The Bush Space Policy

Speaking of space policies, we know that the White House (with some input
from Congress, NASA, and others) is working on one. They've already leaked
that a return to the Moon is a component of it.

Based on what I've gleaned from certain media and private sources (the
latter consists of people who know people who know other people who may have
talked to some guy), levened with wild assed guesses based on my
understanding of how this administration works and what its philosophy is.

(1) There will be a return to the Moon effort that will envison the first
landing taking place in five to seven years. The effort will combine the
resources of NASA, DOD (mainly the Missile Defense folks), DOE, academia,
and the private sector and will have technology R&D as its main focus.

(2) Mars will be given a nod, but no commitment. There'll probably be a plus
up of techynology development, including Prometheus. The working target,
though, will be an expedition sometime in late 2010s.

(3) Lots of commerical incentives, including tax breaks, regulation reliefs,
and buying services.

(4) Return to flight of the shuttle certainly, but a date certain when it
will be retired (2012 is my guess) in it's current form. We'll see a shuttle
derived SHLV built out of shuttle parts, though.

(5) ISS to go to six plus people and be used primarily for biomedical
research to support deep space missions.

(6) NASA's budget will start going up at a sustainable rate of five to seven
percent (that's $750 million to a billion for starters.)

(7) Aeronautics will be spun off to it's own agency. Earth observation goes
to NOAA. There'll be other efforts to reorg NASA and make it run better.

(8) The effort to develop some kind of alternate way to get people into LEO
will be revamped (again). My suspician is that part of it will include
expanding the alternate access program to carrying people as well as cargo.
OSP will probably still get built, but a version of it will be envisioned as
part of the Back to the Moon effort, thus spreading the cost around.

My guess is that unlike the last Bush, the current Bush is being very
careful to bring in Congress and NASA in the planning process for the
proposal. Therefore, unlike last time, it will pass largely intact.

Not that there won't be complaints. The libertarians will surely find some
reason to hate it; their mantra will be predictable. The left will not need
a reason to hate it; George Bush will have proposed it. It will hurt
children and other living things, they will say. Yet, while the product,
having been developed by falliable human beings, will not be perfect, it
will be good enough to advance the expansion of human beings into space and
will therefore be worthy of support.

In a few weeks, we'll find out how right (or wrong) I am. If the latter
then--well--never mind.




--
Mark R. Whittington
http://curmudgeons.blogspot.com
Co-author of Nocturne, a Novel of Suspense
http://www.xlibris.com/nocturne.html
Author of Children of Apollo
http://www.xlibris.com/childrenofapollo.html

In article k.net,
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
(1) There will be a return to the Moon effort that will envison the first
landing taking place in five to seven years. The effort will combine the
resources of NASA, DOD (mainly the Missile Defense folks), DOE, academia,
and the private sector and will have technology R&D as its main focus.

The first and second sentences of that paragraph are incompatible. If you
want a landing in 5-7 years -- a tighter schedule than Apollo!!! -- there
can be *NO* technology R&D involved, because it will have to be done as a
crash program and there simply will be no time to develop new technology
and incorporate it. The basic design will have to be frozen in a year or
so, and even the technological details will have to be settled and stable
within about two years, barring any changes demanded by development
problems. It would have to be done with today's technology. Even so,
that is a very tight schedule for development and testing (in fact, an
impossible one for today's NASA, let alone for an unwieldy coalition of
agencies and other groups).

Even Apollo did not intend to go beyond 1961 technology except in two
small areas (the CM heatshield, and supercritical helium storage for tank
pressurization in the LM descent stage), where it was thought unavoidable.
In practice, they did end up pioneering in a couple more places out of
unanticipated necessity.

I consider all of this grossly implausible for this Administration, by the
way. I'd predict an official goal of a return to the Moon, but with no
deadline and no extra money -- essentially a public-relations exercise,
giving NASA an official direction and thus answering recent criticisms of
aimlessness, but without investing serious political capital in a real
commitment to getting results. There simply isn't enough political gain
to be had from it. This is not 1961.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

I think Bush's space policy is "don't ask, don't tell".;-)

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
[snip]

I consider all of this grossly implausible for this Administration, by the
way. I'd predict an official goal of a return to the Moon, but with no
deadline and no extra money -- essentially a public-relations exercise,
giving NASA an official direction and thus answering recent criticisms of
aimlessness, but without investing serious political capital in a real
commitment to getting results. There simply isn't enough political gain
to be had from it. This is not 1961.

I agree. I think the whole Man Beyond LEO talk right now is because
the chineese seem to have this crazy idea of putting a man on the moon
and returning him (or not) to the Earth by July 2019, knowing that the
USA would not have the commitment for a rerun of Apollo until too late
(like Elections 2016 or even 2020).

So, to be sure that if the plans for a 50th Apollo 11 flight to prove
that China can do something the US can't come to reality, Bush wants
to put NASA on the backburner with some Moon stuff to cook, just so
that if the needs be, it can be brought up front more quicly.

That's my .2 cents ($CDN or $US does not make a difference in vending
machines)

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
(1) There will be a return to the Moon effort that will envison the first
landing taking place in five to seven years. The effort will combine the
resources of NASA, DOD (mainly the Missile Defense folks), DOE, academia,
and the private sector and will have technology R&D as its main focus.

The first and second sentences of that paragraph are incompatible. If you
want a landing in 5-7 years -- a tighter schedule than Apollo!!! -- there
can be *NO* technology R&D involved, because it will have to be done as a
crash program and there simply will be no time to develop new technology
and incorporate it. The basic design will have to be frozen in a year or
so, and even the technological details will have to be settled and stable
within about two years, barring any changes demanded by development
problems. It would have to be done with today's technology. Even so,
that is a very tight schedule for development and testing (in fact, an
impossible one for today's NASA, let alone for an unwieldy coalition of
agencies and other groups).

Even Apollo did not intend to go beyond 1961 technology except in two
small areas (the CM heatshield, and supercritical helium storage for tank
pressurization in the LM descent stage), where it was thought unavoidable.
In practice, they did end up pioneering in a couple more places out of
unanticipated necessity.

I consider all of this grossly implausible for this Administration, by the
way. I'd predict an official goal of a return to the Moon, but with no
deadline and no extra money -- essentially a public-relations exercise,
giving NASA an official direction and thus answering recent criticisms of
aimlessness, but without investing serious political capital in a real
commitment to getting results. There simply isn't enough political gain
to be had from it. This is not 1961.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |


Much of the time spent on Apollo was learning the art of space travel
(rendeavouz, docking, space walking, etc) which we will not have to relearn
for a new effort.

The first and second sentences of that paragraph are incompatible. If you
want a landing in 5-7 years -- a tighter schedule than Apollo!!! -- there
can be *NO* technology R&D involved, because it will have to be done as a
crash program and there simply will be no time to develop new technology
and incorporate it. The basic design will have to be frozen in a year or
so, and even the technological details will have to be settled and stable
within about two years, barring any changes demanded by development
problems.

So, if the goal is to return to the Moon, no R&D is needed. We simply have to
build what we have built before.

I consider all of this grossly implausible for this Administration, by the
way. I'd predict an official goal of a return to the Moon, but with no
deadline and no extra money -- essentially a public-relations exercise,

No extra money is required for a return to the Moon if you are willing to
redirect money away from other programs like the Shuttle. Keep the goal focused
on a return to the Moon and eventually NASA will have to get there or explain
what not. Every year people will ask what progress NASA has made toward a
return to the Moon and NASA will have to give an answer, if the answer is a
stupid one, then NASA will be held to account. We won't accept answers like
whether an astronaut can swallow in space for example.

giving NASA an official direction and thus answering recent criticisms of
aimlessness, but without investing serious political capital in a real
commitment to getting results.

The political capital is to demonstrate that America is back on the Moon and
ready to go forward from there. If George Bush doesn't do it, then somebody
else will and call George Bush a wimp. The Chinese will trump us and call us a
has-been declining power and that China is the wave of the future and some
other countries may believe them.

TKalbfus ) wrote:
: The first and second sentences of that paragraph are incompatible. If you
: want a landing in 5-7 years -- a tighter schedule than Apollo!!! -- there
: can be *NO* technology R&D involved, because it will have to be done as a
: crash program and there simply will be no time to develop new technology
: and incorporate it. The basic design will have to be frozen in a year or
: so, and even the technological details will have to be settled and stable
: within about two years, barring any changes demanded by development
: problems.

: So, if the goal is to return to the Moon, no R&D is needed. We simply have to
: build what we have built before.

: I consider all of this grossly implausible for this Administration, by the
: way. I'd predict an official goal of a return to the Moon, but with no
: deadline and no extra money -- essentially a public-relations exercise,

: No extra money is required for a return to the Moon if you are willing to
: redirect money away from other programs like the Shuttle. Keep the goal focused
: on a return to the Moon and eventually NASA will have to get there or explain
: what not. Every year people will ask what progress NASA has made toward a
: return to the Moon and NASA will have to give an answer, if the answer is a
: stupid one, then NASA will be held to account. We won't accept answers like
: whether an astronaut can swallow in space for example.

NASA does more than just manned space. What of deep space and near earth
unmanned probes? Scrap all that while we go manned again back to he moon?

: giving NASA an official direction and thus answering recent criticisms of
: aimlessness, but without investing serious political capital in a real
: commitment to getting results.

: The political capital is to demonstrate that America is back on the Moon and
: ready to go forward from there. If George Bush doesn't do it, then somebody
: else will and call George Bush a wimp. The Chinese will trump us and call us a
: has-been declining power and that China is the wave of the future and some
: other countries may believe them.

So what? Do we react to what they say or have our own vision? It seems
silly to allow another country dictate what we do. We shouldn't go back to
the moon just because the Chinese plan to go. Let them do it and them do
it better.

Eric

In article .net,
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
The first and second sentences of that paragraph are incompatible. If you
want a landing in 5-7 years -- a tighter schedule than Apollo!!! -- there
can be *NO* technology R&D involved, because it will have to be done as a
crash program and there simply will be no time to develop new technology
and incorporate it...

Much of the time spent on Apollo was learning the art of space travel
(rendeavouz, docking, space walking, etc) which we will not have to relearn
for a new effort.

Sorry, I'm afraid it's not that easy. Apollo hardware development -- most
notably, that of the LM -- was the pacing item throughout. Apollo flew as
soon as its hardware was ready; in particular, there was an LM on Apollo 9
but not on Apollo 8 only because the first man-rated LM wasn't ready in
time for Apollo 8. Once the LM was ready, its checkout flight, the full
dress rehearsal, and the landing itself followed in fast succession. (Not
that the LM was the only problem; it was just the "long pole in the tent",
which gave everybody else time to get caught up.)

Yes, a lot of work had to be done developing rendezvous, and to some
extent spacewalks (although note that much of the trouble with spacewalks
was due to free fall, not an issue for moonwalks). But Apollo did not
wait for that to be done; hardware development went ahead full speed, on
the assumption that those problems could be solved somehow. Indeed, Apollo
flew with workarounds for some of them, e.g. the LM was originally supposed
to be the active partner for docking, for several reasons, but that proved
impractically difficult and was abandoned except as an emergency procedure.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

So what? Do we react to what they say or have our own vision? It seems
silly to allow another country dictate what we do. We shouldn't go back to
the moon just because the Chinese plan to go. Let them do it and them do
it better.

Eric

And we can spend 20 billion dollars on philosopy, so say that the Chinese
accomplishments mean nothing anyway and hope that will convince somebody.
Meanwhile the Chinese will colonize the Moon and Mars while we continue to try
and convince ourselves that this is not really important. Is that what you
want?

Tom

Henry Spencer writes:

In article k.net,
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
(1) There will be a return to the Moon effort that will envison the first
landing taking place in five to seven years. The effort will combine the
resources of NASA, DOD (mainly the Missile Defense folks), DOE, academia,
and the private sector and will have technology R&D as its main focus.

The first and second sentences of that paragraph are incompatible. If you
want a landing in 5-7 years -- a tighter schedule than Apollo!!! -- there
can be *NO* technology R&D involved, because it will have to be done as a
crash program and there simply will be no time to develop new technology
and incorporate it. The basic design will have to be frozen in a year or
so, and even the technological details will have to be settled and stable
within about two years, barring any changes demanded by development
problems.

I note that the preceding quote doesn't specify that the first landing will be
manned. If the first landing is an unmanned pathfinder, the schedule is
practical.

The true schedule constraint is funding. There is no practical chance of
anything like the peak year funding of the Apollo era, and shuttle and ISS
competing for what funding there is.

Will McLean