A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-28 19:00:28

I think we should stop talking about our interpretations, clark. We could bias Adrian.

Bill White · 2003-10-28 22:46:49

Presidential review on space policy heading to closure
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=892
Frank Sietzen, Jr.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
WASHINGTON - The year-long review of future directions for the U.S. space program is rapidly drawing towards selection of a policy path, Spacelift Washington has learned from sources close to the deliberations.
The final result may be a presidential announcement of the new space goal in a national address at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on December 17, 2003, the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brother's first heavier-than-air powered flight.
According to sources familiar with the White House review, the current plan-subject to change at any time the sources say-is for a final recommendation to the president by November 30th "or shortly thereafter", followed by insertion of the goal into the speech and development of timetables and supporting budgets.
Sources tell this column that last week's meetings in both the Senate and House by Vice President Dick Cheney heard no suggestions that would deflect the current discussions, which have been held by a small group of Bush administration insiders with few staff.
The White House policy meetings, which began in earnest last summer, have included but not been limited to NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and others, including DoD Technology czar Dr. Ron Sega and at least two outside individuals not connected to either the administration or the space industry.
As of late October, sources indicate that a central recommendation is likely, but not certainly to be resumption of manned lunar flights to develop advanced technologies that can support U.S. astronauts working beyond Earth orbit to not only the Moon, but eventually on near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
In an early phase of the meetings, manned Mars expeditions were considered too expensive and risky to adopt as a central goal for the civil space program. But Bush is being urged to factor in future interplanetary manned flight capabilities as part of the justification for a return to the moon. The last U.S. manned lunar mission was conducted by the Apollo 17 crew in December, 1972.
Sources indicate the policy review has been a deliberative process "not driven by any crash program mentality" but focused on how a new major manned space goal could both mobilize the U.S. space industry as well as boost morale at NASA. One person who spoke directly with Bush early in the process said the president was initially skeptical that a manned return to the Moon could be conducted for reasonable costs. Bush allegedly said then that he would not seek a massive increase of space spending.
Throughout the summer and fall, multiple groups in what was described as very small numbers have been exploring various options for new goals. Among those studied, sources say were a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle fleet, manned Moon bases and missions to Mars. An effort was also made to study how robotic missions and systems could either adjunct or replace manned flights. Strengthening of unmanned missions is also believed to be among the goals Bush is likely to order NASA to pursue.
One attendee described the current process as a 'slicing and dicing' of options into an architecture that could yield significant results within a decade without a massive increase to the NASA budget topline. An annual budget rise in the vicinity of seven to ten percent has been used as a yardstick for the planning, sources said.
If Bush does commit to a new major space policy goal, it will follow the last set of goals announced on July 20, 1989-by his father, George H.W. Bush. Other than completion of the space station, none of the goals announced then were developed into successful programs.
Dealer deals a new set of cards, but does Clark have the Flush?
He better if he want to beat Josh's Pair! :laugh:
When I win, you're all going to get a big fat "I told you so".

I hate to play devil's advocate (come on, you know I hate that!) but we need to append this following bit to clark's quotation:

Copyright 2003 by Frank Sietzen, Jr. All Rights Reserved. The views expressed here are the author's own and are not to be associated with any other person or organization. Reprinted with permission exclusively on SpaceRef.com

That said, I hope Frank's opinion is correct.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-29 04:25:46

I actually Googled for Franks name yesterday, but I didn't mention it because I was going to go on about him and how I think he's biased, but then I realized that would've complicated matters.

I hope his opinion is right, of course. I've never had fundamental problems losing the bet. Except that perhaps I don't like to be wrong. :;):

clark · 2003-10-29 11:27:23

You're right Josh, I'll stop talking about my interpretation that you will lose and I will win, so Adrian is not unfairly biased.

Just a question guys, but where is the 'opinion' in his piece? I read it like one of those drug warnings that the lawyers make the companies put on just in case Joe Blow decides to do something they shouldn't with it.

Sounded like a report with inside info from anonymous sources, which then require a disclaimer in case somebody gets their shorts in a bunch.

I've never had fundamental problems losing the bet. Except that perhaps I don't like to be wrong.

It's not that you're wrong Josh, it's just that you're not right. :laugh:

clark · 2003-11-04 12:33:55

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10891

Letter from U.S. House to President Bush Urging Support for NASA

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

October 24, 2003

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

We are writing to you as Members of Congress to express our strong support for a robust future for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is our vision that this future includes vigorous manned and unmanned exploration of the universe around us. We believe that a robust NASA, which partners as appropriate with other government agencies, should provide the foundation for the future of our nation's space strategy. NASA should be aggressively engaged in expanding the boundaries of human space exploration, improving our nation's access to space, enabling a safer and more efficient air transportation system, solving the scientific mysteries held in our solar system and the universe beyond, and understanding our own Earth and its environment. By tackling these challenges, our nation will maintain its technological edge over the rest of the world. A strong NASA will also play a critical role in strengthening the spirit of innovation which has made our country strong, educating our future high-tech workforce that is a prerequisite for our future national and economic security, and for inspiring the next generation of explorers. Recognizing that NASA is funded by valuable taxpayer dollars, NASA leadership should endeavor to focus the agency on an inspiring mission that reflects the priorities of our citizens, and strive to maximize the benefits of its work and accomplishments to the American public.
Historically, the funding requested for NASA from multiple Administrations, and provided to NASA by Congress, has not demonstrated an appropriate level of commitment to an agency that is so important to the future of our nation. According to the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, between 1993 and 2002, the federal government's discretionary spending grew in purchasing power by more than 25 percent. In contrast, NASA's budget went from $14.31 billion in Fiscal Year 1993, to a low of $13.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2000, and increasing to $14.87 billion in Fiscal Year 2002. This funding profile represented a loss of 13 percent in purchasing power over the decade. We enthusiastically write to you today to clearly and unambiguously express our strong interest in reinvigorating NASA and turning this funding trend around.

101 US House of Represenatives signed the aforementioned letter sent to President Bush. This represents about 1/4 of the US House of Represenatives calling for an increase in NASA funding, and a 'vision' for US space exploration.

No opinion here.

Just to put this into perspective though, this is more about the current FY2004 NASA budget, which is still held up in the Senate. The Senate contains a budget plan that reduces some of the funding of NASA, and a lot of these Rep's want to keep funding at, or above the amount requested for NASA's FY2004 budget.

Bill White · 2003-11-10 01:10:09

I believe I have won "my" bet with clark.

As I recall, the bet was - - more or less - - whether the current US federal budget was to include significant funding for the actual deployment of a system for nuclear propulsion of spacecraft.

RTGs did not count. I contemplated nuclear thermal or nuclear ion or VASIMIR or something like that. Something that could propel a human crewed spacecraft. I also recall that we agreed that modest levels of seed money to fund feasibility studies and/or viewgraph presentations did not count either.

Anyway, I am game to try "double or nothing" (maybe add a quality bottle of wine to dinner?) if we can agree on terms. The finish line can be the 2004 Mars Society convention.

Exact language needs to be established but the basic idea is whether it appears the US Congress will fund the deployment of a system for nuclear propulsion as part of the federal budget to be enacted in the Fall 2004 budget cycle.

Do I recall the outlines of the original bet correctly?

clark · 2003-11-10 14:12:05

Bill's bet:

Posted: Jan. 17 2003, 14:03

I will offer another wager -
*IF* by the time the Mars Society convention in Eugene Oregon rolls around, serious funding for a nuclear rocket is still deemed a realistic prospect for the Fall 2003 budget, I will buy clark dinner ($50 limit) and I will buy 1 drink for any NewMars member who asks me in person ($3.50 limit per drink - 100 member limit).

The funding for a 'nuclear rocket' was in refrence to the Prometheus Project:

here is the link to the thread that was used to discuss a lot of this:

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....8;st=30

Please refer to page two and three of the thread.

Project Prometheus is still slated for full funding, to the tune of several billion dollars. Now, you may note that several hundred million dollars have been excluded from the FY2004 budget request for Project Prometheus, however, the reason behind this is becuase NASA has accelerated the project and used monies in FY2003 to get the ball rolling (things like paper studies). So in actuallity, Prometheus is receiving full funding, but they are using some of it sooner...

The first 'nuclear rocket' will be for the JIMO (or is it JIMA?) probe, sometime after 2010.

Now of course I might misunderstand something here, or what we were talking about intially, but I will fully abide whatever outcome, even if I lose. But I honestly don't think I have.

Bill White · 2003-11-10 15:35:40

Frankly, I will happily buy clark dinner and just as happily buy one beer for 100 NewMars folk (but only if you ask nicely) whether I lose or win the bet.

And since the 2004 convention is in Chicago, I will have no reasonable excuse not to attend at least for a few days.

But as for Project Prometheus, is this for RTGs which are quite useful but too puny to actually propel a human crewed vessel or genuine nuclear propulsion?

Just asking.

clark · 2003-11-11 09:05:40

Bill, we agree as usual... :;):

for more details on Prometheus:

http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/prometheus.htm

Pending approval by Congress, NASA?s Project Prometheus would develop the technologies needed to enable the above vision for the future. There are two basic types of technology under consideration for this program: (1) radioisotope-based systems and (2) nuclear fission-based systems.

So to answer your question, both.

Project Prometheus would include research on reactors, advanced heat-to-power conversion, and power management and distribution technologies to provide spacecraft flexibility, long-mission durations, and orders of magnitude more power for science instruments.

fro more background info, pdf file:
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/fissiontech.pdf

The initial activity for the fission power and propulsion program will focus on defining the near-term technology research goals, and on identifying planetary science missions uniquely enabled by nuclear fission electric power and propulsion. The RPS program will concentrate on developing the MMRTG and SRG systems (either of which could be of potential use on the Mars Smart Lander Mission to be launched in 2009). The program has also identified a planetary science mission that will be uniquely enabled by nuclear fission electric power and propulsion: the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter would be an ambitious mission to orbit three planet-sized moons of Jupiter -- Callisto, Ganymede and Europa -- which may harbor vast oceans beneath their icy surfaces. The mission would orbit each of these moons for extensive investigations of their makeup, their history and their potential for sustaining life.
In addition, a range of technologies and system designs will be explored that may be prudent for NASA and DOE to invest in over the next several years, beyond the specific technologies already under consideration. NASA and DOE would also identify and recommend additional strategic technology investments to potentially enable future human exploration of the Solar System.

So, what do you think?

Bill White · 2003-11-11 09:39:03

One link leads here. . .

Pending approval by Congress, NASA?s Project Prometheus would develop the technologies needed to enable the above vision for the future. There are two basic types of technology under consideration for this program: (1) radioisotope-based systems and (2) nuclear fission-based systems.

My understanding is that funding has been approved for (1) but not for (2). Am I wrong?

clark · 2003-11-11 09:47:11

I'll look into this some more, but I thought it included both. I haven't seen any distinction made through the various budget bills.

As far as I am aware, it's all inclusive... but I may be mistaken. If you find anything more, let me know. I'll keep you appraised as well...

The "pending" is hanging on Senate approval of the Budget for Independant agencies- there is some need for resolution between the House and Senate versions for funding.

clark · 2003-11-11 15:31:34

http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2003/117.html

SPACE SCIENCE: "The opportunities presented under the new Project Prometheus [nuclear power and propulsion initiative] are both compelling and will be revolutionary to how space research is done. The additional power resources developed through nuclear power will provide scientists with unprecedented ability to collect data though powerful scientific instruments. The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter [JIMO] will use breakthrough nuclear propulsion and power systems to fuel an ambitious mission to Jupiter's icy moons.... It has been estimated that the cost of Project Prometheus through 2012 will be on the order of $8,000,000,000 to $9,000,000,000. This ambitious project, and the resources it will consume, will require NASA to make trade-offs over the next decade, but if successful, could change the potential scientific payoff for all missions after a successful JIMO mission."
Among the adjustments made by the committee to the budget request for Space Science is "A decrease of $20,000,000 for the JIMO. The Committee notes that JIMO received $20,000,000 in unanticipated funding in fiscal year 2003. This funding was done in advance of the new initiative and is considered to have been used to initiate JIMO earlier than previously planned by NASA." The committee also would provide an increase of $3.0 million within available funds for the Solar Probe mission.

This is about as concise as I can get. As far as I can tell though, both types of propulsion are being funded under the umbrella of Project Prometheus (which was formerly the Nuclear something or other iniative)

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9356

Testimony of James H. Crocker, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Given at a Senate Science, Technology, and Space Hearing on Space Propulsion

As NASA has envisioned, Project Prometheus "includes substantial, long-term investments to develop advanced nuclear technologies that will expand NASA's toolkit for solar system exploration, and could ultimately lead to human voyages to Mars and other destinations throughout the solar system."

At least it sounds like NASA's vision, and others interpretations, is one where both types of nuclear propulsion are developed...

clark · 2003-11-19 10:31:08

Bill,

http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/03111823 … fyorl.html

Senate approves 15.3 billion dollar budget for NASA; cuts ISS funds

WASHINGTON (AFP) Nov 19, 2003

The US Senate on Tuesday approved a 15.3 billion dollar 2004 budget for NASA that would cut funding for the International Space Station (ISS) by some 200 million dollars, even as the space agency's overall budget remains unchanged.

Lawmakers said a final Senate vote on the bill was expected later this week after reconciling the legislation with similar legislation in the House of Representatives, before being sent to US President George W. Bush for his signature.
Lawmakers reduced by 20 million dollars funding for the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, but increased by 50 million dollars funding for aeronautics research. In their report, lawmakers said they also expect to be kept abreast of developments in the investigation into the Columbia disaster.

The Senate has now approved a preliminary FY2004 budget for NASA that does not reduce the funds for Project Prometheus. The House version of the budget needs to be reconciled, but not on anything related to Project Prometheus.

Research and development of nuclear rockets will be an offical reality in just a few days...

So, do I win?

Bill White · 2003-11-19 22:34:11

If this article proves true, then clark wins.

No argument here.

Another interesting link.

Now to confirm Congress funds this. Then, for all NewMars folk who come to Chicago in 2004 and ask nicely, I will buy you a beer, or a soda or some cheap wine or maybe a coffee.

clark? I guess I owe him $50 in Taco Bell unless he wants to eat somewhere a wee bit higher in quality.

clark · 2003-11-20 09:25:00

Is it a bright day for space exploration?

Naw. It's just the light of nuclear fire!

Take your wife someplace Italian, Bill.

clark · 2003-11-21 08:54:47

So are you taking her to Taco Bell, or will you use my suggestion Bill?

clark · 2003-11-21 10:03:21

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13083

NASA Successfully Tests Ion Engine

NASA's Project Prometheus recently reached an important milestone with the first successful test of an engine that could lead to revolutionary propulsion capabilities for space exploration missions throughout the solar system and beyond.

That's right. A successful test of a rocket (well, actually, an engine). No budget being signed. No argument over what's in or not in the paperwork. A working proto-type.

This new class of NEP thrusters will offer substantial performance advantages over the ion engine flown on Deep Space 1 in 1999. Overall improvements include up to a factor of 10 or more in power; a factor of two to three in fuel efficiency; a factor of four to five in grid voltage; a factor of five to eight in thruster lifetime; and a 30 percent improvement in overall thruster efficiency. GRC engineers will continue testing and development of this particular thruster model, culminating in performance tests at full power levels of 25 kilowatts.
"This test represents a huge leap in demonstrating the potential for advanced ion technologies, which could propel flagship space exploration missions throughout the solar system and beyond," said Alan Newhouse, Director, Project Prometheus. "We commend the work of Glenn and the other NASA Centers supporting this ambitious program."
HiPEP is one of several candidate propulsion technologies under study by Project Prometheus for possible use on the first proposed flight mission, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). Powered by a small nuclear reactor, electric thrusters would propel the JIMO spacecraft as it conducts close-range observations of Jupiter's three icy moons, Ganymede, Callisto and Europa. The three moons could contain water, and where there is water, there is the possibility of life.
Development of the HiPEP ion engine is being carried out by a team of engineers from GRC; Aerojet, Redmond, Wash.; Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices, Torrance, Calif.; Ohio Aerospace Institute, Cleveland; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.; Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

hee hee.

maybe I should start a psychic line, one of those Madame Clio things.... naw. :laugh:

Bill White · 2003-11-21 10:36:45

Not to bring you down a bit, but. . .

An important step? Sure, but a smallish one.

Ion engines are an established technology. Deep Space One was the breakthrough test.

The ion engine component is essentially the same whether nuclear ion or solar ion. Both get fed electric power and the ion engine part doesn't care where the electricty comes from.

Successful operation of a space rated fission reactor? Okay, THAT would be news.

clark · 2003-11-21 10:43:20

Thanks for bursting my bubble.

I recall reading some article or other a few years back about how a Los Alamos engineer, in his spare time, made a trashcan sized reactor that would be ideal for space rated nuclear reactor...

Bill White · 2003-11-21 11:22:11

Thanks for bursting my bubble.
I recall reading some article or other a few years back about how a Los Alamos engineer, in his spare time, made a trashcan sized reactor that would be ideal for space rated nuclear reactor...

Google David Poston, I believe. Its the SAFE series of reactors.

clark · 2003-11-21 11:24:19

Yes, yes. You've told me before. Thanks, I now remember.

But I take it you might still be holding out hope that you win this bet.

Bill White · 2003-11-24 11:21:40

Not to bring you down a bit, but. . .
An important step? Sure, but a smallish one.
Ion engines are an established technology. Deep Space One was the breakthrough test.
The ion engine component is essentially the same whether nuclear ion or solar ion. Both get fed electric power and the ion engine part doesn't care where the electricty comes from.
Successful operation of a space rated fission reactor? Okay, THAT would be news.

I retract this comment. The "new" ion engine is a major step forward. Look here.

clark wins this bet - no more quibbles.

clark · 2003-11-24 11:39:42

Thanks Bill!

For your gracious attitude, you only get a very very small, 'I told you so.' :laugh:

Josh, you're next.

Bill White · 2003-11-24 11:59:47

Thanks Bill!
For your gracious attitude, you only get a very very small, 'I told you so.' :laugh:
Josh, you're next.

Heh!

After reading this I started to wonder how many inside contacts you really do have!

Got any stock tips?

clark · 2003-11-24 12:16:18

If I told you, I would have to kill you.

Just kidding, of course.

If I told you all how I knew, you wouldn't believe me anyway.

Just enjoy the ride, that's what I say. :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-10-28 19:00:28

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#27 2003-10-28 22:46:49

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#28 2003-10-29 04:25:46

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#29 2003-10-29 11:27:23

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#30 2003-11-04 12:33:55

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#31 2003-11-10 01:10:09

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#32 2003-11-10 14:12:05

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#33 2003-11-10 15:35:40

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#34 2003-11-11 09:05:40

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#35 2003-11-11 09:39:03

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#36 2003-11-11 09:47:11

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#37 2003-11-11 15:31:34

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#38 2003-11-19 10:31:08

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#39 2003-11-19 22:34:11

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#40 2003-11-20 09:25:00

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#41 2003-11-21 08:54:47

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#42 2003-11-21 10:03:21

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#43 2003-11-21 10:36:45

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#44 2003-11-21 10:43:20

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#45 2003-11-21 11:22:11

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#46 2003-11-21 11:24:19

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#47 2003-11-24 11:21:40

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#48 2003-11-24 11:39:42

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#49 2003-11-24 11:59:47

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#50 2003-11-24 12:16:18

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Board footer