# 19082 byJohn Kusumi on Jan. 15, 2004, 12:55 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Quick take on Bush's space initiative -- Evaluating a space proposal, we should look for vision, timetable, and funding. On this basis, I can say, "One cheer for the President's space plan." The goals and ambitions are laudable, leading to one cheer. The timetable is a joke, and the funding is a joke. This plan could touch off a space race, and in that case, the plan is one of how to lose a space race. (A serious version of this plan would say, "Mars by 2020. NASA gets an immediate 60% raise in funding, with two more raises in 2010 and 2015.") The President, while getting deserved credit for vision, should fix the timetable and funding in his plan. Absent that, we might conclude that the first human on Mars will be Chinese or Russian. Under this plan, they could beat us to Mars with 15 years to spare!
_________________
John Kusumi
Email: john@...
# 19083 bypanamabob on Jan. 15, 2004, 1:05 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Quick take on Bush's space initiative -- Evaluating a space proposal, we should look for vision, timetable, and funding. On this basis, I can say, "One cheer for the President's space plan." The goals and ambitions are laudable, leading to one cheer. The timetable is a joke, and the funding is a joke. This plan could touch off a space race, and in that case, the plan is one of how to lose a space race. (A serious version of this plan would say, "Mars by 2020. NASA gets an immediate 60% raise in funding, with two more raises in 2010 and 2015.") The President, while getting deserved credit for vision, should fix the timetable and funding in his plan. Absent that, we might conclude that the first human on Mars will be Chinese or Russian. Under this plan, they could beat us to Mars with 15 years to spare!
_________________
John Kusumi
Email: john@...
# 19084 byHuebner, Jay on Jan. 15, 2004, 1:20 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Can some one help with the history? I believe every president since Jack Kennedy, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, and that is what I need help on to verify that he did not, advocate for more exploration and developments in space. They all, like George W. Bush, saythings like "lets go, it the future", but fail to get the funding, the country behind them(on that issue), and so nothing really happens. I wonder if the one cheer is even warranted as this "vision" has been kicking around groups like this one for many years. Jay Huebner
_________________
John Kusumi
Email: john@...
# 19085 byAndrew Case on Jan. 15, 2004, 2:56 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Quick take on Bush's space initiative -- Evaluating a space proposal,
> we should look for vision, timetable, and funding. On this basis, I
> can say, "One cheer for the President's space plan."
>
> The goals and ambitions are laudable, leading to one cheer. The
> timetable is a joke, and the funding is a joke.
achieve. Any fool can say "let's go to Mars", but the project has to
survive changes of administration, changes in Congress, changes in the
economy and national priorities. Apollo survived *ONLY* because it was
a proxy for war with the Commies. Space enthusiasts need to get over
Apollo - it was an anomaly and it is never coming back. Attainable
goals will be attained. Pie in the sky fantasies will remain
fantasies. The timetable reflects reality, and the funding is adequate
to the task (large amounts of funding will be freed up as ISS nears
completion, and diverted to CEV).
> This plan could touch off a space race, and in that case, the plan is
> one of how to lose a space race.
There is ZERO chance of a space race. There is no cold war. It was a
historical anomaly. It's not coming back, and that's good - the cold
war caused enormous suffering.
> (A serious version of this plan would say, "Mars by 2020. NASA gets an
> immediate 60% raise in funding, with two more raises in 2010 and
> 2015.")
This plan would die the instant a new president was elected, probably
sooner, at the first congressional election. More money pissed down
the drain in search of unrealistic fantasies. If we'd followed the
Bush II plan after Apollo (and this plan *is* the logical follow on to
Apollo) we'd have a moonbase by now and probably flags and footprints
on Mars, with realistic plans for a Mars base. As is, everyone wants a
full court press for their pet project, so we get overambitious plans
that are politically unviable. This plan is politically viable, and
that is reason enough to support it. We've wasted 30 years on fantasy.
Let's do some real exploration, which means slow, careful, steady
progress, not revolutionary programs designed to show our superiority
over the commies.
> The President, while getting deserved credit for vision, should fix
> the timetable and funding in his plan. Absent that, we might conclude
> that the first human on Mars will be Chinese or Russian. Under this
> plan, they could beat us to Mars with 15 years to spare!
Good for them. Of course, there's exactly zero chance that they'll go
to Mars, because they don't have an exploration for exploration's sake
culture (either one). The only reason the Soviets ever went into space
in the first place was propaganda, and the only reason we went to the
moon was to rain on their parade. The side benefits were nice, but
there's a reason that of the 12 people who walked on the moon, only one
was a scientist.
This is the first thing to come out of the Bush White House that I
support 100%. Excellent job.
......Andrew
# 19086 bybabbler36 on Jan. 15, 2004, 5:13 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> > Quick take on Bush's space initiative -- Evaluating a space
proposal,
> > we should look for vision, timetable, and funding. On this basis,
I
> > can say, "One cheer for the President's space plan."
> >
> > The goals and ambitions are laudable, leading to one cheer. The
> > timetable is a joke, and the funding is a joke.
>
> Ambitions are modest, which is good. Modest ambitions are easier to
> achieve. Any fool can say "let's go to Mars", but the project has
to
> survive changes of administration, changes in Congress, changes in
the
> economy and national priorities. Apollo survived *ONLY* because it
was
> a proxy for war with the Commies. Space enthusiasts need to get
over
> Apollo - it was an anomaly and it is never coming back. Attainable
> goals will be attained. Pie in the sky fantasies will remain
> fantasies. The timetable reflects reality, and the funding is
adequate
> to the task (large amounts of funding will be freed up as ISS nears
> completion, and diverted to CEV).
> > This plan could touch off a space race, and in that case, the
plan is
> > one of how to lose a space race.
>
> There is ZERO chance of a space race. There is no cold war. It
was a
> historical anomaly. It's not coming back, and that's good - the
cold
> war caused enormous suffering.
Look, if space colonization occured during the Cold War, then the
space colonies would simply be a new front agianst the
Americans/Soviets. The USSR would have used such a program for
propangada which could have delayed the fall of communism. In fact,
space colonization could have sparked a hot war between the USSR and
USA, thus elemating one of the advantages of space colonization (long
term human surval)
> > (A serious version of this plan would say, "Mars by 2020. NASA
gets an
> > immediate 60% raise in funding, with two more raises in 2010 and
> > 2015.")
>
> This plan would die the instant a new president was elected,
probably
> sooner, at the first congressional election. More money pissed
down
> the drain in search of unrealistic fantasies. If we'd followed the
> Bush II plan after Apollo (and this plan *is* the logical follow on
to
> Apollo) we'd have a moonbase by now and probably flags and
footprints
> on Mars, with realistic plans for a Mars base. As is, everyone
wants a
> full court press for their pet project, so we get overambitious
plans
> that are politically unviable. This plan is politically viable,
and
> that is reason enough to support it. We've wasted 30 years on
fantasy.
> Let's do some real exploration, which means slow, careful, steady
> progress, not revolutionary programs designed to show our
superiority
> over the commies.
Agreed. Like an opinion on Space Daily said: "The space race was a
sprint. This has to be a marthon." And beside exporing, there should
be advances in technology as well.
> > The President, while getting deserved credit for vision, should
fix
> > the timetable and funding in his plan. Absent that, we might
conclude
> > that the first human on Mars will be Chinese or Russian. Under
this
> > plan, they could beat us to Mars with 15 years to spare!
>
> Good for them. Of course, there's exactly zero chance that they'll
go
> to Mars, because they don't have an exploration for exploration's
sake
> culture (either one). The only reason the Soviets ever went into
space
> in the first place was propaganda, and the only reason we went to
the
> moon was to rain on their parade. The side benefits were nice, but
> there's a reason that of the 12 people who walked on the moon, only
one
> was a scientist.
I am not sure about Russia, because they did sent exporers to
Siberia/Alaska.
> This is the first thing to come out of the Bush White House that I
> support 100%. Excellent job.
Almost redeams it in your eyes, don't it.
# 19087 byMitchell James on Jan. 15, 2004, 5:26 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
After having read the full text of his speech, I belive that the question that the President was trying to answer is "Why are we spending $15 Billion a year on NASA?". He wasn't trying to start a new national crash priority program. NASA was between projects which is a very bad time for NASA. It is difficult to justify their spending when there is not a current project underway. (The International Space Station development is winding down or is complete and it was dreamed up during the last between project period.) So I see this as nothing more than providing a reason for NASA's existence. Nothing to get excited about. It was mostly to keep the congress from cutting the current budget.
Mitchell James
The goals and ambitions are laudable, leading to one cheer. The timetable is a joke, and the funding is a joke. This plan could touch off a space race, and in that case, the plan is one of how to lose a space race. (A serious version of this plan would say, "Mars by 2020. NASA gets an immediate 60% raise in funding, with two more raises in 2010 and 2015.") The President, while getting deserved credit for vision, should fix the timetable and funding in his plan. Absent that, we might conclude that the first human on Mars will be Chinese or Russian. Under this plan, they could beat us to Mars with 15 years to spare!
_________________
John Kusumi
Email: john@...
# 19088 byHuebner, Jay on Jan. 15, 2004, 5:28 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
RE: "This is the first thing to come out of the Bush White House that I support 100%. "
It is far from clear to me what came out of the White House on this other than a photo-op. They are going to increase NASA's budget 5%, but mandate space craft that may not be possible to build, and put a date when ISS won't be supported (I guess no matter how useful it might be found to be). Was NASA not already considering another space craft and the Moon and Mars options? I like the 5% increase, is that what you agree with? What else? Jay Huebner
# 19089 byRyan Z on Jan. 15, 2004, 6:05 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
One of the things that get me is that this increase in
NASA's budget doesn't take into effect until 2005,
which means that only works if Bush gets re-elected.
things Bush has done which I fully supported, it
hasn't swayed my vote for him.
Ryan Z
# 19090 byJohn Kusumi on Jan. 15, 2004, 6:19 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
FY'05 will start in October'04, so Year 1 will happen even if Bush loses the
White House this year.
--jk
# 19091 byAndrew Case on Jan. 15, 2004, 10:35 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> RE: "This is the first thing to come out of the Bush White House that
> I support 100%. "
> It is far from clear to me what came out of the White House on this
> other than a photo-op.
the positives in his plan.
> They are going to increase NASA's budget 5%, but mandate space craft
> that may not be possible to build,
Why is CEV not possible to build? It's just a stretch Apollo capsule,
launched on an existing booster (like CRV/OSP), with a mission-specific
service module. It's a big step back from Shuttle, which is exactly
what is needed - It's not a truck, it's more of a Jeep. This gets NASA
out of the launcher development business (which it should never have
been in in the first place, but that's a different story).
> and put a date when ISS won't be supported (I guess no matter how
> useful it might be found to be).
If it's useful, let the administration in office at the time make the
call. Right now it's just a big money pit in the sky, producing little
science, and consuming resources. It will never live up to all the
promises, for basic reasons (like the high vibration environment). ISS
exists to keep Russian space scientists busy (i.e. not freelancing for
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.) and to provide a destination for the
shuttle. Those are the political realities that lead to it's being
funded in the first place, and the design reflects political, not
scientific, needs.
> Was NASA not already considering another space craft and the Moon and
> Mars options?
Nothing with a snowball's chance in hell of being funded over the
necessary timescale. Also many of the Mars concepts involved nuclear
propulsion or power, which simply isn't politically viable (note that
Bush's pro-nucular stance isn't in the critical path of the RTTM plan,
another reason to like it, since it increases political viability).
NASA has had fantasies about Mars since before Apollo 11, but they all
depend on Apollo levels of funding (or more), which are never coming
back.
> I like the 5% increase, is that what you agree with? What else? Jay
> Huebner
I don't think there's a need for even 5%. Money will be freed up as
ISS nears completion (the ISS spending hump is already past), and
additional money will be freed up when Shuttle is retired. The
remainder of the funds could be found by streamlining and eliminating
useless duplication (which is not to suggest all duplication is useless
- sometimes it creates competition which is very positive in driving
down costs and encouraging innovation). The main obstacles to shaking
money out of the cobwebs are political, so the additional funds are
helpful since it reduces the need for political fights. The main money
sink in the short term will be development of CEV, which will come
entirely from OSP, plus the 5%.
Major increases in funding just makes NASA a more attractive target
when budgets have to be cut and powerful people have pet projects they
want to protect. Fat budgets will take a bigger hit than lean ones.
Keeping NASA at close to level funding will make it much less likely to
get hit with budget cuts - every time there's a major cut, things have
to be redesigned, often from scratch - that's what kept happening to
Space Station Freedom, one of the reasons it never went anywhere
(despite spending huge gobs of cash). The only way ISS got built was
because it was turned into a foreign policy/national security issue on
top of everything else, and even then the budget got jerked around,
slowing things down and wasting money.
Slow and steady wins the race.
......Andrew
# 19092 byPaul D. Fernhout on Jan. 16, 2004, 8:03 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> After having read the full text of his speech, I belive that the
> question that the President was trying to answer is "Why are we spending
> $15 Billion a year on NASA?". He wasn't trying to start a new national
> crash priority program. NASA was between projects which is a very bad
> time for NASA. It is difficult to justify their spending when there is
> not a current project underway. (The International Space Station
> development is winding down or is complete and it was dreamed up during
> the last between project period.) So I see this as nothing more than
> providing a reason for NASA's existence. Nothing to get excited about.
> It was mostly to keep the congress from cutting the current budget.
> The most interesting part of the address was the reference to using
> lunar resources. It maybe that all the organizations pushing this are
> having some effect.
> Mitchell James
other programs Bush praises and then cuts, maybe this is very bad news
for NASA. See for example:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_559_01.html
"But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type
scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it
(AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and
cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to
praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000,
Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund
LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way
to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high
fuel bills." He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as
people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to
death. Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it.
In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the
nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already
cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry
executive to run the agency."
Some people are suggesting this new space proposal is a trojan horse
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61937,00.html%3Ftw%3Dwn_tophead_3
(see second page in the article)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61937-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
"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. ... 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."
So, NASA can now kill the shuttle and ISS (good riddance I'd say in some
respects compared to expendable rockets or other old/new launch ideas
and true habitats or at least experiments on rotating structures) and
shut down various other NASA centers as part of a reorganization -- but
in the end nothing will replace them (and a chunk of NASA's budget then
can get reduced or reallocated to other government agencies). [The one
really good thing about the ISS is as a forum for international
cooperation, but I think the costs is much higher than other
alternatives...]
By the way, it is just so frustrating to me that so many people are
talking about spending so much money to land on Mars when the same
amount of money spent on realizing self-replicating space habitats etc.
could give us them plus then Mars on the cheap as an afterthought. There
is such a disconnect between whim and practicality here in all these
space activity advocates. Why have we [meaning anyone ever connected
with SSI in any way etc.] so failed to educate scientists and the public
about the future of humanity in space [too busy fighting over SSPS?] --
why has Zubrin etc. so captivated mindshare with comparatively
impoverished goals of flags and footprints? Yes, I guess Zubrin builds
on sci-fi novels which are mostly based on planets, particularly pulp
sci-fi about Mars, but it is so sad. Get real, a few people spend years
in a tiny capsule to Mars and back for one trip for a trillion dollars?
When we could have that for cheap if we already had habitats (starting
with near Earth asteroid materials)? Even just look at the stupid
physics -- everyone going on now about how it is cheaper in terms of
less gravity to overcome to launch to Mars from the Moon than from the
Earth -- when it is cheapest to start such a mission from being in space
apart from on any surface. In high orbit (or L5), you are half way to
anywhere. What a difficult planet-centered mindset to deal with. [Having
said that, I can probably still see value in a lunar mass driver and
related operations as essentially a mining operation, although I think
launches of raw material [not people!] from Earth by mass drivers or
equivalent are also possible substitutes (essentially, streams of BBs
launched into space as 100Gs from a mountain top mass driver or cannon
and collected in space somehow [electrostatics?]).]
By the way, this I think is one reason the US can't afford space
exploration -- obsolete technology such as poorly insulated housing
wasting money:
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzoil0116,0,6779804.story?coll=ny-business-headlines
"Dealers say many homeowners are finding burners simply cannot keep up
with the heat loss that occurs in single digit temperatures, either
because of underinsulated walls, leaky windows and doors or the heating
plant is not powerful enough for the home's size. "Many houses aren't
built for this type of cold," said Mike Mahlstedt, of Advance Fuel
Service in Wantagh."
Many other US processes are wasteful as well -- especially inefficient
cars, but also a heavily subsidized fossil fuel dependent non-"organic"
agriculture. So I'd say, help people rebuild their homes, cars, farms,
etc., and then use the hundreds of billions in annual cost savings
(after a decade to recoup the investment) of avoided energy use to fund
space settlement.
The point overall -- as a society we need to look at our investment
strategies in new technologies. Given the long time scales of space
exploration and huge costs to do things in an ass-backwards way (Mars
mission before thinking about self-replicating space settlements), it
makes more sense to make things work here on Earth first, and then use
the surplus in a decade or so to have ventures in space. I think it more
likely that many trillions spent on Earth on advancing consumer
technologies (like nanotech insulation) will provide a big boost to
technology that can be used in space as opposed to hoping a few tens of
billions on space technology will provide a big boost to on Earth
systems. After all, we didn't get *really* fancy portable computers like
the Zaurus from NASA, but from incremental commercial research aimed at
cutting costs and increasing quality. Maybe the whole "NASA spinoffs"
thing is a lot of hype, covering up a lack of R&D in basic research by
the rest of society? Perhaps NASA would be better doing what it can
using more off the shelf technology (like the IBM ThinkPads used on the
shuttle)? Of course IMHO the government should fund more open source /
freely non-patented consumer oriented R&D such as in insulation, PV,
nanotech, home food production, etc. and I guess the fear is that
without NASA or DARPA the US government won't fund much technology R&D
at all (outside of NIST, who I think do really cool stuff!). It doesn't
help that NASA tries to sell many of its innovations (patents and
copyrights) to businesses, forcing the public to pay twice for them.
Personally I do think NASA can be innovative when it operates the right
way -- and the 1980 summer study on "Advanced Automation for Space
Missions" was an example
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
It is too bad NASA always seems hobbled from moving forward with that
1980 idea -- although from talking with NASA people around NASA's
automation program at the SSI conferences, I think the "mars bug" is
helping keep innovation down as NASA (as well as an ill-informed
Congress and misguided "golden fleece" awards). So, I might suggest a
"Mars Flu" (as opposed to "Mars Bug") is one of the things consistently
keeping the US space effort on the wrong path. Stuff like that a long
time ago and it is a hard message to get across, see for example my
1996/11/16 usenet post "Is Zubrin's Mars & space science correct and
complete?" and related comments:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th4310d7c921cc14&rnum=1
To be clear -- this is not to say I think visiting Mars or living there
if you are so inclined is wrong -- just that it is a very expensive
hobby which should happen after a core self-replicating industry exists
in space based on asteroids or lunar materials and sunlight (and that
space industry might best flow out of being able to use similar
technology already on Earth to resolve potential resource conflicts).
--Paul Fernhout
# 19093 byPaul D. Fernhout on Jan. 16, 2004, 8:03 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> After having read the full text of his speech, I belive that the
> question that the President was trying to answer is "Why are we spending
> $15 Billion a year on NASA?". He wasn't trying to start a new national
> crash priority program. NASA was between projects which is a very bad
> time for NASA. It is difficult to justify their spending when there is
> not a current project underway. (The International Space Station
> development is winding down or is complete and it was dreamed up during
> the last between project period.) So I see this as nothing more than
> providing a reason for NASA's existence. Nothing to get excited about.
> It was mostly to keep the congress from cutting the current budget.
> The most interesting part of the address was the reference to using
> lunar resources. It maybe that all the organizations pushing this are
> having some effect.
> Mitchell James
other programs Bush praises and then cuts, maybe this is very bad news
for NASA. See for example:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_559_01.html
"But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type
scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it
(AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and
cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to
praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000,
Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund
LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way
to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high
fuel bills." He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as
people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to
death. Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it.
In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the
nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already
cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry
executive to run the agency."
Some people are suggesting this new space proposal is a trojan horse
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61937,00.html%3Ftw%3Dwn_tophead_3
(see second page in the article)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61937-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
"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. ... 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."
So, NASA can now kill the shuttle and ISS (good riddance I'd say in some
respects compared to expendable rockets or other old/new launch ideas
and true habitats or at least experiments on rotating structures) and
shut down various other NASA centers as part of a reorganization -- but
in the end nothing will replace them (and a chunk of NASA's budget then
can get reduced or reallocated to other government agencies). [The one
really good thing about the ISS is as a forum for international
cooperation, but I think the costs is much higher than other
alternatives...]
By the way, it is just so frustrating to me that so many people are
talking about spending so much money to land on Mars when the same
amount of money spent on realizing self-replicating space habitats etc.
could give us them plus then Mars on the cheap as an afterthought. There
is such a disconnect between whim and practicality here in all these
space activity advocates. Why have we [meaning anyone ever connected
with SSI in any way etc.] so failed to educate scientists and the public
about the future of humanity in space [too busy fighting over SSPS?] --
why has Zubrin etc. so captivated mindshare with comparatively
impoverished goals of flags and footprints? Yes, I guess Zubrin builds
on sci-fi novels which are mostly based on planets, particularly pulp
sci-fi about Mars, but it is so sad. Get real, a few people spend years
in a tiny capsule to Mars and back for one trip for a trillion dollars?
When we could have that for cheap if we already had habitats (starting
with near Earth asteroid materials)? Even just look at the stupid
physics -- everyone going on now about how it is cheaper in terms of
less gravity to overcome to launch to Mars from the Moon than from the
Earth -- when it is cheapest to start such a mission from being in space
apart from on any surface. In high orbit (or L5), you are half way to
anywhere. What a difficult planet-centered mindset to deal with. [Having
said that, I can probably still see value in a lunar mass driver and
related operations as essentially a mining operation, although I think
launches of raw material [not people!] from Earth by mass drivers or
equivalent are also possible substitutes (essentially, streams of BBs
launched into space as 100Gs from a mountain top mass driver or cannon
and collected in space somehow [electrostatics?]).]
By the way, this I think is one reason the US can't afford space
exploration -- obsolete technology such as poorly insulated housing
wasting money:
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzoil0116,0,6779804.story?coll=ny-business-headlines
"Dealers say many homeowners are finding burners simply cannot keep up
with the heat loss that occurs in single digit temperatures, either
because of underinsulated walls, leaky windows and doors or the heating
plant is not powerful enough for the home's size. "Many houses aren't
built for this type of cold," said Mike Mahlstedt, of Advance Fuel
Service in Wantagh."
Many other US processes are wasteful as well -- especially inefficient
cars, but also a heavily subsidized fossil fuel dependent non-"organic"
agriculture. So I'd say, help people rebuild their homes, cars, farms,
etc., and then use the hundreds of billions in annual cost savings
(after a decade to recoup the investment) of avoided energy use to fund
space settlement.
The point overall -- as a society we need to look at our investment
strategies in new technologies. Given the long time scales of space
exploration and huge costs to do things in an ass-backwards way (Mars
mission before thinking about self-replicating space settlements), it
makes more sense to make things work here on Earth first, and then use
the surplus in a decade or so to have ventures in space. I think it more
likely that many trillions spent on Earth on advancing consumer
technologies (like nanotech insulation) will provide a big boost to
technology that can be used in space as opposed to hoping a few tens of
billions on space technology will provide a big boost to on Earth
systems. After all, we didn't get *really* fancy portable computers like
the Zaurus from NASA, but from incremental commercial research aimed at
cutting costs and increasing quality. Maybe the whole "NASA spinoffs"
thing is a lot of hype, covering up a lack of R&D in basic research by
the rest of society? Perhaps NASA would be better doing what it can
using more off the shelf technology (like the IBM ThinkPads used on the
shuttle)? Of course IMHO the government should fund more open source /
freely non-patented consumer oriented R&D such as in insulation, PV,
nanotech, home food production, etc. and I guess the fear is that
without NASA or DARPA the US government won't fund much technology R&D
at all (outside of NIST, who I think do really cool stuff!). It doesn't
help that NASA tries to sell many of its innovations (patents and
copyrights) to businesses, forcing the public to pay twice for them.
Personally I do think NASA can be innovative when it operates the right
way -- and the 1980 summer study on "Advanced Automation for Space
Missions" was an example
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
It is too bad NASA always seems hobbled from moving forward with that
1980 idea -- although from talking with NASA people around NASA's
automation program at the SSI conferences, I think the "mars bug" is
helping keep innovation down as NASA (as well as an ill-informed
Congress and misguided "golden fleece" awards). So, I might suggest a
"Mars Flu" (as opposed to "Mars Bug") is one of the things consistently
keeping the US space effort on the wrong path. It is sometimes a hard
message to get across; see for example my 1996/11/16 usenet post "Is
Zubrin's Mars & space science correct and complete?" and related comments:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th4310d7c921cc14&rnum=1
To be clear -- this is not to say I think visiting Mars or living there
if you are so inclined is wrong -- just that it is a very expensive
hobby which should happen after a core self-replicating industry exists
in space based on asteroids or lunar materials and sunlight (and that
space industry might best flow out of being able to use similar
technology already on Earth to resolve potential resource conflicts).
--Paul Fernhout
# 19094 byPaul D. Fernhout on Jan. 16, 2004, 8:08 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
(Sorry for the duplicate post, I cancelled the other one as it was being
sent for a typo but it got through anyway.)
# 19095 byHuebner, Jay on Jan. 16, 2004, 9:23 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
RE: " > They are going to increase NASA's budget 5%, but mandate space craft
> that may not be possible to build,
Why is CEV not possible to build? It's just a stretch Apollo capsule,
launched on an existing booster (like CRV/OSP), with a mission-specific
service module. "
It seems reasonably clear that Mr. G. W. Bush does not understand any of this, and also that his attention span is not long enough to listen to his advisors who presumably do.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner
# 19096 byAndrew Case on Jan. 16, 2004, 10:14 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> RE: " > They are going to increase NASA's budget 5%, but mandate
> space craft
>> that may not be possible to build,
> Why is CEV not possible to build? It's just a stretch Apollo capsule,
> launched on an existing booster (like CRV/OSP), with a mission-specific
> service module. "
>
> I hate to be tedious, but Apollo space craft could go to space and
> back once, so a new one was needed each time. Ditto the boosters.
how thick it needed to be, so they were cautious), so each capsule
could easily have been flown multiple times. The only major change
needed to make the capsule reusable a hundred times or so is either a
replaceable ablative heat shield or a shield made from shuttle type
tiles or RCC. The boosters can be ditched each time. That's the way
it works for satellite launches. Ideally there will be some innovation
aimed at dropping booster costs, but there's no need to make them
reusable. In the longer term it would be nice to have reusable
boosters, but there's no reason to put that on the critical path. The
less innovation in the critical path, the better.
> The Shuttle Orbiters were to be able to make the trip to low Earth
> orbit (only) perhaps 100 times, needing only new external fuel tanks.
...and a near complete rebuild after each flight. The amount of effort
expended getting a shuttle ready for reflight is greater than that
needed to build a new booster and mate it to a capsule. Capsules can
be made reusable much more easily, since they don't see the high total
heat loads of a lifting reentry.
> Having a space craft that would be efficient for going to the ISS and
> also the Moon would be like having an ocean liner that would work
> equally well for crossing a river, like the Mississippi, and also the
> Atlantic ocean. The details are tedious, and it looks easy on Star
> Trek, but no one who known about rockets or boats, would claim that it
> made sense to propose such a vehicle in the abstract. And clearly a
> "stretch Apollo" can not. It would not even be stable on the first
> reentry.
I think you are assuming the CEV would be an all in one - from
O'Keefe's discussion of it it's clear that the CEV would be a basic
life support vehicle with mission specific service modules, so it's
adaptable to different missions. You use a LEO maneuvering module for
ISS servicing, and a high delta-V module for Lunar missions. Almost
certainly there will either be a separate vehicle for lunar landings or
yet another service module for landings. The common element is the
life support section, which presumably includes provisions for reentry.
There is no need for one vehicle to perform all possible missions, but
there is a need for a vehicle family with commonalities that make it
flexible and adaptable.
As far as "stretch Apollo" being unstable on reentry - look at the OSP
brochure here
http://www.slinews.com/images/OSP_ill_HiRes_no_bkgnd.jpg> (warning:
huge picture). The vehicle in the lower left corner is the kind of
thing I'm talking about. It's almost certainly the kind of thing that
CEV will turn out to be. The propulsion module in the image is
suitable for LEO maneuvering. There's no reason it couldn't be swapped
out for a module capable of injection onto a lunar trajectory and
providing support services while working in lunar orbit (which will be
the first step). Now that we know how to do on orbit assembly there's
no reason not to assemble the lunar lander in lunar orbit. By avoiding
a big one size fits all vehicle we gain flexibility.
......Andrew
# 19097 byHuebner, Jay on Jan. 16, 2004, 10:25 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Sorry, but I have a hard time thinking of an Apollo capsule with a replaceable heat shield and the other geometrical modifications you mention to expand it capabilities and make it reusable as an Apollo capsule. You could call it that if you like, but it is really some thing else. And about landing. Is it still in the ocean? Not exactly what I expect W envisions for the Crew Return Vehicle that will replace the Shuttle.
I am going to bow out of this exchange. Jay Huebner
> space craft
>> that may not be possible to build,
> Why is CEV not possible to build? It's just a stretch Apollo capsule,
> launched on an existing booster (like CRV/OSP), with a mission-specific
> service module. "
>
> I hate to be tedious, but Apollo space craft could go to space and
> back once, so a new one was needed each time. Ditto the boosters.
Actually, the Apollo heat shield was overbuilt (they weren't certain
how thick it needed to be, so they were cautious), so each capsule
could easily have been flown multiple times. The only major change
needed to make the capsule reusable a hundred times or so is either a
replaceable ablative heat shield or a shield made from shuttle type
tiles or RCC. The boosters can be ditched each time. That's the way
it works for satellite launches. Ideally there will be some innovation
aimed at dropping booster costs, but there's no need to make them
reusable. In the longer term it would be nice to have reusable
boosters, but there's no reason to put that on the critical path. The
less innovation in the critical path, the better.
> The Shuttle Orbiters were to be able to make the trip to low Earth
> orbit (only) perhaps 100 times, needing only new external fuel tanks.
...and a near complete rebuild after each flight. The amount of effort
expended getting a shuttle ready for reflight is greater than that
needed to build a new booster and mate it to a capsule. Capsules can
be made reusable much more easily, since they don't see the high total
heat loads of a lifting reentry.
> Having a space craft that would be efficient for going to the ISS and
> also the Moon would be like having an ocean liner that would work
> equally well for crossing a river, like the Mississippi, and also the
> Atlantic ocean. The details are tedious, and it looks easy on Star
> Trek, but no one who known about rockets or boats, would claim that it
> made sense to propose such a vehicle in the abstract. And clearly a
> "stretch Apollo" can not. It would not even be stable on the first
> reentry.
I think you are assuming the CEV would be an all in one - from
O'Keefe's discussion of it it's clear that the CEV would be a basic
life support vehicle with mission specific service modules, so it's
adaptable to different missions. You use a LEO maneuvering module for
ISS servicing, and a high delta-V module for Lunar missions. Almost
certainly there will either be a separate vehicle for lunar landings or
yet another service module for landings. The common element is the
life support section, which presumably includes provisions for reentry.
There is no need for one vehicle to perform all possible missions, but
there is a need for a vehicle family with commonalities that make it
flexible and adaptable.
As far as "stretch Apollo" being unstable on reentry - look at the OSP
brochure here
http://www.slinews.com/images/OSP_ill_HiRes_no_bkgnd.jpg> (warning:
huge picture). The vehicle in the lower left corner is the kind of
thing I'm talking about. It's almost certainly the kind of thing that
CEV will turn out to be. The propulsion module in the image is
suitable for LEO maneuvering. There's no reason it couldn't be swapped
out for a module capable of injection onto a lunar trajectory and
providing support services while working in lunar orbit (which will be
the first step). Now that we know how to do on orbit assembly there's
no reason not to assemble the lunar lander in lunar orbit. By avoiding
a big one size fits all vehicle we gain flexibility.
......Andrew
# 19098 byMark Dennehy on Jan. 16, 2004, 5:48 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Ref:[Andrew Case, Thu, 15/01/04 @ 15:56 -0500]
> This is the first thing to come out of the Bush White House that I
> support 100%. Excellent job.
it would appear that we didn't wash the mushrooms enough
before eating them.
From http://www.brucegarrett.com/brucelog_2004_1_1.htm#b22
(The weblog of Bruce Garrett, an SSI employee working with
the Hubble)
"No more servicing missions to Hubble, as per the directive
of the current head of NASA, Sean O'Keefe.
Hubble has six guidance gyros. But they fail at fairly
regular and now predictable rates. Nearly every servicing
mission to Hubble has replaced gyros as part of the work
done. It needs three to do most of the science it now does,
although there is a scheme in the works to do a greatly
attenuated kind of science with two. We currently have four
working gyros. Expectations were that we would almost
certainly be down to two by the time the next servicing
mission occurred, and possibly even down to one. So, figure,
at around the time of what would have been the next servicing
mission, Hubble will probably be no more, or soon, very soon,
to expire.
Haven't heard yet about their final plans to control dump it.
Last I heard, the talk was that some sort of small retro
would be fitted to it via a shuttle mission, so it's re-entry
into earth's atmosphere could be controlled.
This is of a piece with Bush's directive, that anything that
doesn't support his new moon and mars missions is to be cut.
So likely Hubble won't be the only thing that does deep space
science that goes, and quite possibly some of the stuff that
does near earth science will also be trashcanned (like for
instance, all the stuff that provides data about that pesky
global warming that isn't supposed to be really happening...)
The end of an era in deep space exploration draws to a close.
The era of the total militarization of space dawns."
What's really annoying is that the $11 billion over five
years that is being cut from within NASA's budget for Bush's
plan comes to $2.2 billion a year - at a time when $3.5
billion is spent per year on mobile phone ringtones...
Mark Dennehy,
Computer Vision and Robotics Research Group,
Computer Science Dept., Trinity College Dublin
email: Mark.Dennehy@...
www: http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Mark.Dennehy
# 19099 byXenophile on Jan. 16, 2004, 10:43 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
The real reason Bush suddenly went Mars-happy?
Haliburton.
# 19100 byEd Minchau on Jan. 16, 2004, 10:53 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
--- In ssi_list@... "Xenophile"
> The real reason Bush suddenly went Mars-happy?
>
> http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html
>
> Haliburton.
drilling equipment. What's next? are they going to go to computer
companies to acquire their computers? or aerospace firms to acquire
their expendable rockets? the horror.
Ed
# 19101 byvictoriatangoman on Jan. 17, 2004, 5:59 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> The main obstacles to shaking money out of the cobwebs are
> political, so the additional funds are helpful since it reduces
> the need for political fights. The main money sink in the short
> term will be development of CEV, which will come entirely from
> OSP, plus the 5%.
bureaucrat!
You speak with a sense of rational management expectations.
I just had the unpleasant task of cleaving two company founders from
management roles in the company they founded. This had to be done
for rational reasons in order to preserve the company (and I could
go on . . .) but the same environmental constraints seem not to
apply to NASA. Government programs are run by different metrics than
what most people are familiar with.
"Johnson Space Center director Jefferson D. Howell Jr. told several
hundred employees Friday that their role, and the center's, will
still be important as NASA retools to fulfill President Bush's newly
announced goal of exploring Mars and beyond."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2358275
The order of the day will be to maintain the army of employees at
the NASA centers. My unsupported opinion is that jobs will be
developed that make use of existing skill sets rather than looking
for people with needed skill sets. This type of approach will steer
the programs at NASA towards inefficiency. Yes, I know it's hard to
believe that I used inefficiency and NASA in the same sentence :)
"Possible targets for cuts, expected to produce $11 billion during
the next five years, include the orbital space plane and long-term
shuttle improvement programs, Howell said."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2358275
Hmm, the cut's seem to be from programs that aren't funded and don't
have existing constitutencies. There's not much pain there.
"Florida politicians and the director of the Kennedy Space Center
are reassuring local workers that President Bush's new space policy
will create more opportunities, not eliminate jobs."
http://www.baynews9.com/site/NewsStory.cfm?storyid=31689
That's a nice spin.
"Instead, they say the void left by the shuttle, could be filled by
processing and perhaps manufacturing of new vehicles needed to
travel to the moon and beyond."
http://www.baynews9.com/site/NewsStory.cfm?storyid=31689
So that army of KSC workers needed for the shuttle will be needed
for the new program. Yeah, design a program to use all the workers
rather than designing a program to meet other objectives and then
determining how many workers you'll need to operate the program.
"Bridges did not provide many details of how the plan would affect
Langley's $723 million-a-year budget and 3,800-person work force."
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%
2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid31773152352&path=!
news&s45855934842
The interesting battles to observe will be between the different
NASA centers as they poach from each other in order to maintain
workforce and status.
"A proposed new spaceship might not fly with astronauts until 2014,
potentially creating a four-year gap in human space flights from
Florida."
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/011704moonplan.h
tm
What will all those workers do in this interrum? Be laid off? I'd be
surprised.
"Moreover, there is no firm guarantee the new Crew Exploration
Vehicle -- which will ferry astronauts to the station and the moon --
will launch from KSC or Cape Canaveral Air Force Station."
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/011704moonplan.h
tm
You want to wager on that?
"But neither the president nor NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe
identified a single job, program or facility that might be affected."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7716847.htm
How can the budget specifics be worked out if the intermediate steps
leading to the result haven't yet been conceptualized?
They probably have but the politics has yet to play itself out with
respect to which centers will take which job and mission cuts. The
broad strokes have been painted without looking at the specific
missions to be cut.
"Restructuring NASA, traditionally a major source of political
patronage, could trigger a fight in Congress. Bush's plan was
attacked Wednesday by Democrats, environmentalists and arms control
groups, who asserted it would militarize space."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7716847.htm
Here we go.
"Any number of programs that previously were considered politically
untouchable could be threatened. McCurdy said such NASA facilities
as the Ames Research Center in Sunnyvale, Calif., the Glenn Research
Center in Cleveland, the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and
even the Langley Research Center in Norfolk, Va., could be
vulnerable to cutbacks or outright closure. Details of the Bush plan
will be unveiled next month as part of the 2005 budget."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7716847.htm
""It's not a serious proposal," he said, noting that the
administration plans to pump only $200 million a year extra into the
agency over five years, or less than half the amount that is spent
each time the space shuttle is a launched. "Bush wants to be seen as
the guy who came up with the idea, and let someone else worry about
it."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7716847.htm
Yeah, I think Bush is looking for a legacy like that which we
attribute to JFK.
"Just days after taking office in 2002, O'Keefe riled NASA
supporters by saying that no program or center was immune from cuts
or closures. With a reputation as a longtime Republican budget-
cutter, O'Keefe was one of the harshest critics of the agency before
he was tapped for its top post."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7716847.htm
The question is whether O'Keefe has been captured by the
bureaucracy? Does he have the fight within him to do battle against
the entrenched interests, be they politicians, contractors, center
administrators, or even organized employees. The easiest thing to do
is to go with the flow, especially if you've learned anything at all
from the politicians, so that you have an easy ride today and put
the problems off to a future administrator (of in Bush's case, a
future President and Congress who have to fund the Bush Vision.)
TangoMan
# 19102 byAndrew Case on Jan. 18, 2004, 9:10 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
>> The main obstacles to shaking money out of the cobwebs are
>> political, so the additional funds are helpful since it reduces
>> the need for political fights. The main money sink in the short
>> term will be development of CEV, which will come entirely from
>> OSP, plus the 5%.
>
> You sure speak with the voice of someone who isn't a politician or a
> bureaucrat!
>
> You speak with a sense of rational management expectations.
gobs of throwing additional money at them in pursuit of a Mars mission
is a bad idea. There are a variety of things that will happen in the
next few years, but the limited goals ensure that we won't have another
X-33 fiasco.
>
> The order of the day will be to maintain the army of employees at
> the NASA centers. My unsupported opinion is that jobs will be
> developed that make use of existing skill sets rather than looking
> for people with needed skill sets. This type of approach will steer
> the programs at NASA towards inefficiency.
Yet another reason this plan is as good as can reasonably be expected -
it develops a minimum of new technology, so the existing skill set
within NASA should be sufficient. The reason I like this plan is
precisely that it doesn't expect NASA to suddenly turn around and
become what it's always claimed it was, an organization of super-smart
people selflessly dedicated to opening the universe for all mankind.
This plan is good precisely because it works with what's available.
> Hmm, the cut's seem to be from programs that aren't funded and don't
> have existing constitutencies. There's not much pain there.
So they'll stick, and opposition will not be enough to turn things
around halfway through the program. It's a feature, not a bug.
> So that army of KSC workers needed for the shuttle will be needed
> for the new program. Yeah, design a program to use all the workers
> rather than designing a program to meet other objectives and then
> determining how many workers you'll need to operate the program.
How can you possibly imagine that any other alternative is politically
viable? Fire a few thousand people at KSC and congress will shut the
program down in a hearbeat. The only way NASA will shrink is through
attrition and small cuts. There is no way to make it really efficient
thanks to the facts of life in government bureaucracy, so the best hope
is to try and get something useful done within an inefficient system,
and perhaps gradually work some of the inefficiencies out.
> They probably have but the politics has yet to play itself out with
> respect to which centers will take which job and mission cuts. The
> broad strokes have been painted without looking at the specific
> missions to be cut.
That's appropriate at this stage. The details will be filled in later.
Making a comprehensive plan now would be a fool's errand.
This plan is good because it isn't extremely visionary. That is what
makes it politically viable. Be clear on this - I don't support this
plan out of a sense that it's the best possibly in an ideal world - I
support it because it's workable in the profoundly flawed system that
currently exists, and it doesn't threaten the independent startups who
are the real hope for getting each of us personally into space.
......Andrew
# 19103 byvictoriatangoman on Jan. 18, 2004, 5:45 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> > Hmm, the cut's seem to be from programs that aren't funded and
> > don't have existing constitutencies. There's not much pain
> > there.
> around halfway through the program. It's a feature, not a bug.
It's neither a feature nor a bug, it is simply smoke and mirrors. To
identify a cut from a proposed program as a signal of intent shows
lack of conviction. Perhaps I'm just coming off a hard week where I
had to make some tough decisions and I'm in no mood for the typical
order of the day from Washington, namely status quo = NASA jobs
machine.
> > So that army of KSC workers needed for the shuttle will be needed
> > for the new program. Yeah, design a program to use all the
> > workers rather than designing a program to meet other objectives
> > and then determining how many workers you'll need to operate the
> > program.
> How can you possibly imagine that any other alternative is
> politically viable? Fire a few thousand people at KSC and
> congress will shut the program down in a hearbeat.
What do you think is going to be going on for the 3-4 year launch
hiatus?
It is quite feasible to play off the congressman from one NASA
district that is losing jobs against another, or better yet, a few,
congressmen from other districts that will gain jobs. Thus you
reduce the reduntant skill sets and superfluous staffing levels and
replace them with needed new skill sets.
A large part of my frustration with NASA has to do with this very
process of protecting jobs rather than fulfilling a national goal,
hence all of the quotes I linked to that trotted out front and
center the goal of preserving the jobs.
> That's appropriate at this stage. The details will be filled in
> later. Making a comprehensive plan now would be a fool's errand.
I don't know whether you've been involved in any budgeting decisions
but to set a budget first and then to set the goal sets you up for
not having enough resources to fulfill the goal.
> Be clear on this - I don't support this plan out of a sense that
> it's the best possibly in an ideal world - I support it because
> it's workable in the profoundly flawed system that currently
> exists, and it doesn't threaten the independent startups who are
> the real hope for getting each of us personally into space.
>
> ......Andrew
Well, I'm pretty much in agreement with your assessment and the best
hope for the future but I'm more pessimistic about the viability of
this plan because of the dysfunction in the process (politics) and
the means of execution (NASA.)
Taking into account the process that is required I think that a
better goal could have been set that would still have preserved the
jobs. I don't understand the rationale for a limited moonbase and
Mars fly-by other than as an extended flags & footprint mission that
satisfies public thirst for theater.
TangoMan