Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-15 18:22:36

Yeah, sorry. I'm not sure I agree with that part of Shaun's post. I agree with half of it, but I disagree with nationalism being the motivator, if that was it, they would've been pushing it for far longer rather than waiting for the election year.

Byron · 2004-01-15 18:30:30

Hell, take the ISS apart and land it on the moon!

You know, that's really a great idea. Let's put that thing to good use!...

B

Bill White · 2004-01-15 19:32:10

And Bill, good damn point. We're going to finish the ISS (which will take at least two years), only to scrap it in 5 years (3 years after we've completed it)? Is that insane or what? It makes absolutely no sense. Hell, take the ISS apart and land it on the moon!

Sorry to nit-pick, after you agree with me Josh,

but I was talking about the shuttle.

I believe the plan for the ISS is to give it to the ESA or whoever come 2012, not de-orbit it.

wgc · 2004-01-15 22:59:23

And Bill, good damn point. We're going to finish the ISS (which will take at least two years), only to scrap it in 5 years (3 years after we've completed it)? Is that insane or what? It makes absolutely no sense. Hell, take the ISS apart and land it on the moon!
Sorry to nit-pick, after you agree with me Josh,
but I was talking about the shuttle.
I believe the plan for the ISS is to give it to the ESA or whoever come 2012, not de-orbit it.

I believe the Us plan is to use it for limited micro gravity and space medicine research, and to "assist" the other partners in whatever research they do.
Access would be through assests of the partners, until a cev system is in place.

Congress is likely to buy into the cev because the alternative is to recertify the shuttle, very costly and unpopular.

Congress is also not likely to merit the idea of relying on foriegn assests for servicing capability so given a viable proposal for a cev, which may already exist , a couple years down the line they might push for an acelertated cev program.

If I had to envision a design.

It would probably be a resusable capsule , not a mini shuttle but designed for land vs. sea landings. it would be module and configurable for both leo and cislunar type operations.

I would not be surprised if the James Wood telescope was scrapped and as a compromise to the astronomy community a cev hubble servicing mission was devised, and the lifespan of the hubble increased for another decade.

This plan is both a way-out and a trap for congress. If this is just an election year ploy its well conceived.

Rxke · 2004-01-16 06:47:50

I Have to agree with A.J. on the nationalism point...

'the West' mentally can't let the Moon up for grabs to the Chinese. We can all go 'been there, done that,' today but imagine them landing, some years in the future and USA having nothing to land there too... The Prez an a lot of other people would look very bad in public opinion's view, not having thought a little strategically...

All that talk about cooperation is just that... You can much more easily keep an eye on the competition if you work together...

If China did't have plans to land on the Moon, there'd be one reason less to go there. Now it's a must. Politically.
Science and exploration? Don't make me laugh...

clark · 2004-01-16 09:23:29

Will shuttle fly before December 2004 anyways?

It has to, or I should say, it had better. The ISS needs to be completed, the sooner, the better. If we're going to do real research into the effects of gravity and the space environment, we need to at least get the bare minimum of three astronauts back aborad ISS. And, if the CEV is complete by 2008, that will probably mean we can boost the capacity of ISS back to the six or seven crew member limit.

The sooner ISS is complete, the sooner we can phase out the Shuttle. Which also means we free up extra funds to start paying for the production of the CEV.

Has anyone done serious timelines for shuttle B?
Or is such discussion simply off the table for political reasons?

By the time we could use it, the ISS would be complete. We would have nothing heavy to lift. There are other countries with the heavy lift vehicles, why not use them? Also, why haven't Boeing or Lockheed built their own heavy lift vehicle in all this time? The Shuttle.

So we tell Aerospace, hey, the government is getting out of the Launch business. But the government is still going to need that capability. They need it for the military GEO birds, which the Shuttle was designed to deliver. So, now we have an issue of sensitive cargo delivery- we don't want to give our GEO birds to anyone else to deliver.

So imagine a multi-purpose CEV-capsule-plane thing. It's modular, interchangeable, depending on the mission. That means landing modules can be added, or subtracted. New propulsion modules can be added or subtracted. All these modules are seperated in orbit, and can be linked up with subsquent missions (think of the Chinese leaving their orbital module in space for 8 months, to link up with later).

We end up building an orbital platform piece by piece, then launch it into deep space (beyond GEO and the van allen).

Rememer now, with this new emphasis for space, astronauts won't be hanging out for a couple weeks on the Shuttle. When they go up, they will be testing the hardware, and doing human-health sciences. They won't be deploying sats, and I doubt they will do to many service missions.

PS - - The Moon first is fine so long as we get there with gear that can later reach Mars.

I can't speak for the gear, but the moon will teach us how to survive in the harshest environment we have ever faced. We do well there, we do well anywhere.

We have theories and equations that tell us what we think is possible. But we have never done this before. It's wood cutters wisdom, "measure twice, cut once."

We need to get this right the first time.

Palomar · 2004-01-16 09:37:36

If China did't have plans to land on the Moon, there'd be one reason less to go there. Now it's a must. Politically.
Science and exploration? Don't make me laugh...

*(Playing devil's advocate a bit) So then you upstage the competition, right?

If Russia and the U.S. would join forces and get a manned mission to Mars within 10 years, we'll have upstaged the Chinese. Especially if we begin building a colony on Mars within 20 - 30 years.

Then who would look "behind the times," hmmmm? They (the Chinese) would then "have to" go to Mars, in order to "keep up with the Joneses."

The Chinese are attempting to accomplish what we did 35 years ago...they are hardly "blazing trails." Are we going to agree to play by their pace? God, I hope not! 35 years later...c'mon!

(Phooey, I hate this stuff anyway)

--Cindy

P.S.: Okay, can't avoid politics, nationalism, etc. -- right...but I still think it is sad these things can't be accomplished simply for the sake of love for discovery and exploration.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 09:52:45

clark writes:

So imagine a multi-purpose CEV-capsule-plane thing. It's modular, interchangeable, depending on the mission. That means landing modules can be added, or subtracted. New propulsion modules can be added or subtracted. All these modules are seperated in orbit, and can be linked up with subsquent missions (think of the Chinese leaving their orbital module in space for 8 months, to link up with later).

Okay, now guess what? Our CEV might end up bearing much resemblance to what? SOYUZ!

Descent modules and orbital modules capable of being assembled modular style into "space trains" - - the Russians were once real big on the "space train" idea, linking lots of smaller modules together to form a larger vessel. We in the US have never done this before so the Bush plan is really back to the drawing board, throwing everything else away.

Part of the problem is NO ONE will say what the CEV is - - therefore it can be whatever fantasy or dream we wish to believe. And George Bush has given NASA an extension until 2008 before they have to tell us, sorry, the CEV plans fell through. Or proved unfeasible.

We will stand down the shuttle (otherwise a good thing) without any clear idea of how we will move humans to LEO thereafter.

By the way, on another forum someone else is screaming that the CEV will be a resurrection of the Delta Clipper.

= = =

Now, our favorite professor - -
[http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nasa-04c.html]Jeffrey F. Bell - - writes this:

There is a lot to like in President Bush's new space initiative. Most of the technical and programmatic changes to the current hopeless NASA plan are steps that various critics have been suggesting for some time: early phase-out of Shuttle, dumping the decaying corpse of the Space Station, scrapping the winged Orbital Space Plane in favor of a ballistic "Crew Exploration Vehicle" with Moon-return and Mars-return capability.

So far, so good, but he goes on. . .

But hidden in the President's speech and the supporting documents is clear evidence that the funding plan for the New Space Order underwent major surgery, probably in the last 2 days before the speech. This hasty and ill-prepared operation has eliminated whatever chance may have existed that this program will actually be executed.

Notice the word executed. Not passed, executed.

President Bush may pass his proposal in Congress but there is not enough money being proposed to actually build this CEV vapor-ware miracle ship. Whatever it may look like.

Rxke · 2004-01-16 10:17:55

Cindy, i hate this stuff, too, and these were/are not my views, but what i think 'mainstream' politics will do/think...

i don't think the Chinese mind 'being behind the times'
They are just going to do it, regardless what the other countries do or think...
Going to Mars, competing with the other space-faring 'powers' is not in their book. (At least, not yet...)
So trying to upstage them wouldn't work, i guess. They'll shrug their shoulders and go for Luna, because that was their plan. Mars maybe later, but one thing at a time...
And if the possible scenario: Man on Mars (America,Europe etc)
w/o man on the moon... were being executed, one day there'll be a chinese lunar base, and no western...
Politically that's impossible (hey i hate this too, to be sure)
No way the 'west' would trust 'them commies' on their own.

Sigh. So the moon is certainly on the map. If only to keep an eye on 'them commies'... Cold war might be over, but there's still waaay to go before different governments trust eachother enough to let them do things on their own...

Rxke · 2004-01-16 10:19:51

oh, and about the shuttle timeline...
[http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/ … launch.htm]floridatoday says it could be 2005...

clark · 2004-01-16 10:55:20

So, what's the CEV gunna be? The 87 billion dollar, 5 year question.

We're some pretty smart folks, or others are at the very least,:D so perhaps we might make some educated guess's. I'm asking for some brainstorming here...

The CEV must be ready by 2008. (just assume,okay)
The CEV must provide for the ability to go to ISS, and be capable of going to the moon.
The CEV must offer 'a la carte' choices for missions. You say how much you want to spend, we show you the choices available.
The CEV must be able to work with nuclear power propulsion possibilites.
It must have dual use possibilities for military and civilan needs.

These are some of the constraints, right?

Based on this, what fits the bill?

It could very well be the Clipper, or one of the other X programs that neared completion. Airforce, DOD in general, and NASA could make some trade-offs here. NASA doing the nuclear research under the guise of civilan uses, while the military completes testing on an actual CEV craft.

Current OSP designs need to modified slightly to allow for lunar options. Most of the design and preliminary work is done. Combining the various results from the X projects may result in a rather advanced 2nd generation Apollo style capsule.

NASA already has money for the OSP, they will merely divert that toward the CEV. Now, the Shuttle will be retired by 2010 (after ISS complete). However, we are more than likely to finish the ISS by no later than 2008. After that, we don't need the Shuttle- that means all those billions are now free to start producing more CEV, and other assorted modules.

Once we start proving the various technologies, there can be requests for additional funding to build whatever we need, or want.

Rember also, before the CEV, the OSP was to be produced by 2008 anyway. Most of the technicans said that it was a tight schedule, but doable. We don't need to prove lunar capability until 2014. That means we have an additional 6 years to refine and add the neccessary modifications to make the lunar landing happen. The Shuttle budget alone during that time is about 20 billion dollars. That's 20 billion going towards the moon.

Also, with a declaration that the Shuttle is retiring by 2010, that gies Arerospace 6 years to develop a US private business alternative. That's part of the secret of this little space plan. We're going more towards private sector reliance on producing the launches for us, instead of doing it ourselves.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 11:09:43

$87 billion you say. Where does the $87 billion come from? Remember there are NO shuttle savings until 2011.

We will have maybe three or four billion, TOPS, to spend between now and 2008 on CEV. Unless we dismantle every other NASA program. Which may be the real goal, after all.

Suppose Defense does have a genuine Lunar Assault Vehicle almost ready to fly and CEV money is intend to help finish it. What are the odds its mere existence will be de-classified before 2014? Let alone made available for civilian use?

= = =

Another view. The plan is a Trojan Horse to end civilian presence in space.

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based policy group that bills itself as nonpartisan, pointed to two reasons for continuing the station: furthering the U.S. commitment to its space-station partners, and maintaining a manned presence in space as the moon and Mars program gears up.
Pike said he was skeptical of the administration's motives in articulating the moon-Mars plan. He noted that a new moon landing would not take place until at least 11 years after the end of a possible second Bush term.
He went so far as to indicate that the plan is a Trojan Horse for killing the shuttle and station -- and that the moon-Mars initiative will never materialize beyond "paying contractors for artwork."
The president's mandate of going to the Mars and moon is certain to put pressure on other NASA projects, such as robotic missions to the planets, asteroid belt and comets -- as well as aeronautics research and securing a replacement for the aging Hubble space telescope, Pike and other observers said.
"They've looked at the manned space program and come to the conclusion that they don't understand why we have a manned space program," Pike said. "So they're going to wind it down, and Bush gets credit for launching a bold new adventure."

[http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, … page_next1]Wired News

= = =

Private industry? Yeah, right. You know better than that, clark. Overcapacity is killing the launch industry and they will invest billions for a launch system with no users?

clark · 2004-01-16 11:55:44

Brainstorming always needs a party-pooper.

$87 billion you say. Where does the $87 billion come from? Remember there are NO shuttle savings until 2011.

There are no shuttle savings until ISS is complete. After ISS complete, we don't need the Shuttle for, well, much. 87 billion is the five year budget for NASA. An extra 800 million this year to help produce the first CEV faster, and add in the pre-exsisting OSP money and planning. If we phase out, or reduce some research within NASA, that gives us more funds to develop the CEV.

We will have maybe three or four billion, TOPS, to spend between now and 2008 on CEV. Unless we dismantle every other NASA program. Which may be the real goal, after all.

Four billion to create a CEV is doable. It dosen't neccessairly have to be reuseable. With the CEV certified by 2010, the Shuttle funds become available becuase now there is no reason to keep the Shuttle (CEV can get us to the station). That 3.5 billion then becomes available to buy CEV- which should be substantially lower in cost to produce. We may even end up with a competitor for the Soyuz rides into space (private).

Suppose Defense does have a genuine Lunar Assault Vehicle almost ready to fly and CEV money is intend to help finish it. What are the odds its mere existence will be de-classified before 2014? Let alone made available for civilian use?

They don't need to declassify it. The military needs the components of a CEV to make all thier little space dreams come true. They don't really need people (unless you're the Marines), ther need launch on demand, autonomous control, and flexibility in payload configurations.

A CEV will probably just make humans cargo, and not include human pilot controls (lunar options may vary). So a delta clipper might go a long way towards meeting some of these requirements.

Another view. The plan is a Trojan Horse to end civilian presence in space.

We get around treaty requirements with Civilian space. Unless we pull out of those treaties, I don't place much stock in this premise. Just my view.

Private industry? Yeah, right. You know better than that, clark. Overcapacity is killing the launch industry and they will invest billions for a launch system with no users?

And what have the private industry wonks been saying all this time? The Shuttle is killing the market. Come on Bill, you see it so easily, the problem with the heavy lift- we won't have it after the Shuttle is gone. That's why you keep asking about Shuttle B, right? Well, if we can come to reasonable conclusion that we will need some type of heavy lift capability, but we don't seem to be planning for it, what are the choices left to achieve it?

There is over capacity for certain types of launch, but not all.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 12:09:17

The hinge is the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

= IF = this is real; then President Bush will go down in history as the greatest space President America ever had.

= IF = the CEV is smoke and artwork (and never amounts anything more); then President Bush will be the President who burned America's spacegoing ships, like that supposed Emperor Ming from medievel China.

Which is it? By 2008 we will know.

In the meantime Sean Keefe winks and says "The CEV? Details? Check back later. . ."

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 12:27:25

Why can't we delay our obligations on the ISS? The crap about us not understanding weightlessness is crap. We've been studying it for... oh... 3 decades now. The ISS didn't meet its timetable, and thus, those working on it should lose their grants. You don't keep giving your kids extended allowances if all they do is spend it.

I say, kill the ISS (in the short term), and work on Shuttle-B/C/Ares. Espcially if this so called CEV is smoke blowing like Bill White says. Shuttle-B/C/Ares would make the perfect CEV deployeement platform, and it would quite obviously allow us to complete the ISS (and it would give us the ablity to go into deep space ala Mars Direct). SDV is the way to go here. Hands freaking down.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush wants an OSP and a CEV? A CEV then, wouldn't be using OSP technology, because you don't need wings to go to the moon. So I think it's unlikely that the CEV will be Shuttle derived.

So, in conclusion, no more Shuttle flights. The ISS can handle a short term delay to be built, it loves delays.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 12:33:23

Lets be careful, okay?

Espcially if this so called CEV is smoke blowing like Bill White says.

If I said the CEV actually IS smoke, I mistyped. All I am saying is that it =might= very well be smoke but IMHO the burden should be on Sean Keefe to convince us it isn't.

And that with a "real deal" CEV I would give President Bush an A+ for his plan and vision.

No CEV? He will be the guy who kills NASA.

Now, to quote Ronald Reagan - - "Where's the Beef!"

= = =

How would you like to be the guy put in charge of the CEV program now?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 12:41:18

Sorry Bill, I didn't mean to imply that that was your position. But you were the one who mentioned smoke blowing, and I agree with you. Basically, if this is what it is, then a SDV is the way to go. If it's not, then Bush did us a good one.

clark · 2004-01-16 12:43:44

We may understand weightlessness, but we sure as hell don't know how to effectively counter it's debilitating effects on the human body. We have ideas on radiation mitigation, but nothing built and tested for what we're talking about with permanent presence on the moon.

ISS needs to be completed. We lose big points, and any credibility for future international endeavours unless we do.

The OSP is NOT being built. The CEV will meet OSP needs, and more. CEV is to undergo orbital testing by 2008. Any number of X programs can be revived to meet this.

The whole point of CEV though is to get around the need for heavy lift. Multiple launches on small rockets, like the Delta's, then docked in space, will be the new mantra. We have been gaining experience with autonomous docking ever since Skylab- and most recently, ISS. We can work it further after CEV is built by 2008.

I highly doubt that this CEV is smoke and mirrors, and I doubt that the 2008 is not achievable. Everything was reviewed by Cheney, vetted, then pronounced. Project Prometheus is already returning results- I see little reason why this won't either.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 12:55:14

Um, we won't be able to counter the effects of weightlessness without magical nano technology or centrifugal force drives (and the latter won't work on the surface of Mars or other large bodies). We don't need "radiation mitigation," as studies have shown that the levels aren't that much more than ISS levels. And the ISS folks seem to be doing awfully fine.

Oink oink.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 13:00:17

No problem, Josh. I am just a fellow with a liberal arts degree who reads a lot. I cannot claim to know whether or not the CEV is feasible by 2008.

= = =

clark writes:

I highly doubt that this CEV is smoke and mirrors, and I doubt that the 2008 is not achievable. Everything was reviewed by Cheney, vetted, then pronounced. Project Prometheus is already returning results- I see little reason why this won't either.

Heh! Good one. But maybe you are right about this. Do you take the same view of Cheney's "National Energy Policy?"

But to use a line another George Bush was fond of. . . Wouldn't it be prudent to stick some RS-68s on a shuttle main tank. Maybe only once to see if it works? Otherwise we have all our eggs in one basket. If CEV fails then the American space program is screwed, right?

clark · 2004-01-16 13:14:24

Okay, ask yourself this, have I made a case for the neccessity, and reality, of the US seeking dominance in space?

Space, is it, or is it not, a national imperative for security, economic, and politcal reasons?

Do we have international committments that require we provide alternative access to the ISS by 2008 for human travel?

Do we need the Shuttle after ISS? Better yet, what would be the role of a Shuttle, or Shuttle-like successor after ISS complete?

The reason we built ISS was for a make-works project for the Shuttle (one reason at least). The ISS was designed, modified, and orbited based on Shuttle constraints.

If we make a Shuttle successor, just for heavy lift, we end up with a capability with no justification. What happens in government when you have a program with no justification? the constuiency makes a justification.

We may very well end up a year from now concluding that we will need some type of Shuttle successor heavy lift vehicle. But we don't need one really until we are considering lunar landings.

Remember, we're not building anything but ISS from here on out. Finish it, then bide our time for an appropriate exit.

a CEV will not be a shuttle- it will be smaller, use proven technology (from the last 30 years!), and free funds to try some new things out.

I cannot claim to know whether or not the CEV is feasible by 2008.

I don't know if it's possible, but I can't understand why it wouldn't be. Come on, if everyone here says we can go to freaking Mars in ten years- with exsisting, off the shelf technology, then what's the show-stopper here? We're not building a plane, so it's not going to cost what the Shuttle costs to develop.

Heh! Good one. But maybe you are right about this. Do you take the same view of Cheney's "National Energy Policy?"

:laugh:

Wouldn't it be prudent to stick some RS-68s on a shuttle main tank. Maybe only once to see it it works? Otherwise we have all our eggs in one basket. If CEV fails then the American space program is screwed, right?

Should we try it? Sure. But unless there is a purpose, there isn't a need. Here, explain this: What do we need a Shuttle-successor to do after ISS complete? Answer me this.

Now, if CEV fails, so what? Our manned program is set back, but NASA still exsists. NASA is much more than human exploration (of course this is all about to change).

Bill White · 2004-01-16 13:47:11

We may very well end up a year from now concluding that we will need some type of Shuttle successor heavy lift vehicle. But we don't need one really until we are considering lunar landings.

True. But if we intend lunar bases, we need to move large quantities of material. Like radiation shielding.

My reading suggests that hydrogen saturated polyethylene plastic, doped with boron, makes a marvelous radiation shield. You can also build habitats out of the stuff. But you needs lots and lots of it. Lunar regolith is far inferior for as shield material and you need a bulldozer to push that stuff around. A heavy bulldozer.

Thus, the need for heavy lift.

= = =

Okay, suppose Michoud shuts down in 2009/2010, after the last shuttle tank is built. Maybe the workers are reassigned and re-trained but the tank manufacturing facilities are scrapped. Raze the VAB in 2012 because the CEV uses Atlas/Delta launched from Canaveral or Vandenberg and its just too expensive to re-roof a leaking building we don't need. The crawler starts to rust and budget deficits don't allow for proper maintenance of an unnecessary piece of equipment. Pad 39 deteriorates, and so on.

Now its 2020 and we are ready to build the long promised moon base. Modular CEV carried astronauts have already accomplished initial return landings.

But there is no way to get the needed material up there.

Delta/Atlas/CEV are just too small and any new booster must be funded from scratch and ground support infrastructure built from scratch.

= = =

Delay ISS another year or two; stand down the shuttle orbiter now; and seek to launch shuttle B/C or Ares by January (or July) 2006 the ISS gets built and by 2012 we are ready to return to the Moon, to stay. Because we have a rocket that can deliver the supplies needed to allow humans to stay on the Moon.

Even Rand Sinberg says shuttle B would only cost between $1 billion and $3 billion to deploy. Chump change in the long run, especially if the $1 - $3 billion comes from cancelled orbiter retrofits.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 13:48:56

I don't know if it's possible, but I can't understand why it wouldn't be.

Cost. Why else? We're to believe that a CEV is to be built and deployeed with only a marginal increase in NASAs budget without scrapping the Shuttle until two years before its completion?

We can cancel (edit again, by cancel I mean delay obviously, heh) the ISS simply because of the Columbia accident. Say that the Shuttles are no longer a safe means to send men into space and no international community is going to cry fowl. They would be a disgrace to do so. Say you're going to take the best of the Shuttle (the SRBs and the tank and engine), and modify it to be an autonomous launch vehicle only. Delaying the ISS is not necessarily a bad move at all here.

Welcome to pork heaven.

edit, we were posting at the same time Bill, totally agree! Booyah. Great minds think alike.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1074282850

clark · 2004-01-16 13:56:28

Hmmm...

Okay, assume that the last three remaining shuttles are changed into an automated cargo service. Don't do Shuttle B, just make the neccessary modifications to make the Shuttle fly on her own.

Now we don't have to worry about human-saftey. We could even concievably lose another orbiter finishing ISS- so what, we only need one for a museum.

How much material do you need for a moonbase? How many tons? What other options are available to get tons into space? Don't say "it has to be this". What are the other options?

I know it's a leap of faith, but just assume that this issue is understood, and at least some plan exsists to deal with it. What might that be? The President has made a public declaration of intent- they are making changes to how NASA is structured. Most of Congress is on-board since no great sums are being demanded.

Try reading this article, given what we know now:

[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2093243]http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2093243

Bill White · 2004-01-16 16:59:28

Looks like we are way ahead of the curve here at NewMars.

Read this [http://space.com/news/ksc_bush_040116.html]article carefully. It shows how little is known about the CEV and offer insight into some of the players who will shape the final version.

Pad 39 vacant? Didn't I start whining about that over a week ago? I saw clark's hobo at the local StarBucks. Notice that the CEV design is NOT part of the new Aldridge commission's mandate.

I encourage MarsDirect devotees to lobby hard for shuttle derived boosters for the CEV or to complement the CEV. Otherwise, MarsDirect will come off the table (technologically) if the shuttle is stood down and NO shuttle derived variant preserves Pad 39, the crawler, the VAB and the Michoud fuel tank facility.

If you think MarsDirect is a foolish, stupid plan, well then, pay no attention.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-01-15 18:22:36

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#52 2004-01-15 18:30:30

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#53 2004-01-15 19:32:10

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#54 2004-01-15 22:59:23

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#55 2004-01-16 06:47:50

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#56 2004-01-16 09:23:29

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#57 2004-01-16 09:37:36

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#58 2004-01-16 09:52:45

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#59 2004-01-16 10:17:55

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#60 2004-01-16 10:19:51

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#61 2004-01-16 10:55:20

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#62 2004-01-16 11:09:43

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#63 2004-01-16 11:55:44

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#64 2004-01-16 12:09:17

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#65 2004-01-16 12:27:25

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#66 2004-01-16 12:33:23

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#67 2004-01-16 12:41:18

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#68 2004-01-16 12:43:44

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#69 2004-01-16 12:55:14

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#70 2004-01-16 13:00:17

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#71 2004-01-16 13:14:24

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#72 2004-01-16 13:47:11

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#73 2004-01-16 13:48:56

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#74 2004-01-16 13:56:28

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

#75 2004-01-16 16:59:28

Re: Bush's New Space Policy - Discussion, reactions, questions...

Board footer