A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

clark · 2003-09-10 19:01:34

As some may know, I have an ongoing bet with Josh related to a manned mission to mars being declared within the next... 4 years now, I think (time left)

When we made the bet, we both agreed to abide by Adrian's determination on the final outcome of who wins the bet.

Well, I need a judgement call on whether or not this might count...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12520

A fact sheet on the bill follows:
Space Exploration Act of 2003 Fact Sheet
Requires the NASA Administrator to set the following goals for the future activities of NASA's human spaceflight program:

Within 8 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low earth orbit to the L 1 and L 2 Earth-Sun libration points and back, to the Earth-Moon libration points and back, and to lunar orbit and back.

Within 10 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from an Earth-orbit crossing asteroid and rendezvousing with it.

Within 15 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back, as well as the deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the lunar surface.

Within 20 years of enactment, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans to and from Martian orbit, the deployment of a human tended habitation and research facility on the surface of a Martian moon, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back.

Now, I want to know, if this Act passes the house and Senate, and is signed into law, do I win.

I will abide by the ruling, but I just want to clarify this issue. I still thin there will be a presidential declaration, and if that is neccessary to win, so be it, but this might just what we have been waiting for...

I told you we were all in for a few surprises, now didn't I. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-11 01:00:09

Uh oh.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-11 01:05:30

I actually came here to share this with you, clark.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Sep10.html

Seems to coincide with what you've been saying in the moon base thread.

Anyway, I would be annoyed by some vague timeframe ("within X years" isn't the same as "this is the date" in my mind), however, I am totally with whatever Adrian says, if this comes to pass.

I would expect a big speech for this, though, knowing Bush's PR people, so I'm certainly worried (though not excited or happy given the utter length of the time frames).

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-11 01:55:25

Josh:-

(though [I'm] not excited or happy given the utter length of the time frames).

I agree with you, Josh; the time-frame could be a bit more ambitious.
But then again, this is the closest we've come to a genuine space initiative (we hope! ) in years. I suppose we're in no position to look this 'gift horse' in the mouth.
And maybe George W. will surprise us by setting a more demanding schedule, perhaps as an attempt to light the fires of urgency within NASA as JFK once did. Whatever you think or say about George, he's not a shy retiring sort of president! I think he likes to portray himself as a go-getter and a tight timetable in human space exploration might suit his purposes in that regard.
And besides, the old adage is as true today as ever it was: 'Work expands to fill the available time'! If NASA is given 20 years to get humans to Mars, that's how long it'll take 'em. Give 'em 15 years and, again, that's how long it'll take!! I'm hoping George is familiar with this adage.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-11 02:05:06

And if he reads The Case For Mars, it'll only take us eight years. Here's to hoping he reads more than Hop on Pop!

clark · 2003-09-11 09:09:48

Thanks for the link! Did you note Rumsfeld is a part of these discussions? Cheney too.

I would prefer a set date, but even JFK said "by the end of this decade".

Humans on Mars by 2025?

The future is so bright, I have to wear... :laugh:

Perhaps we can hold our breaths and hope that something akin to a private/government venture developpssimilar to the mapping of the human genome. That might get us there faster.

As everyone here knows, or as many keep pointing out, the real barrier to exploring the stars is just getting into space.

Any attempt to build up our ability to go to the moon or beyond is going to make it much, much easier for everyone else to just get into space. after that, well, the sky is the limit...

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-11 14:10:55

Pros: NASA is a good place to focus on now since the Challenger accident, and it would make good PR to go off on a tangent about furthered Manned space exploration.

Cons: First. It only has 26 cosponsers, most from Texas (the same state with Lampoon). So this means only 26 guaranteed votes. And it could be interpreted as a pork job (Lampoon is in charge of the district which houses JPL- so obviously this will help his constituants).

Second. The economy is faltering. This could be seen as an unneeded expendature, on top of what is already being done for NASA. "Baby steps" as they say.

Third. Unknown future costs. $50 million the first year, $200 million the next. $200 million would eat into Bush's new budget, were he to be reelected.

Fourth. I see no realistic signs that manned exploration is for the masses. Indeed, I think it can be interpreted that this is why the Bush admin has been keeping manned exploration quiet, it has no visible benefits to Republican constituants.

More later, when the text of the bill becomes available.

Click on H.R. 3057 (can't make a direct link).

clark · 2003-09-11 14:23:28

Cons: First. It only has 26 cosponsers, most from Texas (the same state with Lampoon). So this means only 26 guaranteed votes. And it could be interpreted as a pork job (Lampoon is in charge of the district which houses JPL- so obviously this will help his constituants).

Pro: Increased funding directly relates to 'pork' for California and Florida (not to mention a bunch of other States). So Texas, California, and Florida- three States with the most seats in the House.

Second. The economy is faltering. This could be seen as an unneeded expendature, on top of what is already being done for NASA. "Baby steps" as they say.

True, however, no one wants to pull the plug on NASA. We are already embarking on deficit spending, so a few billion more isn't going to make a difference. Indeed, this allows a great deal of horse trading to take place so everyone comes out a winner.

Third. Unknown future costs. $50 million the first year, $200 million the next. $200 million would eat into Bush's new budget, were he to be reelected.

Ah, but it supports his other policy goals (or at least some of his Staffs other goals) which means that programs for the Airforce and Space Command can be altered, and more can take place under the guise of NASA.

This is still about national security.

Fourth. I see no realistic signs that manned exploration is for the masses. Indeed, I think it can be interpreted that this is why the Bush admin has been keeping manned exploration quiet, it has no visible benefits to Republican constituants.

well, exploration is for the masses in terms of PR. "look over here at the ice cream truck, don't look at the burning house."

Don't forget the education angle too- train a generation to take the stars. Invest in our childrens future. Build a world of tommorrow, today.

I believe support for space exploration does not respect party lines.

The fact that Bush is being hush-hush about this leads me to believe that this will be a part of his re-election camapaign strategy.

Byron · 2003-09-11 14:29:42

Pro: Increased funding directly relates to 'pork' for California and Florida (not to mention a bunch of other States). So Texas, California, and Florida- three States with the most seats in the House.

And those are the states that Bush needs to win re-election. Especially Florida!

well, exploration is for the masses in terms of PR. "look over here at the ice cream truck, don't look at the burning house."
Don't forget the education angle too- train a generation to take the stars. Invest in our childrens future. Build a world of tommorrow, today.
I believe support for space exploration does not respect party lines.
The fact that Bush is being hush-hush about this leads me to believe that this will be a part of his re-election camapaign strategy.

Clark...I really, really hope you're right about this. If Bush has just one gram of common sense, he would flat-out support this bill. Especially with China making their big moves into space in the very near future...can anyone say "Space Race?"...

It's about damn time, I say...let's get this show on the road. Mars or Bust!

B

clark · 2003-09-11 14:31:07

Have faith in Karl Rove my friends, have faith.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-11 18:56:34

Byron:-

It's about damn time, I say...let's get this show on the road. Mars or Bust!

I like your fire and I like your style.
You're enthusiastic, you make me smile.
If spirit like yours were infectious, like SARS,
Without any doubt there'd be people on Mars!

I'm with you all the way. Go get 'em, Byron! :angry:

:laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-12 02:15:19

Hmm, I'll be gone for the weekend (including today, Friday), so yeah. I doubt any developments will actually happen between now and Monday, but clark, could you PM me if Adrian answers or if I do lose the bet in this time frame?

Not that I see it happening.

I just don't want you thinking I bailed on you. :;):

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-12 02:27:16

I went and dug up the thread in which the bet occured. I'm linking the page where we basically made the actual bet, but you can obviously scroll back to the beginning of the thread to fully understand the whole of the bet.

Anyone know when they'll be voting on this particular bill? I might want to watch if I can.

clark · 2003-09-12 07:51:58

Jan. 17. 2003
Clark:

I am willing to bet you the cost of a one year Mars Society Membership, and a bottle of champigne (something reasonable), that a date for an actual manned mission to Mars is set within the next 5 years.

Feb 5, 2003
Clark:

Now, my bet with Josh. I think if anything, my chance of winning the bet has increased due to the recent loss. Yes, I realize that this might be counter-intuitive, and perhaps even a bit morbid. However, I see this tragedy as an opportunity for NASA to legitimately reinvent itself. I see the opportunity for political leaders to use the high-profile situation to generate public debate and spark renewed interest in manned space flight. Our technology, and our expertise is fast approaching a point where manned missions to mars are a very real possibility. The final hurdles are really tied into propulsion technology, which are currently being funded and tested. I was disappointed that Bush didn't use his 2003 State of the Union address to make such a bold declaration, but I am fairly confident that he will make such a statement during this term in office, or during his next (election allowing). I would have to guess that my chances of success are about 80%.

Dreams do come true. ??? :;):

clark · 2003-09-12 09:01:54

It looks like I get a free dinner now too...

Bill White:
Posted: Jan. 17 2003, 14:03

*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).
clark can be his own judge concerning "serious funding" and "realistic prospect" - if he will sacrifice his credibility for a $50 dinner, so be it, I will pay up.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10330

The Committee is concerned that the current uncertainties in the mission design, and the dependence on the development of new technologies for success, will cause Prometheus to incur additional unanticipated costs and potential delays. The Committee directs NASA to provide specific milestones and funding paths for all elements of Project Prometheus, and to report on these items, with any updated funding and out-year implications on a quarterly basis. Again, NASA needs to provide the Committee with an analysis of all out-year costs, including those targeted to shuttle reform, as to how NASA will accommodate the projected budgets of all NASA programs, including reserves. A report on these costs based on a 10-year funding profile is due no later than May 1, 2004.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:
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 $72,600,000 recommended by the Committee, when combined with the advance funding of $20,000,000 from the previous year will provide NASA with the full requested amount, albeit over a 2-year period.

1 out of 3, so far... :laugh:

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-12 19:06:34

Clark, your Feb. 5th 2003 comments, optimistic in the face of disaster, were right on the money. A very impressive piece of clear-thinking logic when most of us were in a fog of pessimistic confusion!
I don't always agree with everything you say but credit where credit's due.

Now I'm praying that the rest of your predictions prove just as accurate. (Apologies to Josh, of course.)

clark · 2003-09-12 19:57:11

Well, I don't necessarily agree with everything I say either. :;):

Thanks for the praise, even if it is undeserved.

As for Josh, he's a big boy. :laugh:

clark · 2003-10-28 11:23:25

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".

Bill White · 2003-10-28 13:24:29

What are the odds Congress will give the President what he asks for on December 17th? Is the bet whether President Bush calls for "humans to Mars" or whether Congress funds it?

clark · 2003-10-28 13:32:15

What are the odds Congress will give the President what he asks for on December 17th?

It depends on what he asks for. However, it looks like they won't be asking for anything that breaks the bank. The Science committee is on board in requesting a larger budget for NASA. I don't think the democrats will want to be labeled the "party that killed the astronauts". And I am fairly certain that the Republicans have more sense than that.

Remember, a lot of this has been framed as "NASA is being given challenges without the resources to meet them, etc."

Heck, go here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12876

Boehlert and Hall Urge O'Keefe to "Defer the Current" Orbital Space Plane Program
Lead Members on Science Panel Express "...deep concern with NASA's current approach..."

There are calls for NASA to slow down so all the ducks can be lined up in a row...

? Is the bet whether President Bush calls for "humans to Mars" or whether Congress funds it?

The bet is for a declaration of placing a man on Mars within the next four years (now). But I think Congress should fund it for me to win. Of course, i have deffered to Adrian's judgement in these matters, and I am more than willing to be fair on the issue.

So, I'm thinking some declaration of intent from Mr. President (or Congress!), and whatever program is created recieves funding. Josh, chime in.

clark · 2003-10-28 14:01:57

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.

On July 20, 1989, President George Bush pledged to return America to the Moon to stay and land humans on Mars before 2019.

Hmmmm, what's left to develop.... :;):

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-28 15:54:27

Depends on if his poll numbers are up.

But no, I'm kind of nervous (saw the post and thought "Damn, I just lost that bet, better think of ways to start bribing Adrian!"). Then again, SpaceRef.com has, in my opinion, been way overly optimistic about our space plans.

I think that hopefully the bet, at the very least, relies on a concrete date and clear goals. I don't care who mandates it. It's just that I don't want something stupid like "China sets a date to land on Mars in ... 2050!!" costing me the bet.

Who knows. 'tis interesting, though.

clark · 2003-10-28 16:36:19

I think that hopefully the bet, at the very least, relies on a concrete date and clear goals. I don't care who mandates it. It's just that I don't want something stupid like "China sets a date to land on Mars in ... 2050!!" costing me the bet.

Well, let me put to you this way, I won't consider it a win unless the US, either by act of Congress, or by declaration by the Executive Branch, declares a timeline of some sort for a Manned Mission to Mars.

I will not consider it a win if it is killed via defunding by Congress, or some set of other circumstances causes the whole idea to be a 'paper proclamation', i.e Bush Sr.'s declaration.

Now, with that said, I won't neccessarily consider it a win for you if they don't give an exact timeline either. If they say 'working to eventualy place a man on Mars', or some derivation, then I think we may be looking at a draw (I did call for a date to be set, so anything less than 'by the end of such and such a decade would not count').

I want to be fair, and I think Adrian can judge the final outcome, whatever that may be, and I will abide by it. But I think we can second guess this into a million different outcomes, and lose sight of what this is all about.

I for one am enjoying this process, and that's the point. To make the waiting a little more fun, eh?

Spaceref may be optimistic, but Cheney did meet with Senate and House leaders to discuss new space policies. This administration had a new space policy to roll out, prior to the Columbia accident (which they then shelfed).

Something else to consider is the date Bush might be giving this speech on... Guess which X team contender is slated to vie for the X Prize cup on that very same day?

hehehe...

I think I need to start thinking about my favorite champaigne! :laugh:

Bill White · 2003-10-28 16:50:43

I am feeling rather pleased that I posted a link to the letter about the OSP 12 hours BEFORE it splashed all over the major media outlets! God Bless spacetoday.com!

= = =

As for the X-Prize I am growing quite fond of Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites. Very classy organization. No bragging, no media hype. First we do, then we talk. Awesome attitude, IMHO.

dicktice · 2003-10-28 18:19:35

Especially promising: Rutan's high angle of attack, powered reentry scenario--might this not be adapted as well, to tile-less ISS lifeboat/return lifting body vehicles?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-10 19:01:34

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#2 2003-09-11 01:00:09

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#3 2003-09-11 01:05:30

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#4 2003-09-11 01:55:25

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#5 2003-09-11 02:05:06

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#6 2003-09-11 09:09:48

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#7 2003-09-11 14:10:55

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#8 2003-09-11 14:23:28

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#9 2003-09-11 14:29:42

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#10 2003-09-11 14:31:07

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#11 2003-09-11 18:56:34

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#12 2003-09-12 02:15:19

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#13 2003-09-12 02:27:16

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#14 2003-09-12 07:51:58

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#15 2003-09-12 09:01:54

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#16 2003-09-12 19:06:34

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#17 2003-09-12 19:57:11

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#18 2003-10-28 11:23:25

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#19 2003-10-28 13:24:29

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#20 2003-10-28 13:32:15

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#21 2003-10-28 14:01:57

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#22 2003-10-28 15:54:27

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#23 2003-10-28 16:36:19

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#24 2003-10-28 16:50:43

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#25 2003-10-28 18:19:35

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Board footer