Selling out Mars and Science?

Rxke · 2006-03-16 01:21:57

The outrigger Keck telescopes are gone.

I can't help but imagining someone scrapping that project and thinking: 'heehee, now THAT will maybe shut up our dear friend Jeffrey Bell...'

(Since he posts from Honolulu...)

cIclops · 2006-03-16 04:42:54

The CEV and Shuttle look like they are going ahead, they got their money.

Yes of course CEV is going ahead, it's the future of US human spaceflight, and no STS is not going ahead. The STS budget has been truely been cut (unlike the reduction in science budget growth) from about $5 billion a year to zero in 4 years ... now if you want to play the whinging scientist's game, that's a cut of approximately $12 billion in the programme. A lot of people will loose a lot of real jobs, if you want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for them, not a few scientists who have many job opportunities available.

cIclops · 2006-03-16 10:23:19

The CEV and Shuttle look like they are going ahead, they got their money.
Yes of course CEV is going ahead, it's the future of US human spaceflight, and no, STS is not going ahead. The STS budget has been truely cut (unlike the reduction in science budget growth) from about $5 billion a year to zero in 4 years. If you want to play the whinging scientist's numbers game, that's not only a cut of approximately $12 billion it's a terminaton of the entire program. A lot of people will lose a lot of real jobs. If you want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for all those people not the few scientists who have many other job opportunities available.

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-22 12:39:15

The outrigger Keck telescopes are gone.
I can't help but imagining someone scrapping that project and thinking: 'heehee, now THAT will maybe shut up our dear friend Jeffrey Bell...'

Or it might make Bell go totally insane and cause him to rant even more !

SpaceNut · 2006-08-23 21:22:51

There has been many an uproar about the science budget cuts needed to pay for the continued use of the shuttle to finish the ISS. This has been made more sever with the push for a new Rocket to get us to the moon and then to mars.

NASA Chief Blasts Advisors

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin yesterday read the riot act to the outside scientists who advise him, accusing them of thinking more of themselves and their research than of the agency's mission. Griffin's harsh comments come on the heels of the resignation of three distinguished scientists from the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), two of whom have questioned Griffin's plan to dramatically scale back a host of science projects

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-28 08:57:11

Its about time

The primary #1 reason for NASA to do anything in space for the last 25-30 years has been science of one kind or another, with helping the USAF/NSA/CIA on the side. This is no longer the case, the USAF et al have their own rockets, and now we are going out to not just learn about the solar system, but learn how to live there and perhaps to find ways to enrich humanity with space reasources (platinum, helium-3, and best of all - a new fronteir). Space science is no longer all important before all else, and if M Giffin's advisory staff can't or won't accept this, then their advice is counter to NASA's new mission and goals.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-28 11:45:12

I just want you to know, I know Project Orion is a pipe dream of mine, the politics, and the fact that it uses nuclear bombs sours public attitude, but I think every once in a while, someone needs to push the envelope on thses things. Are we stuck on Earth because of public attitude not to go in certain directions or because of real technological limitations?

The CEV and Shuttle look like they are going ahead, they got their money.

however
Mars smaple mission - MSR looks delayed
the Dawn Discovery mission seems to be cancelled
The outrigger Keck telescopes are gone.
MTO is dead
NASA has dropped the Methane-Engine from CEV
LISA and Constellation-X will be delayed indefinitely
Europa probe is getting axed
Mars research has been cut by $243.3 million to $700.2 million
Unless Congress forks over a rather large increase in the budget, NASA has no business putting much effort into preparing for Mars in addition to Shuttle/ISS, and Lunar/CEV programs. Pick two, and only two.
Mars sample return doesn't need to be executed right now, and when we really start thinking Mars technology should not be difficult nor time consuming to develop.
Mars Telecommunications Orbiter will probobly outlive its design life before manned missions would arrive if we were to send it to Mars any time soon, and being powerd by whimpy solar arrays would have a hard time matching the next Mars Science Rovers' nuclear powerd communication system.
Likewise, the CEV doesn't need a Methane engine. Even if the stock CEV is used as the Earth reentry vehicle following a Mars mission it won't need a Methane engine. A Methane engine has little or no bennefit for missions to LEO or the Moon either, and infact probobly wouldn't work as well. NASA must make the CEV work, and do so without signifigant delay nor being over budget, and building a brand new engine isn't worth the risk of it delaying or making the CEV exceed its advertised price tag.
Outrigger Keck AND Hubble? LISA and Constellation-X? Just how much of NASA's budget can the astronomers demand before being satisfied? How much should they be getting? And is astronomy all NASA's business and not the Nat'l Science Foundation et al? Astronomers will keep on coming up with new and more and bigger and better space & surface telescopes forever, and we are supposed to cry and curse NASA when some of them are turned down?
The Dawn mission was cut because the builders could not keep costs under control, a half billion dollar mission turned into a one billion dollar mission. It has been far too long since NASA held its project managers accountable for incompetant or fraudulent estimates of the price. If you can't estimate the cost of your space probe to within 100%, then you have no business building space probes. Also, hopefully this will finally put the space probe/space telescope/space science people on notice, that if you can't deliver, then no longer will NASA sigh and bail you out - no, if you can't deliver, then the mission you have so emotionally invested in won't fly... Now if only they would do that for manned flight systems more often.

I don't really know what use the ISS is, it is a money eater and a feel good project that multiple nations can work on together. The amount of money we have to spend on these things is largely a function of public attitude. If we really want to go to Mars, we should send alot of Mars probes. The more we find out about Mars through our Mars probes, the more focused the eventual manned Mission can be, and the more useful things that can be accomplished. If we have a telecommunication satellite in Mars orbit, then we can do alot more things with probes on the surface. If we wanted to fly an airplane for instance, live video would be more interesting than a snap shot here and a snap shot there, it might wet the publics appetite for more, and may result in funding increases. I think a Moon program can quickly be turned into a Mars program with the change of Administrations and political climate, they both use much of the same basic hardware to get off Earth.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-08-28 14:48:23

I just want you to know, I know Project Orion is a pipe dream of mine, the politics, and the fact that it uses nuclear bombs sours public attitude, but I think every once in a while, someone needs to push the envelope on thses things. Are we stuck on Earth because of public attitude not to go in certain directions or because of real technological limitations?

The Nuclear option looks like a nice way to provide energy and electricity to homes and become an energy source for space propulsion.
However GCNRevenger is saying one the biggest problems for Nuke-fans versus the public is how to get rid of the pollution and waste while keeping everything safe. Remember how the French caused international uproar by re-testing their weapons in the Pacific, or Ukraine/Russia's failure with Chernobyl, or Chinese who might have died from radiation sickness after testing, or the USA's three mile island and radioactive pollution in Nevada, Utah and Arizona.

The last thing needed would be a disaster with nuclear power, as it would set the Nuke propulsion method back another few decade, as you can imagine the public and media going into a Ban-frenzy after any suspicion of more fallout.

dicktice · 2006-08-28 16:25:26

Yep--my sentiments exactly. Reserve atomic power for Cislunar space and beyond, where distances require it. Don't squander it in Earth orbit, risking public backlash at best, and atmosheric contamination a la "On the Beach" at worst.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-28 16:41:38

If we really want to go to Mars, we should send alot of Mars probes. The more we find out about Mars through our Mars probes, the more focused the eventual manned Mission can be, and the more useful things that can be accomplished.

Is this really the case though? I believe that we are already very close to the limit of what is practical (not possible, practical) with unmanned probes with present day technology. The MER rovers for instance, for all their sucess, could have coverd more ground in months then they have their entire lives if not for the cheif problem: radio time delay. The time required to send/recieve signals severely limits all rovers that do anything except drive across flat, unobstructed terrain. We already have lots of probes in orbit too, we have ground-penitating radar, infra-red, multispectral, wide and narrow field cameras. What more can be accomplished from orbit?

No, we should not send lots and lots of probes for Mars. Send probes/rovers to help scout terrain for a manned landing or test critical technologies, but otherwise as far as exploration the focus should be on men and not machine. Send exploration probes where they can do the most good, like the moons of Jupiter, but the time comes when men should go to Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-28 16:57:51

However GCNRevenger is saying one the biggest problems for Nuke-fans versus the public is how to get rid of the pollution and waste while keeping everything safe

Ummm no I didn't, I'm all for nuclear power on Earth, I think the waste problem is manageable and the safety issues generally just parinoia. I am also just fine with nuclear reactors used in space. The problem I have is taking an unshielded ultra-high-power, ultra-high-temperature reactor on top of a rocket and launching it while it is running.

Since we will need a small reactor for power for Mars missions and perhaps small engines to get from Earth orbit to Mars, it is a valid concern that nuclear engines for launch ought to be avoided due to the political impact of failure making people think that all space nuclear power is bad, instead of just engines used during launch.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-04 07:57:39

People do tend to over generalize, don't they.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-09-04 09:56:26

The CEV and Shuttle look like they are going ahead, they got their money.

however
Mars smaple mission - MSR looks delayed
the Dawn Discovery mission seems to be cancelled
The outrigger Keck telescopes are gone.
MTO is dead
NASA has dropped the Methane-Engine from CEV
LISA and Constellation-X will be delayed indefinitely
Europa probe is getting axed
Mars research has been cut by $243.3 million to $700.2 million
Unless Congress forks over a rather large increase in the budget, NASA has no business putting much effort into preparing for Mars in addition to Shuttle/ISS, and Lunar/CEV programs. Pick two, and only two.
Mars sample return doesn't need to be executed right now, and when we really start thinking Mars technology should not be difficult nor time consuming to develop.
Mars Telecommunications Orbiter will probobly outlive its design life before manned missions would arrive if we were to send it to Mars any time soon, and being powerd by whimpy solar arrays would have a hard time matching the next Mars Science Rovers' nuclear powerd communication system.
Likewise, the CEV doesn't need a Methane engine. Even if the stock CEV is used as the Earth reentry vehicle following a Mars mission it won't need a Methane engine. A Methane engine has little or no bennefit for missions to LEO or the Moon either, and infact probobly wouldn't work as well. NASA must make the CEV work, and do so without signifigant delay nor being over budget, and building a brand new engine isn't worth the risk of it delaying or making the CEV exceed its advertised price tag.
Outrigger Keck AND Hubble? LISA and Constellation-X? Just how much of NASA's budget can the astronomers demand before being satisfied? How much should they be getting? And is astronomy all NASA's business and not the Nat'l Science Foundation et al? Astronomers will keep on coming up with new and more and bigger and better space & surface telescopes forever, and we are supposed to cry and curse NASA when some of them are turned down?
The Dawn mission was cut because the builders could not keep costs under control, a half billion dollar mission turned into a one billion dollar mission. It has been far too long since NASA held its project managers accountable for incompetant or fraudulent estimates of the price. If you can't estimate the cost of your space probe to within 100%, then you have no business building space probes. Also, hopefully this will finally put the space probe/space telescope/space science people on notice, that if you can't deliver, then no longer will NASA sigh and bail you out - no, if you can't deliver, then the mission you have so emotionally invested in won't fly... Now if only they would do that for manned flight systems more often.

Advisors Who Questioned NASA Priorities Leaving Agency
aeronews
' NASA press secretary Dean Acosta denied the implication the resignations were an act of retribution.'

Three spoke out against cuts in space science budget
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14400023/
Wesley Huntress, Charles Kennel and Eugene Levy each served on the NASA Advisory Council’s science committee. Kennel resigned by choice, but Huntress and Levy were asked to leave by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-09-06 00:30:43

Science: Lost in Space
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/21/nasa

Tumult Among NASA Advisers
http://www.nytimes.com/
While space enthusiasts have focused on NASA’s preparations for the next shuttle launching and its award of a huge contract to develop the next spaceship for human flight, a battle has erupted outside the limelight between the agency’s administrator and some of his top scientific advisers. Two scientists have been forced to resign from NASA’s Advisory Council, the agency’s top advisory group, and a third has resigned without being asked to. The merits of the struggle are hard for outsiders to assess, but the passions unleashed in recent weeks may bode ill for the sound planning of space research in the future.
The struggle comes at a time when unmanned scientific missions, after many years of substantial growth, have been reined in because of NASA’s need to spend large sums on resurrecting the shuttle program, completing the space station and developing a spacecraft to replace the ailing shuttles. As Michael Griffin, the NASA administrator, sees it, too many scientists are unwilling to accept that reality and end up offering advice that falls beyond the priorities set by the president and Congress.
Some dissenting scientists respond that they are not trying to subvert political priorities but are mostly concerned that Mr. Griffin has done away with a longstanding advisory structure in which panels of scientists fed their suggestions directly to administrators responsible for research programs. Now such suggestions must be sent up through the advisory council chairman and then to Mr. Griffin and back down to the responsible official, with plenty of room for dilution on the way. The process is far less effective than direct contact, they complain.

publiusr · 2006-10-27 12:46:15

Spoiled brats--the lot of them.

SpaceNut · 2007-02-13 21:51:17

Just how much Earth science do we really need for what it costs.

According to last week’s Space News, the budget for these missions is still $1.5 billion (down from $2 billion in the 1990s). There are currently twenty-nine US Earth Observation satellites on orbit, with 122 instruments.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Medi … harter.pdf

What I find interesting is the future mission pages 9 and 10 to estimated cost for each, the special instruments for what is being learned by making the satelite.

TheMadCap · 2007-02-20 11:47:56

Wow, I never thought I would ever stoop to the level of bashing in a post. I can't believe that I have actually read such a thread on this forum.

I think I am actually dumber from having read some of MR's gibberish. I cannot actually believe that anyone can truly believe what you have posted. But keep on thinking that everything was all happiness and light before the year 2000. Your paranoid drivel is better suited for a conspiracy theory page than a science site like this. Thanks for completely ruining any shred of credibility you had.

GCNRevenger · 2007-02-20 12:37:02

Wow, I never thought I would ever stoop to the level of bashing in a post. I can't believe that I have actually read such a thread on this forum.
I think I am actually dumber from having read some of MR's gibberish. I cannot actually believe that anyone can truly believe what you have posted. But keep on thinking that everything was all happiness and light before the year 2000. Your paranoid drivel is better suited for a conspiracy theory page than a science site like this. Thanks for completely ruining any shred of credibility you had.

MR has been, like, always like that. Apparently we only ban people for being disruptive around here.

EuroLauncher · 2007-04-03 12:06:35

The president has proposed a vision. We will go to mars the moon and beyond. Baring world catastrophe I don’t doubt this will happen but will the presidents plan lead the US to reach mars first. Will the presidents vision get us there in the most efficient manner possible. As a space advocate I realize that the money to do what the president wants is just barely there given our current level of technology. To do what the president asks we must sacrifice science and perhaps billions of dollars of shuttle related infrastructure. We do this for the promise of greener pastures but we of yet know how we will reach those distant lands and sow those distant gardens or raise those yet inexistent cows.
Any plan must address two issues. What short terms goals are we going to accomplish. What are we going to do to reduce the cost of achieving future goals. The first issue is to demonstrate we are serious and not producing vapor-where. The second goal tells us that we are progressing in terms of engineering, infrastructure and organization. For if there is know serious progression in engineering, infrastructure and organization we have traded science for nothing.
Unfortunately without the required infrastructure the ships cannot be built to reach the moon. The engineers will not be able to test and demonstrate there ideas. But each piece of infrastructure that is sustained is sustained at a cost against future gains in engineering which can be used to achieve greater efficiency. This tension is epitomized in the space shuttle space station part of the NASA budget. It is recognized without billions of dollars increase in the NASA budget NASA cannot move forward into the solar system and sustain these programs. It is hoped by some that abandoning the ISS and replacing the shuttle with a cheaper and more powerful vehicle might be enough to move forward. Conceivably one could which such an approach move forward with a Manned mars mission in this approach. But such a step forward relays on tenuous numbers put forth buy Zubring to reach mars in the quickest cheapest manner possible. Such a choice of transportation would allow a very robust moon or Mars programming funding and technology permitting.
The alternative approach is to upgrade the EELV to the 40-50 MT range to launch a lunner program and then choose a suitable vehicle later on for a manned Mars program. This would allow NASA to reduce costs while keeping the capabilities to launch humans into space. Given that is easier to land accurately on the moon it is more reasonable to build a lunar base up out of smaller chunks. However, the EELV’s can still be docked in orbit to push larger payloads if necessary.
A vehicle of this size necessary for a mars mission could conceivably be assembled in 40 MT chunks a Mars vehicle but there is a question at the cost and complexity of such an approach. Additional it is clear that the military would benefit from being able to launch payloads in the weight range. It is not clear if the military currently has a need to launch larger payloads.
The big drawback of this approach is that NASA may need to start over to develop its mars mission architecture. If the military needs an upgraded EELV why not let the military pay for it? However, initially going with EELV will let NASA put more money into the development of key technologies that will make a future mars mission easier. These include IRSU (e.g LOX production), RLV, space rated nuclear reactors, improved life support, better space suites, possible space based industries etc.
Thus we see as an advocate we are left in the flux of history. We see that on average NASA is moving forward and we hop it will minimize its steps backwards. Will letting some infrastructure fall lead to more efficiency in the future or will history judge these actions as missteps of progress. Time will tell. I will support the engineering decisions of the people in charge if they seem reasonable and hope the decisions are made on technical rather then political grounds.

NASA has no desire to support the EELV programs for its manned missions, the Ares-1 will do what Boeing couldn't although their rcoket was sound it could not be man-rated and Lockheed Martin have the CEV. Delta 4 and Atlas 5 are fin rockets and will indeed be around for a long time. Issues with the CLV are being ironed out, ike use of RS-68 and J-2X engines in place of the SSME.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-03-16 01:21:57

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#52 2006-03-16 04:42:54

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#53 2006-03-16 10:23:19

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#54 2006-03-22 12:39:15

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#55 2006-08-23 21:22:51

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#56 2006-08-28 08:57:11

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#57 2006-08-28 11:45:12

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#58 2006-08-28 14:48:23

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#59 2006-08-28 16:25:26

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#60 2006-08-28 16:41:38

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#61 2006-08-28 16:57:51

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#62 2006-09-04 07:57:39

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#63 2006-09-04 09:56:26

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#64 2006-09-06 00:30:43

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#65 2006-10-27 12:46:15

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#66 2007-02-13 21:51:17

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#67 2007-02-20 11:47:56

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#68 2007-02-20 12:37:02

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

#69 2007-04-03 12:06:35

Re: Selling out Mars and Science?

Board footer