program. Much as I love my country, I'm eternally frustrated by that irritating reality and turn to America to ease my mind. (And I would pay tax dollars to support a space program, if only we had one here! )

    I've just read an article from The Washington Dispatch, which really has me worried about John Kerry.
    http://www.washingtondispatch.com/artic … html]Click here for the full article.

    If there's any truth in this, then Kerry will be the kiss of death for the U.S. space program. Apparently, he's been against everything to do with space for years in the Senate.
    What's a foreign space-nut to make of all this?
                                                    ???    :bars:

---

The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

comstar03

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2004-07-19

Posts: 329

Re: Kerry's position on space *2* - ...continue discussion here (for now)

shaun barrett,

They did have one, in the 1960's equal to the early work in USA then they stopped it. Could see a use in keeping that program alive. That is why private enterprise could do better, not at the whim of politicians.

In fact Australia, could play a large role in training and research of space required technologies and personnel for long term (permanent) space exploration and colony settlements in our solar system and beyond.