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

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 17:18:28

Thanks for the link Bill. That's a very enlightening article. Your comments about this particular issue have ben right on target.

And the more I read about Mars Direct, the more appealing it's becoming. I think if Mars Direct were to bear fruit, some of my own ideas (about CELSS) could be realized. Certainly far more likely than it being realized on the moon (there's no major rationale for CELSS on the moon due to its proximity). I've had my misgivings, but not anymore.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 20:03:26

Maybe it was just getting some fresh air and exercise.

clark is right about the CEV being feasible. A capsule set on top of Delta IV heavy will be easy enough to do and a CEV launched on Delta IV can do everything President Bush called for. What it can't do is go to Mars before 2030 or 2040 or support a genuine permanently crewed moonbase, without lots and lots of launches.

So, my original post from ten days ago stands. For better or worse, the Bush plan kills MarsDirect.

clark · 2004-01-16 20:10:47

Ah, little one, you are now ready to learn...

So, my original post from ten days ago stands. For better or worse, the Bush plan kills MarsDirect.

Can you not imagine another way we might get to Mars, other than Mars Direct?

Major failing of certain groups is that they often overlook an option, they may otherwise have noted, due to it not originating from within the group. Hmmmmmm.....

So grasshopper, if all you have are EELV's by which to loft yon hefty weight, how might you imagine a trip to Mars?

Be like the water, and follow the path of least resistance, or, if you prefer, the reed, and bend.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 20:43:08

Ah, little one, you are now ready to learn...
So, my original post from ten days ago stands. For better or worse, the Bush plan kills MarsDirect.
Can you not imagine another way we might get to Mars, other than Mars Direct?
Major failing of certain groups is that they often overlook an option, they may otherwise have noted, due to it not originating from within the group. Hmmmmmm.....
So grasshopper, if all you have are EELV's by which to loft yon hefty weight, how might you imagine a trip to Mars?
Be like the water, and follow the path of least resistance, or, if you prefer, the reed, and bend.

Calling RobS,

Mars 24 plan still works fine with Delta IVs. Especially if Boeing does a super-heavy.

Major failing of certain groups is that they often overlook an option, they may otherwise have noted, due to it not originating from within the group. Hmmmmmm.....

There are always options.

If the CEV is developed Soyuz-style, then modular "space trains" are easy enough to build. Maybe we need to publicize the idea that Soyuz was "stolen" from US scientists in the 1960s to make that easier to swallow, in consideration of the above point.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 21:01:34

Heh, look at the other options, sure. Tell us how those options really facilitate a Mars mission in the short term. We won't even be getting to the moon until 2020. I watched about an hours worth of moon footage again (from Apollo 17, very funny commentary) today, to remind me how awesome that place is. I have no problem going back to the moon. My only problem is building a vehicle that only goes back to the moon when the potential for further travels and larger payloads exist. Bill pretty much makes all the arguments, though.

So clark... when is this CEV going to become known? Want to make a wager?

Bill White · 2004-01-16 21:31:21

Heh, look at the other options, sure. Tell us how those options really facilitate a Mars mission in the short term. We won't even be getting to the moon until 2020. I watched about an hours worth of moon footage again (from Apollo 17, very funny commentary) today, to remind me how awesome that place is. I have no problem going back to the moon. My only problem is building a vehicle that only goes back to the moon when the potential for further travels and larger payloads exist. Bill pretty much makes all the arguments, though.
So clark... when is this CEV going to become known? Want to make a wager?

Building shuttle derived boosters makes terrific sense =IF= we are looking at NASA as that entity created by JFK/LBJ as part of the 1960s "Great Society"

If Zubrin and company want to make a run at persuading "the powers that be" to build shuttle derived boosters, I can make some good arguments. I think. ???

How to do that when Bush/Cheney have made it clear a "Mars dash" is not part of their vision is less clear to me. The mindset of the Great Society is pretty much what they are seeking to stamp out of NASA.

In another thread, I think I saw a comment that Zubrin was weighing his options concerning what to do.

I still believe shuttle derived boosters are a great idea. I now believe the "powers that be" are dead set against them and am less sure how to win that battle politically.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-16 22:09:02

Bush can't flip-flop. Our only chance for SDVs now is with a presidential hopeful, imho. It'd work great in debates, too, bashing the moon as a place we've been, about those wanting to go to the moon living in the past, not having an adventerous spirit, lacking scientific value, etc. Say that the moon is definitely a "good place to go some day" (ie, political weaseling), but state the fact that Mars is more hospitable to humans and offers more for humans, from not only a resource standpoint, but from a visionary standpoint.

Bill White · 2004-01-16 23:01:00

Bush can't flip-flop. Our only chance for SDVs now is with a presidential hopeful, imho.

Where did Bush rule out SDVs? When? Not that I saw or heard.

That speech was so darn vague, nothing is set in stone except the budget numbers, and ending shuttle orbiter flights.
The budget numbers are too low to come anywhere close to a 2014 or 2016 MarsDirect and THAT won't change.

The shuttle ain't dead until 2010, so the next President gets a crack at shuttle derived boosters. Like Zubrin said, its a challenge - - the Bush plan is neither a disaster nor salvation for Mars-nuts.

= = =

Bada Boom - - Bada Bing

[http://www.cgpublishing.com/newmoon.htm]Its all right here! Questions answered, riddled unraveled, the mysterious made simple.

[http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.s … igh%20Tech]Preliminary installment #1

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=916]Preliminary Installment #2

= = =
The NASA Watch [http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/01.09.04.bush.html]comments feed. Its like "viewer mail" on the Bush plan. Fun reading.

One quote from this comments feed:

Let's not forget one additional benefit for George W... by eliminating Earth Science research from NASA, he will put climate change policy even further on the back burner. Without global remote sensing data, his followers will be able to hide behind "uncertainties" in climate modeling, and avoid taking action. Does anyone really think that NOAA or USGS will get funding increases to make up for the elimination of NASA missions? I think not.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-17 01:08:24

Where did Bush rule out SDVs? When? Not that I saw or heard.

If, if, if! If!

If the CEV Bush is proposing isn't SDV, then he cannot flip-flop! If!

And that site you linked has semi-confirmed exactly what I was thinking a few pages before, that the CEV is seemingly indeed based on the OSP! SDV is dead! It seems! If it is indeed based on OSP, we're going to be using Atlas 5 or Delta 4.

But hey. You're absolutely right though that the Shuttle will be around, but if Bush gets reelected, I think you can kiss it goodbye. Therein lies the problem and the whole crux of the complaints here; his mandate, if taken to fruitation, could destroy the Shuttle. Of course there's the possiblity it won't pass and things won't happen, one cannot predict the future, but that technology is headed for the scrap heap if people don't act.

clark · 2004-01-17 14:31:17

Here is number 3 in the installment (link previously given m\by Bill):

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=918]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=918

I'm educating myself on the EELV capabilities we have now... looking at Atlas and the Delta IV. Anybody care to shed some light on these rockets capability, and what amount of mass they can get to the moon?

Here is something else to consider- GEO launch, coupled with an ion propulsion unit that can do a slow burn to the moon. I believe ESA just did a moon probe just like this. Would this be a possibility for future manned flights, or for getting larger payloads to the moon without a heavy launch vehicle?

Might we see the development of that tehter system, or an exspansion of the alternative access programs for space and ISS? Not having heavy launch capability like the Saturn isn't a show-stopper, it merely requires we start thinking about what our alternatives are.

Here is a link to a pdf file about some different ways to get to the moon, and the problems associated with it.

[http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf]http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture29.pdf

I will try to provide more information that I find, so i would appreciate any other links, or insight others may offer.

The sooner we understand how we are getting to the moon, the sooner we can start to figure out how to get to Mars from there. We will see the pieces we can rely on in the future to make Mars happen.

Besides, with a Moon colony of some sort, and perhaps trips to the asteroids, we can start to build a realistic economic case for Mars. Find the silver where you can.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-18 01:34:08

Clark wrote. "Besides, with a Moon colony of some sort, and perhaps trips to the asteroids, we can start to build a realistic economic case for Mars. Find the silver where you can."

I agree that we should look for the "silver-lining" in Bush's new space objectives. Bush did not propose a "Mars Direct" program so we should do our best to put as much Mars as we can into what has been proposed. For example, we should advocate that facilities that are constructed on Luna shall be referred to as prototype Martian stations and prototype Martian settlements. This makes it clear that Luna is a step on the road to Mars rather than a destination in itself.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-18 15:46:14

Heh, check out these two links.

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … weapons_dc]U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground

[http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050]
U.S. 'negation' policy in space raises concerns abroad

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-18 18:36:16

I don't understand the economics of an EELV based mission. Surely a shuttle derived booster capable of launching everything in one go is cheaper than launching several Atlas' or Deltas and assembling them on the ISS, where arguably no provision is made for such assembly work. A Shuttle C will not ask for giant premiums, as do the Lockheeds and Boeings. And if it is at all cheaper, and I assume it won't be by much, any savings will be lost with increased vehicle complexity, in orbit assembly, and confusing management...

No, a shuttle derived booster will definately be much cheaper in the long (medium?) term. And will provide genuine interplanetary capability. And will preserve many Shuttle Program workers. And give us economical lunar bases. And large space telescopes. And...

Be sensible, NASA.

atitarev · 2004-01-18 19:58:33

NASA retiree:

With one-third of the NASA budget, in six or seven years you could be at Mars," Mandell said. "It doesn't compute with me to try to drag it out.
...
"I have no objection to building a moon base, but if you're going to go to Mars, the cheapest way to do it is to base it on the Earth and then make Mars the second safest place in the solar system for humans, and then send the humans to Mars," Mandell said.
He said there would be "logistical nightmares" lurking in the plan to transport equipment and humans to the moon and then launch a mission to Mars from there.
..

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ce_mars_dc]An opinion of a NASA veteran, read more.

Bill White · 2004-01-18 19:58:58

I don't understand the economics of an EELV based mission. Surely a shuttle derived booster capable of launching everything in one go is cheaper than launching several Atlas' or Deltas and assembling them on the ISS, where arguably no provision is made for such assembly work. A Shuttle C will not ask for giant premiums, as do the Lockheeds and Boeings. And if it is at all cheaper, and I assume it won't be by much, any savings will be lost with increased vehicle complexity, in orbit assembly, and confusing management...
No, a shuttle derived booster will definately be much cheaper in the long (medium?) term. And will provide genuine interplanetary capability. And will preserve many Shuttle Program workers. And give us economical lunar bases. And large space telescopes. And...
Be sensible, NASA.

Lousiania Senate politics (not Presidential politics) may play a role in the fate of shuttle derived boosters. November 2004 sees the retirement of John Breaux (a conservative Democrat) leaving an open seat up for grabs.

Michoud, Louisiana manufactures the fuel tanks for the shuttle. If the shuttle is cancelled effective 2010, the last tank might well be manufactured in 2008 or 2009 causing unemployment at the Lockheed Martin plant. And economic harm to this Louisiana town.

Workers at that plant, seeking long term job stability, should/could make this an issue in the November 2004 Senate race. Shuttle B/C or Ares could extend job security for Michoud workers and in turn that might affect whether the Lousiana Senate seat goes Democrat or Republican.

clark · 2004-01-19 10:37:13

The way you describe it Bill, it would make a great scene... two people battiling it out, both with the same goal, just different visions...

hmmm, kind of like this place, at times. :laugh:

Let me try a different tack, what might we sell the Shuttle hardware for? Sell it on ebay.

Just becuase the government retires the Shuttle fleet, dosen't mean they can't sell the infrastructure to a private group.... who could very well reconstutite the Shuttle-B-whatever to get those lucrative lunar jobs.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 10:44:07

The way you describe it Bill, it would make a great scene... two people battiling it out, both with the same goal, just different visions...
hmmm, kind of like this place, at times. :laugh:
Let me try a different tack, what might we sell the Shuttle hardware for? Sell it on ebay.
Just becuase the government retires the Shuttle fleet, dosen't mean they can't sell the infrastructure to a private group.... who could very well reconstutite the Shuttle-B-whatever to get those lucrative lunar jobs.

The essential infrastructure is the VAB, crawler and Pad 39. Dude, you are proposing we sell the Kennedy Space Center.

clark · 2004-01-19 10:50:43

If we ain't launching Shuttles, what do we need it for?

Bill White · 2004-01-19 11:37:21

If we ain't launching Shuttles, what do we need it for?

To build a "real" moonbase, silly, with 120 ton boosters rather than a tent city we visit every once and a while just to claim a presence. :;):

clark · 2004-01-19 11:47:31

Okay Bill, we're going to play a game, one that I know you can play, and one I hope others might join in. The game is called: Imagine your Moonbase.

Now, you've offered the first round of 'tent-city' moonbase as the product of retiring the SHuttle, and the heavy lift infrastructure of the Shuttle.

Le me offer this instead: A modular approach on Delta IV's and Atlas rockets. Every three months we send a CEV to dock with a speicalized module intended for the moon that was sent into orbit a month prior. The CEV meets up with the module, then uses an ion propulsion to go to the Moon on a slow burn, 1 month trip. Upon reaching the Moon, the CEV and the specialized module land on the Moon using a lunar GPS system. This allows for pinpoint landings. The speicalized module is in fact a part of an ever expanding moonbase. It is expanded with every visit by astronauts, as it is part of the research on constructing in space. This module is designed to help with proceessing lunar material into water, oxygen and rocket fuel.

Smaller modules, smaller tonnes, cost less, so it will be easier to do a long, dedicated buildup, as opposed to a 100 ton wonder that you get one shot with and has no long term industry applications.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 11:53:44

Imagine the Moonbase?

I yield the floor to others in the forum.

= = =

Ooops, one comment first.

Every three months we send a CEV to dock with a speicalized module intended for the moon that was sent into orbit a month prior.

<mild sarcasm>I count 8 Delta launches in a given year. Isn't that an unrealistic operational tempo? Impossible to accomplish by 2008/2009? But a piece of cake by 2014 - 2016?</mild sarcasm>

:;):

clark · 2004-01-19 12:01:54

4 atlas, 4 Delta. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-19 14:21:06

Robots... we need to build robots... ::eyes glaze over::

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-20 21:16:12

Hey, what would it take to deliver a small high resolution camera and transmitter to the surface of Mars? Profitable maybe? On a more relative note, studying the preliminary [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budge … 4jan04.pdf]Budget Plan (PDF) from NASA, it looks like 100 billion (!) will be devoted to 'Explorations Missions' from '04 to '20; And over 20 billion for the CEV in the same period. Am I reading this chart right? ???

dickbill · 2004-01-21 12:10:48

Okay Bill, we're going to play a game, one that I know you can play, and one I hope others might join in. The game is called: Imagine your Moonbase.

easy: Clark is digging for Helium 3 for 3 cents/hour and he complains that the food is not good and the recycled water smells like, hmm, see what I mean, that is in Luna Base...meanwhile, dickbill enjoys some rest beside a warm pool in a dome near Nirgal Vallis, on Mars, enjoying a glass of good Martian beer.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-01-16 17:18:28

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

#77 2004-01-16 20:03:26

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

#78 2004-01-16 20:10:47

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

#79 2004-01-16 20:43:08

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

#80 2004-01-16 21:01:34

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

#81 2004-01-16 21:31:21

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

#82 2004-01-16 22:09:02

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

#83 2004-01-16 23:01:00

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

#84 2004-01-17 01:08:24

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

#85 2004-01-17 14:31:17

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

#86 2004-01-18 01:34:08

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

#87 2004-01-18 15:46:14

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

#88 2004-01-18 18:36:16

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

#89 2004-01-18 19:58:33

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

#90 2004-01-18 19:58:58

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

#91 2004-01-19 10:37:13

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

#92 2004-01-19 10:44:07

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

#93 2004-01-19 10:50:43

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

#94 2004-01-19 11:37:21

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

#95 2004-01-19 11:47:31

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

#96 2004-01-19 11:53:44

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

#97 2004-01-19 12:01:54

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

#98 2004-01-19 14:21:06

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

#99 2004-01-20 21:16:12

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

#100 2004-01-21 12:10:48

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

Board footer