Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

clark · 2004-02-02 08:32:08

This thread is intended for information and discussion related to the Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy.

You can view the executive order here:
[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13541]Executive Order: Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to obtain recommendations concerning implementation of the new vision for space exploration activities of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

A link to the appointments to the Presidential Commission:
[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13540]Appointments to the Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy

Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. of Virginia
Carleton S. Fiorina of California
Michael P. Jackson of Virginia
Laurie Ann Leshin of Arizona
Lester L. Lyles of Ohio
Paul Spudis of Maryland
Neil deGrasse Tyson of New York
Robert Smith Walker of Pennsylvania
Maria Zuber of Massachusetts

clark · 2004-02-02 08:43:22

I'm looking for biographical information pertaining to any of the members of the commission. Having a better apraisal of these individuals views on exploration of space will allow us to identify sympathetic ears, or those ambivelant to forward looking space exploration plans and ideas.

Carleton (Carly) S. Fiorina is chairman, president and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Company.

Gen. Lester L. Lyles is vice chief of staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. As vice chief, and subject to the authority, direction and control of the chief of staff and secretary of the Air Force, he presides over the Air Staff and serves as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Tyson's professional research interests include star formation, exploding stars, dwarf galaxies, and the structure of our Milky Way. Tyson obtains his data from the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as from telescopes in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and in the Andes Mountains of Chile.
In 2001, Tyson was appointed by President Bush to serve on a 12-member commission that studied the Future of the US Aerospace Industry. The final report was published in 2002 and contained recommendations (for Congress and for the major agencies of the government) that would promote a thriving future of transportation, space exploration, and national security.
In addition to dozens of professional publications, Dr. Tyson has written, and continues to write for the public. And since January 1995, has become a monthly essayist for Natural History magazine under the title "Universe." Tyson's recent books include a memoir The Sky is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist; the companion book to the opening of the new Rose Center for Earth and Space One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos (coauthored with Charles Liu and Robert Irion); and a playful Q&A book on the universe for all ages titled Just Visiting This Planet.
Tyson's contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have recently been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid "13123 Tyson". On the lighter side, Tyson was voted sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" in the November 14, 2000 People Magazine, which is their annual "Sexiest Man Alive" issue.
Tyson is the first occupant of the Frederick P. Rose Directorship of the Hayden Planetarium where he also teaches. Tyson lives in New York City with his wife and two children

Robert M. Walker, Professor, PhyICS; Faculty fellow, McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences:

nterests: presolar grains, interplanetary dust particles, meteorites, radiation, etched track detectors, Nuclepore filters, fission-track dating method, primitive meteorites, extraterrestrial materials, cosmic rays
Bio: Robert Walker's current work focuses on the discovery and characterization of presolar grains from a variety of primitive meteorites. Another important research topic is the study of interplanetary dust particles and their relationship to other extraterrestrial materials. Walker is best known for fundamental investigations of radiation effects in metals, the discovery of etched track detectors, and the application of these detectors to a variety of scientific and practical problems including the development of Nuclepore filters, the fission-track dating method, the discovery of extremely heavy cosmic rays, and the record of energetic particles in space as recorded in extraterrestrial materials. He has also conducted research in thermoluminescence and its application to art authentication and archaeological dating. He was the first director of the McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University. The center was established in 1974.

I have only partial, or no information on the following:

Paul Spudis:

Some space veterans urge NASA to wean itself off of the glory days of Project Apollo -- the lunar landing effort. Paul Spudis, a space scientist formerly with the Lunar and Planetary Institute, is one of them. Spudis will soon start work at a facility that contracts to build and manage NASA missions, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.
"NASA has a problem," Spudis says. "It's trying to come up with some rationale that will recreate Apollo ? and that's not going to happen."
Apollo was not about exploring the Moon. In fact, it was not about space at all, Spudis said during a recent gathering of lunar scientists.
"It was basically a battle in the Cold War," a super-charged competition between the former Soviet Union and the United States, Spudis said.
NASA's current mantra -- to seek and understand life in the universe and to send life out there -- is not a mission, Spudis contends. "That's a catechism?a catechism of the true believer. The problem with catechisms is that they are not embraced by the non-believers."
Spudis considers a human return to the Moon within 5 years a doable proposition. Also, it's a politically viable time horizon. Besides, such a program builds up national economic infrastructure and national security.
"A Mars mission doesn't do either of these things, but a Moon mission does both," Spudis said.
Utilizing existing space-launch capability, the ISS, and the L1 Gateway as a jumping off point, reaching for the Moon can be within reach once again, Spudis figures. Once there, learning how to use the precious resources that exist on the Moon for civilian government, private sector, and military purposes is on top of the to-do list.

Michael P. Jackson of Virginia - unknown
Laurie Ann Leshin of Arizona ? ASU Geo-chem professor?
Maria Zuber of Massachusetts - MIT. Planetary scientist, Mars

I have excluded Aldridge from this so far, McCain (R-Arizona Senator) is calling for his exclusion from the Commission. You can read about that here:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Jan29.html]McCain Calls for Change on Space Panel

Aldridge left the Pentagon last year and joined the board of Lockheed, which is among the largest contractors for the Department of Defense and NASA. President Bush appointed him this month to a commission established to advise NASA on how best to implement the administration's space directives.
Aldridge's position on the commission presents a potential conflict because Lockheed could benefit from the space panel's recommendations, McCain said. "He's too conflicted," he said. "I would like to see him not have the job."

clark · 2004-02-02 09:26:01

I found an article on Space.com here:
[http://www.space.com/news/bush_commission_040201.html]Prominent Business Leaders, Scientists on Bush's Mars-Moon Commission

President George W. Bush announced Friday the business leaders, scientists and other spaceflight experts who will advise him on how to carry out the specifics of his new vision for putting humans back on the Moon and eventually on Mars.
Carleton S. "Carly" Fiorina, the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, will serve on the nine-member commission. HP has previously sponsored Disney's new SPACE ride and a robotic lunar mission by TransOrbital Inc.
The new team also includes prominent Mars researcher Maria Zuber of MIT, planetary scientist Paul Spudis of Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, book author and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City.
The Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy is to be headed by former Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., Bush had said Jan. 14 when he presented his plan for refocusing NASA's human spaceflight activities.
Other members of the commission: Michael P. Jackson of Virginia, Laurie Ann Leshin of Arizona, Lester L. Lyles of Ohio and Robert Smith Walker of Pennsylvania.
The panel will advise the White House on what sort of science agenda should be considered for the Moon and other destinations as well as what human and robotic missions should be conducted to achieve Bush's vision.

Josh Cryer · 2004-02-02 09:52:18

You have too much time on your hands clark...

clark · 2004-02-02 10:18:40

You want to know the future? I'm showing you how.

But thank you for taking the time to post... :laugh:

clark · 2004-02-02 10:38:31

More time, more information: NASA's five year budget plan:

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=924]Overview of NASA's FY 2005 Budget

Prior to the development of NASA's new space vision, NASA, like all other activities lumped in under "discretionary spending" (non-Defense) was looking at a 5 year projected budget that would have resulted in flat and eventually negative growth - with a decrease in buying power of approximately $11 billion between FY 2005 and FY 2009.

BACK TO THE MOON
Lunar exploration will resume as early as 2008 with a lunar orbiter followed by a series of orbiters and landers. When asked of science or human exploration would be the driver, Isakowitz said that the focus would be more on blazing a path for eventual human visits - but that there was a lot of intrinsic science that would be aboard these missions as well.
"Unlike Mars where robotic exploration is science driven, this is exploration driven from the get-go" Isakowitz said. He also emphasized that sending humans to the moon was not an end unto itself but rather that the moon would be a test bed for going to Mars "because we do not know how to go to Mars right now."

ON TO MARS
With regards to the current Mars exploration program using robotics, Isakowitz showed a chart which contained all of the expected future Mars missions such as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Phoenix, Mars Science Laboratory. As the new exploration program kicks in the number of missions essentially doubles according to the charts - with several missions at each launch opportunity. Among the suggested missions are sample return missions and very sophisticated robotic rovers.
While NASA's charts show a possible human landing on Mars in the 2020 window Isakowitz did not back away from the notion that it could happen as soon as 2018. He did emphasize that the exact course of the program is going to be based on results and that things will remain fluid for some time with regard to exact dates.

CEV
The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will be developed under Project Constellation. More than just a super-sized version of the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), the CEV is envisioned as a collection of modular systems that will allow human missions to low Earth orbit, the Moon and beyond. While resembling some of the mission architecture embodied by the Apollo program this vehicle will truly be a 21st century spacecraft - not a recreation of something from a half a century earlier.
Initial flights of the CEV will probably be unmanned, with human rating coming later. Isakowitz said that plans call for the first test flights by the end of this decade with lunar landings in the 2015-2020 time frame. The CEV might reach a level of reliability while the U.S. is still using the ISS that they could be used as a crew transport and/or crew rescue capability.
When asked if the CEV was going to be a capsule, Isakowitz replied that earlier OSP work had narrowed options down a bit and, like the illustrations shown to reporters in Isakowitz's briefing charts, the current thinking is along the lines of a capsule-based system.
Given the physical and energetic constraints of launching lunar missions from the ISS (in an 51.6 degree orbit) Isakowitz tended to agree with the notion that the ISS would not be in the direct path of lunar exploration. However, since rendezvous and docking capabilities will be required for CEV's use in going to the Moon and elsewhere, Isakowitz said that the ISS would be a logical place to carry out these tests.
With the U.S. looking at a possible dramatic decrease in ISS utilization in 2016, and operational CEV capable of reaching the ISS in 2014, Isakowitz was asked if it was possible, given that things tend to slip, that the CEV might never even visit the ISS. Isakowitz agreed that this was a possibility.

SHUTTLE
The Space Shuttle program will be restructured such that the orbiter fleet is upgraded and then operated in accordance with CAIB and Return to Flight Task force recommendations - plus any that would emanate from the newly formed Aldridge Commission. NASA's planning estimates are for 5 shuttle missions a year until assembly of ISS is completed. AT that point the Shuttle would no longer fly with humans.
NASA has left open the possibility that it evolving exploration program's launch requirements might (probably will) call for heavy lift capability that that some sort of Shuttle-derived capability might be developed. Any funds required for that advanced use of Shuttle technology would be funded by the Office of Exploration Systems (Code T) according to Isakowitz.

With the retirement of the Shuttle fleet, one would expect that the various operations contracts currently in place would be in jeopardy. While Isakowitz would not speculate on changes to the SFOC (Space Flight Operations Contract), he did agree, in a broader sense, that there would be a rethinking of operations contracts down the road as the new exploration infrastructure moved into place.

Exploration Systems: In addition to the establishment of a new office, this effort gets $428 million for Project Constellation ($ 6.6 billion over the next 5 years); 438 million for Project Prometheus; $115 million for technology maturation; and $20 million for an interesting new approach for funding ideas that will use up to $20 million in prizes along the lines that the X Prize and DARPA have been using.

clark · 2004-02-02 11:27:18

Some more information on the people that are part of the Commission:

Michael P. Jackson, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation

Laurie Ann Leshin, a planetary geochemist at Arizona State University.

Paul Spudis, a visiting scientist with the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston.

Former Rep. Robert S. Walker, R-Pa. (I am not sure if Walker is also a scientist as posted above)

Bill White · 2004-02-02 11:53:40

This [http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/fe … ummit.html]meeting/conference seems relevant to the future direction of the US space program.

NASA Invites Media to Shuttle Summit
NASA is planning the second annual summit of the Space Shuttle Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) Feb. 17-18 at the San Luis Resort in Galveston, Texas. Reporters are invited to attend meetings on both days of the summit, as well as a press conference at 9 a.m. EST on Feb. 19 at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston.
On Jan. 14 President Bush laid out the vision for the future of NASA's human space flight programs. He called for NASA to use the unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle to finish assembly of the International Space Station by 2010.
The President's vision alters the mission of SLEP, making it more important than ever. At the SLEP summit, tepresentatives from government, industry, and academia will focus on prioritizing investments in the Shuttle to ensure the fleet can safely meet the President's goal. SLEP studies and projects may serve as a test bed for technologies to enable the next generation of space travel.
Media are responsible for their own transportation, accommodations, and meals. Reporters interested in attending SLEP should contact Melissa Mathews at NASA Headquarters (202/348-1272) by 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, Feb. 10.
For more information about the SLEP Summit on the Internet, including an agenda, visit: [http://www.slepsummit.com]www.slepsummit.com

The part highlighted in bold struck me as somewhat droll. . .

If I had more time on my hands, maybe I'd ask Josh or Adrian for some press credentials!

clark · 2004-02-02 14:04:52

Bill, I told you my stock pick... the following link is to an article about the new NASA budget. The link takes you to an article on Space.com

[http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_040130.html]NASA Seeks $16.2 Billion; Cuts Shuttle, Station, Next Generation Launch Tech Programs

The article mainly delinates where some of the funds are being allocated, or moved for the new NASA budget and in support of the Bush Space policy. Here is the relevant paragraph I am pointing you to:

The space station budget request also includes $10 million in new funding for "a flight demonstration initiative to pursue launch services with emerging launch systems." Industry and government sources said that money is earmarked for start-up firms such as Kistler Aerospace and Space Exploration Technologies.The budget also includes $70 million in funding for robotic lunar missions. According to budget documents, NASA plans to spend $420 million through 2009 on lunar exploration missions.

Kistler Aeropspace sells the K1 rocket:

Kistler Aerospace Corporation is the developer of the K-1 fully reusable aerospace vehicle, designed to deliver payloads to orbit and provide a low-cost alternative to single-use launch vehicles. The company intends the K-1 to become the reliable, low-cost provider of launch services for commercial, civil, and military payloads destined for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) and Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO), as well as to the International Space Station (ISS).

[http://www.kistleraerospace.com/]Kistler Aerospace Homepage

Space Exploration Technologies might be more familiar as SpaceX. SpaceX is the launch company building the Falcon launchers and was founded by Elon Musk (creator of PayPal).

[http://www.spacex.com/]SpaceX homepage

clark · 2004-02-03 11:21:30

I believe that the Commission will review previous studies related to human exploration in line with the Bush Space Policy goals. I am linking to a report related to SEI, advocated by Bush Senior during his term.

[http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/E … IC004.html]A VISION FOR PLANETARY EXPLORATION

Leveraging public investment involves tailoring program implementation, operation, and administration strategies to encourage collaboration among government agencies, public/private corporations, private sector corporations, academic institutions and potentially, agencies of foreign governments. The government should accept implementing high-risk and commercially unprofitable elements of the infrastructure (MSLI), and developing, within the public domain, enabling technologies, master plans guiding planetary development (SIA), stable standards (OSIS), and asset building block designs. The government should also conduct a base level of continuing operations, such as activities chartered to the space agency (e.g. planetary science), research to uncover/validate planetary opportunities, applied technology demonstrations, incremental increases to the enabling MSLI, and space transportation services.
Administration strategies provide some of the greatest challenges to efficiently leverage public investment, but can generate some of the greatest paybacks. Highly leveraging administrative strategies would establish "contract for services" as the preferred acquisition strategy, establish a privatization of planetary infrastructure strategy, provide "incubator" services for planetary start-up businesses, and pass legislation creating a pro-business tax/regulation environment stimulating planetary investment. International collaboration could be leveraged by identifying non-critical or redundant areas for participation, which would result in greatly reduced risk and could potentially lead to substantial cost savings.
Investing public funds efficiently may include adopting stable standards from program to program. The building blocks of one program should contribute substantially to subsequent programs without substantial new capital investment. This implies the possibility of multi-mission use, the need to design for planned product improvement, and the acceptance of performance penalties for the desired building block capability.
A strategy for managing public investment would elevate a planetary exploration initiative above previous space programs. Unlike the Space Station, Shuttle, or even Apollo programs, initiatives such as the SEI should not be advertised as a multi-decade, multi-billion dollar program with a set, specific implementation. Each increment, or OC of the SEI should be thought of as a separate program, each with a shorter life and smaller run-out cost than the overall program. In this way, OC's can legislatively compete with each other, or with terrestrial programs on their own merits. The competition among the incremental programs may even build constituencies, and the task of submitting legislative "new starts" could be taken over by these new constituencies.

clark · 2004-02-03 16:29:53

Well, this fits in nicely with the Bush Space Policy, no?

[http://www.space.com/news/europe_moon_040203.html]Europe Plans Human Missions to Moon and Mars

LONDON (AP) _ European scientists set out a route map Tuesday for manned missions to Mars that aims to land astronauts on the Red Planet in less than 30 years.
Like U.S. President George W. Bush's proposed mission to Mars, the plan put forward by the European Space Agency involves a "stepping stone'' approach, which includes robotic missions and a manned trip to the Moon first.

"We need to go back to the Moon before we go to Mars. We need to walk before we run,'' said Dr. Franco Ongaro, who heads the ESA's Aurora program for long-term exploration of the solar system, at a meeting of Aurora scientists in London. "These are our stones. They will pave the way for our human explorers.''
The ESA has planned two flagship missions to Mars _ ExoMars would land a rover on the planet in 2009, and Mars Sample Return would bring back a sample of the Martian surface in 2011-14.
Other test missions will include a non-manned version of the flight that would eventually carry astronauts to Mars to demonstrate aerobraking, solar electric propulsion and soft landing technologies.
A human mission to the Moon, proposed for 2024, would demonstrate key life-support and habitation technologies, as well as aspects of crew performance and adaptation to long-distance space flight.
The program is expected to cost about 900 million euros (US$1.13 billion) over the next five years.

[giggle] :;):

clark · 2004-02-04 10:08:01

More on Kistler (K1 Rocket), ISS, and the future of the Shuttle:

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11751]NASA Presolicitation Notice: Kistler K-1 Pre-Flight and Post-flight Data

Description NASA has new direction to retire the Space Shuttle following completion of the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) at the end of the decade. Further, as a consequence of the Columbia accident and the planned Shuttle flight rate of only five flights per year, NASA seeks to augment the Shuttle to enable increased capability to transport cargo to and from the ISS beginning after U.S. core complete in 2006. NASA continues to refine its space access requirements to support the ISS. However, during the period 2006-2010 there is more projected demand to return cargo from the ISS than can be supported by the Shuttle. There is no current or planned capability other than the Shuttle to return cargo from the ISS, with the exception of the very limited capability of the Soyuz.
Accordingly, NASA has a requirement for data to demonstrate the ability of commercial launch systems to support ISS with up-and down-mass capability as soon as practical. To meet the schedule directed by the President for this new direction, NASA needs these data by the end of CY 2006. NASA also has an objective to obtain data on technologies needed to support enhanced reliability and vehicle health monitoring of existing launch systems to support the President's new space exploration directive. In order to fulfill these space transportation objectives, NASA has a requirement to obtain data related to the following: demonstration of technologies that will improve launch system reliability and safety to a level that enables their use to launch astronauts into low Earth orbit and demonstration of the capability of a recoverable launch system to autonomously approach and connect to another platform in space.
In addition, the innovative new modular architectural approaches under consideration by NASA to accomplish exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit will require launch systems with autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations (ARPO) capability to enable the modules to stage and service themselves in low Earth orbit prior to embarking on deep space missions. NASA needs flight data demonstrating ARPO technology. A progressive series of flight demonstrations as soon as practical is necessary to enable NASA to verify the repeatability and operability of these technologies in order to provide 'lessons learned' for launch system architectures under development. NASA intends to acquire data pertaining to these technologies and capabilities by exercising existing options and adding work to Contract NAS8-01103. Contract NAS8-01103 was awarded to Kistler Aerospace Corporation in May 2001 as a fixed-price contract under a competitive research announcement.
Kistler is developing the K-1 launch system, which is expected to achieve a first flight within approximately 18 months of authority to proceed with the modified contract. The K-1 launch system will have a payload capability of approximately 7,000 pounds up-mass and 2,000 pounds down-mass to the ISS. Authority to proceed with work under this contract modification will be contingent on a successful conclusion of the contractor's Chapter 11 proceedings that results in Kistler having sufficient additional private funding to complete the K-1 development. NASA funding will not be provided for development of the K-1 launch system. Payment of NASA funding will be made only upon timely delivery and Government acceptance of the data required under the contract. This contract modification is for a continuation of data acquisition. The K-1 launch system design includes a number of embedded technologies that will directly benefit launch system development, including an integrated vehicle health management system, advanced checkout and control systems, and a fully autonomous guidance, navigation and control system. All data pertaining to thirteen specified technologies embedded in the Kistler launch system and the ARPO technology experiments required to accomplish the objectives stated above will be furnished to NASA with unlimited data rights, enabling NASA to make this data available to other contractors to support future NASA space launch solicitations.

Autonomous modular assembly in LEO for deep space exploration...

clark · 2004-02-04 10:19:02

It also looks like NASA is pursuing a 'Free Flyer' program of robotic-something-or-others to compliment ISS and Shuttle research capabilities. It looks like these things will be devised to do some research in radiation, micro-g, and other research avenues (related to human exploration) that cannot be done on ISS or Shuttle missions. Some of the information indicates multiple mission types on single launches (Delta II) with opportunities for Mars missions (robotics) thrown in when the opportunity presents itself.

[http://freeflyerstudy.arc.nasa.gov/workshop/packet.html]Free Flyer Research Program website

Here is a link to a pdf of the Free Flyer Concept:
[http://freeflyerstudy.arc.nasa.gov/work … /hines.pdf]Free Flyer Overview Concept.

Any scientifically literate individual care to take a look and give their appraisal?

Josh Cryer · 2004-02-04 10:19:36

I was thinking that that EU initiative thing is just the EU trying to jump on the USA's bandwagon so that the EU isn't left behind space wise. Hopefully they actually contribute though.

clark · 2004-02-04 10:55:38

Perhaps, but ESA has been focusing on a manned mission to Mars as the culmination of their Aurora program, so it dosen't neccessarily mean that the ESA is exactly jumping on the USA band wagon.

That said, ESA has just declared it will spend about 200 million a year for the next five years to get towards the goal. A small sum, but when coupled with NASA (in other words, NASA does this research, ESA does this other research), it can go a lot farther, and we can go a lot further.

And, might I add, given that we will rely on our international partners in the near future to send our astronauts to space, we may very well see the US providing the rides to the Moon and beyond later.

clark · 2004-02-05 10:13:33

The first meeting of the Commission has been announced:

[http://www.spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=2549]President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy Meeting

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

--Welcoming remarks by Chairman Pete Aldridge
--Introduction of Commission Members
--Overview of Commission Charter and Goals
--Review of accomplishments of previous commissions, such as Pioneering the Space Frontier (Augustine) and America's Space Exploration Initiative (Stafford)
--Testimony by Federal agencies associated with space exploration
--Comments and discussion
--Closing comments

The portion in bold is to denote areas of previous research that will be used to formulate new policy. There will be revisions where neccessry, but the results of these two previous commisions will provide the backbone of any new policy.

clark · 2004-02-05 10:28:56

Here is a link to the report from the PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER, from the National Commission on Space, circa 1986 (Regan years, after the Challenger accident)

[http://history.nasa.gov/painerep/begin.html]PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER

The following link will take you to a main page with more links related to Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) including summaries, full reports, history, and costs.

[http://history.nasa.gov/sei.htm]Resources About the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI)

clark · 2004-02-05 10:48:14

[=http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1075920330148180.xml]NASA to cut 87 jobs here, but Marshall says no layoff

The above link is to an article appearing in The Huntsville Times by Shelby G. Spires. I am listing it here becuase there are some more details related to the CEV, the future of the Shuttle, and a return to the Moon. Marshall Space Flight has been in chagre of Space Launch Initiative (SLI), Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT), OSP, and now the new CEV program.

Here are some relevant quotes from the article;

The Bush administration has changed the focus of SLI from a technology program to developing the Orbital Space Plane and finding a new, reusable second-generation space shuttle, or Next Generation Launch Technology.
The Orbital Space Plane work will go toward creating a Crew Exploration Vehicle, which NASA hopes can be used to ferry crews to the space station and, eventually, the moon.
"We aren't throwing that investment away," King said. "The focus has just changed. We won't lose the work we've done to date."
Isakowitz said the $6 billion NASA had planned for SLI over the next five years would be put toward the new lunar and space exploration programs.
Because of the changes in NASA vision and focus - notably a 10-year plan to return to the moon - sent down from President Bush last month, nearly all NASA programs are under review.
NASA plans to use the next five years to develop a detailed plan on what is needed to return to the moon, Isakowitz said. "The only data point we have now is Apollo," he said. "We have the benefit of what was done on Apollo, but we have no plans to copy Apollo. We expect this to be very different."
Isakowitz said NASA has no plans to rebuild a Saturn V-type rocket or to develop a new rocket along the lines of Saturn V. The Saturn V was developed and managed in Huntsville and was used during the Apollo years to place men on the moon.
NASA officials estimated that key studies and reviews should be completed by this summer. "But the key details of where we are going and how we are going to get there could take the next two years to develop," Isakowitz said.
NASA budget documents show space station microgravity science work managed and developed in Huntsville - such as materials and protein crystal growth science - are under review. "We aren't targeting specific disciplines or areas" but will support only areas that can be applied to the new exploration vision, Isakowitz said.
Isakowitz said science work that applied to the new vision would be funded.
"If areas in material sciences can be applied to" the new exploration policy, he said, "then we will continue with those. If it doesn't support the vision, then there will be things we stop."
The science review should be completed this summer.
The one constant in the NASA budget is work to improve the shuttle and return it to flight. The shuttle program has been on hold since Columbia disintegrated on re-entry a year ago, killing the seven astronauts aboard. NASA plans to spend about $200 million in the next year to improve the space shuttle systems that were red-flagged by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
A key Marshall shuttle upgrade program to improve the space shuttle's main engine received a $3 million cut in its 2005 budget because the program is coming in ahead of schedule. The advanced health management system is an upgrade to the shuttle engine's 30-year-old computer.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-02-06 17:20:10

Looks like NASA and the government have given up all hope for anything less than $10,000/kg launch costs. Aww man... This is crap. I can't help but worry if this new program is going to slow down space travel, rather than get on with it. Let's hope the private industry develops $100/kg boosters in the 25 tonne class... Remember Zubrins comments about the management at Lockheed?

John Creighton · 2004-02-06 20:11:31

Looks like NASA and the government have given up all hope for anything less than $10,000/kg launch costs. Aww man... This is crap. I can't help but worry if this new program is going to slow down space travel, rather than get on with it. Let's hope the private industry develops $100/kg boosters in the 25 tonne class... Remember Zubrins comments about the management at Lockheed?

Why do you say that?

clark · 2004-02-09 09:58:58

Here is an interview with one of the members of the Commission, Neil deGrasse Tyson by Space.com:

[http://www.space.com/news/tyson_interview_040209.html]Vision Team Meets Today: Inside Bush's Space Committee

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 07:00 am ET
09 February 2004

Tyson was appointed in late January to serve on a nine-member commission that will report back to the White House in four months on how NASA should go about getting astronauts back on the Moon by 2020 and then sending them on to Mars. The Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy has its first meeting today, an all-day affair in Virginia.
I caught up with Tyson last week to discuss his personal views on how NASA should proceed, why the money needed to get to Mars shouldn't be spent finding a cure for cancer, and why neither he nor anyone else has been able to fill Carl Sagan's shoes.
Tyson also shared his views on the importance of going back to the Moon first and why the initial Martian astronaut corps ought to be teenagers.
SPACE.com: The space program has been in the doldrums since the end of the Apollo era. Is NASA finally at a turning point?
Tyson: Yes, unquestionably.

clark · 2004-02-10 11:14:55

[=http://www.moontomars.org/]President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond

The above link is to [http://www.moontomars.org]www.moontomars.org, a website for the President's Commission. It includes details on the Space policy and the members of the Space Commission. I urge everyone to at least take a look.

Here is a direct link to the page for directing comments to the Space Commission:

[http://www.moontomars.org/notices/contact.asp]Link to Contact page on www.moontomars.org

clark · 2004-02-10 12:24:52

Here is a link to an interview with Robert Walker, one of the members of the Space Commission:

[http://www.space.com/news/staif_bush_040210.html]Robert Walker: Space Industry Must Get Public, Congress 'Buy-In' of New Space Vision

By Leonard David

Cautionary flags
Former Congressman Robert Walker praised the Bush space initiative, but waved a few cautionary flags.
Walker is a member of the newly created Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, headed by former Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. That group is to complete their study by the first part of June, he said.
The President has scripted a human and robotic program, one that calls for -- among a number of objectives -- a human return to the Moon no later than by 2020. With the Moon used as a test bed for hardware and honing other space skills, a humans-to-Mars effort could follow within the following decade.
Walker chided the audience, noting they?ve long hungered for a Kennedy-like space proclamation, but now that "we got it ? the question is, are we going to help sell it?"
Winners and losers
Walker said for the vision to become reality, "there has to be a public acceptance and a congressional buy-in." He urged the broad space community not to divide and protect efforts that won't move the new space agenda forward. There will be winners and losers in implementing a sharply focused plan, he said.
But if focus is lost, "it will be another 20 or 30 years before another President will step out to make a statement again," Walker said.
"I really believe that if we can show that this program will create the base of knowledge off which we will build leadership, off which we will build new products, off which we will build economic dominance?then we?ve got a chance of having a program that?s not just a flash-in-the-pan, but is a program capable of being sustained for 20 or 30 years," Walker said.

Bill White · 2004-02-12 06:57:17

This is critical, IMHO. Excerpts from the first meeting of the Aldridge commission (thanks to space.com):

"I think the biggest stumbling block is ensuring sustainability. The continuation of support for such a program has to survive multiple presidencies, multiple Congresses, [and] multiple generations," Edward "Pete" Aldridge, the commission?s chairman, said after the panel?s first public meeting. "If we can?t do that, we will achieve what we have achieved in the past ? spikes and valleys in space budgets subject to the whims of the political leaders of the time."

Spot on! This is exactly what has to happen.

But also this:

"We are not here to challenge or modify the president?s vision," Aldridge said. "Our role in life is to determine what it would take to successfully implement this vision."

These quotes (edit: potentially) contradict.

Unless "ownership" of the space vision is spread across a bi-partisan consensus it will never survive transitions in power. Unless the second quote is modified, why would ANY Democrat sign on to support the Bush vision?

Are we content with a brilliant space vision that dies no later than January 2009? If JFK had not been assassinated, and lost in 1964, Apollo would have died in its cradle.

Former President Eisenhower called Apollo a "damn fool publicity stunt."

clark · 2004-02-12 07:18:46

Bill, I think I know where you are coming from with this, but I don't see how the quotes contradict. It dosen't have to be a Bush vision. Don't lose yourself among the trees.

The plan, as is, is to give NASA an infusion of sustained resources during a period of goal oriented objectives: Shuttle repair. ISS completion. Shuttle retirement. CEV devlopment. Lunar missions. Beyond. In between all of this, an increase in the scope of robotic missions and research in the biomedical sciences.

What side is all of this on? Am I a bleeding liberal because I want mankind to explore space, or am I a dead in the eyes conservative? The President of the United States made a declaration, and it had to be either a Republican, or a Democrat to give it. Flip a coin, it's all the same.

If the Democrat's sign on, overwhelmingly, then it is a bi-partisan space plan, which can be immediately endorsed by any incoming Democratic presidential hopeful.

Manned exploration should be a foundation of BOTH parties, and it can be if everyone just goes along, Then! Then it's no longer an issue of if, but how.

This is but one space commission, chosen by the President. NASA will get new bosses, and those bosses may want their very own space commission- just to review, or tweak things here and there.

And Eisenhower was right, but everybody loves a spectacle.

Edit*

Just a thought, but what about a National Space Commission, chosen by a President for a fixed term (say 6 years), approved by Congress, to oversee implementation of whatever plan?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-02 08:32:08

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#2 2004-02-02 08:43:22

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#3 2004-02-02 09:26:01

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#4 2004-02-02 09:52:18

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#5 2004-02-02 10:18:40

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#6 2004-02-02 10:38:31

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#7 2004-02-02 11:27:18

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#8 2004-02-02 11:53:40

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#9 2004-02-02 14:04:52

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#10 2004-02-03 11:21:30

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#11 2004-02-03 16:29:53

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#12 2004-02-04 10:08:01

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#13 2004-02-04 10:19:02

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#14 2004-02-04 10:19:36

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#15 2004-02-04 10:55:38

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#16 2004-02-05 10:13:33

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#17 2004-02-05 10:28:56

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#18 2004-02-05 10:48:14

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#19 2004-02-06 17:20:10

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#20 2004-02-06 20:11:31

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#21 2004-02-09 09:58:58

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#22 2004-02-10 11:14:55

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#23 2004-02-10 12:24:52

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#24 2004-02-12 06:57:17

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

#25 2004-02-12 07:18:46

Re: Presidential Commission: Bush Space Policy - Discussion and information related to...

Board footer