Bush's speech: a load of wishful thinking

The bottom line of Bush's space speech is that it is a load of wishful
thinking. They're going to build a moon base, but not while Bush is
president. They're going to retire the space shuttle and "complete"
the space station, but not while Bush is president. There will be a new
"crew exploration vehicle", but it will not fly astronauts while
Bush is president. Who knows how much it will all eventually cost,
but it will only be $1 billion in new money in the next five years.
Somehow $11 billion will be taken out of existing programs, although
it's not clear which ones. Maybe existing programs will just be renamed.

Basically the space plan is designed to promise as much as possible
while actually changing as little as possible. It will not improve
either the budget deficit or space exploration while Bush is president.
His successors will probably scrap or postpone most of the plan. If you
really expect a moon base to come out of this, forget it: Bush made no
sincere commitment. In any case, there is very little for astronauts to
do on the moon relative to the cost of sending them. Sincere commitment
would soon fall prey to bemusement, even boredom.

Personally I think that the best possible use of Bush's space policy
would be as an exit strategy for the pathetic space shuttle and even more
pathetic space station. But I don't know if it really come to that.
It's nice that robotic space science will continue under the guise
of "exploration missions". Hopefully the "crew exploration vehicle"
will not be yet another fiscal cancer like the shuttle and the station.
Still, space science, even though it is very respectable, is no sacred
cow for me, or for most scientists.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

January 15, 2004

Greg Kuperberg wrote:

Still, space science, even though it is very respectable, is no sacred
cow for me, or for most scientists.

And, of course, you are the designated spokesman for most of those 'other'
scientists?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

The bottom line of Bush's space speech is that it is a load of wishful
thinking. They're going to build a moon base, but not while Bush is
president.

Unless they repeal the 2 term Presidential Limit. Would you like them to do
that? If so, there's no reason why the President can't serve three or four
terms, giving him time to complete these objectives while he's in office, he's
certainly young enough.

They're going to retire the space shuttle and "complete"
the space station, but not while Bush is president.

The deadline is 2010, but it could be completed before then.

There will be a new
"crew exploration vehicle", but it will not fly astronauts while
Bush is president.

Its scheduled to fly on 2008, so its possible the CEV will be completed before
George Bush leaves office. What would you prefer? Just have the CEV and nothing
else?

Who knows how much it will all eventually cost,
but it will only be $1 billion in new money in the next five years.
Somehow $11 billion will be taken out of existing programs, although
it's not clear which ones.

NASA is already working on projects with applications toward a manned Moon
Base, those will stay and be counted toward part of the Manned Program. Further
missions to the outer planets might be curtailed, then there is the Aerospace
Research that might be reassigned to the Air Force, that will leave billions in
NASA's budget for the manned space program. I could easily see justification
for the Air Force to work on Scram Jets instead of NASA.

Basically the space plan is designed to promise as much as possible
while actually changing as little as possible.

It is designed to change NASA's course to manned Lunar and Mars exploration
from mindless shuttle missions. The Space Shuttle has done all it can anyway,
further shuttle missions after the ISS is complete is pointless.

It will not improve
either the budget deficit or space exploration while Bush is president.

But it will stimulate the economy and help prop up the high tech manufacturing
sector. The name of the game is to get the economy producing jobs once again,
and your Herbert Hoover-like budget balancing won't do this. Currently
countries like China have a cost advantage over us, and so manufacturing is
shifted to there from here. If we are not careful, we may lose our
technological edge, a big manned space program will help maintain our
technological edge over economic forces that would have us move manufacturing
off-shore. Eventually China's and other third world countries' standard of
living will equal ours, but they'll have a big manufacturing base while our
would atrophy if we do nothing about it. That is why we need big domestic
programs other than simple welfare redistribution to maintain at least 10% of
our current manufacturing base so that it will be ready to grow once again when
the time is right. I think this is the primary reason why we should send people
to the Moon and Mars.

His successors will probably scrap or postpone most of the plan.

And put what in its place? If your right then some future President will have
to play the coward and retreat from manned space exploration in the face of our
national compeditors such as China, he'll be under pressure to have some sort
of manned space effort. What better direction do you have for that effort than
sending people to the Moon and Mars? Do you propose to go back to aimless
shuttle missions once again? Do you want to build an expensive shuttle to do
boring things in space?

Personally I think that the best possible use of Bush's space policy
would be as an exit strategy for the pathetic space shuttle and even more
pathetic space station. But I don't know if it really come to that.
It's nice that robotic space science will continue under the guise
of "exploration missions".

if we aren't interested in the capability to send people in space, what makes
you think we'll be interested enough to send space probes there. Surely the
scientific curiosity of Astronomers won't be enough to justify the public
expenditure.

Tom

In article ,
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
...They're going to build a moon base, but not while Bush is
president. They're going to retire the space shuttle and "complete"
the space station, but not while Bush is president. There will be a new
"crew exploration vehicle", but it will not fly astronauts while
Bush is president...

Yes and no. The Moon/Mars side of it is definitely off in the post-Bush
future, and can be heavily discounted. But if the station is to be (more
or less) done, and the shuttle phased out, on his timetable, *those* moves
are going to have to be nearly finished by the time he leaves office.
Station completion is no big deal, that's pretty much already in the
pipeline, but shuttle replacement is more serious.

Assuming Bush is re-elected (likely but not certain), and that he doesn't
quietly set all this aside as just another election promise (hard to say),
or have it derailed by Congress (also hard to say), NASA is going to have
to move quickly on a shuttle replacement, and without spending a whole lot
of money on it either. Be interesting to see whether they can do it.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote:
NASA is going to have
to move quickly on a shuttle replacement, and without spending a whole lot
of money on it either. Be interesting to see whether they can do it.

What gives me a bad feeling about the whole plan is NASA's abysmal
track record in this regard: if there's one thing they've proved
themselves utterly unable to do, it's to develop a shuttle
replacement. Deciding to retire the shuttle fleet without a viable
replacement seems a very risky decision.

--
Magnus Olsson )
PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol

"Magnus Olsson" wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

NASA is going to have
to move quickly on a shuttle replacement, and without spending a whole
lot
of money on it either. Be interesting to see whether they can do it.

What gives me a bad feeling about the whole plan is NASA's abysmal
track record in this regard: if there's one thing they've proved
themselves utterly unable to do, it's to develop a shuttle
replacement. Deciding to retire the shuttle fleet without a viable
replacement seems a very risky decision.

Magnus Olsson )

This is true: there is a long line of failed and abandoned X projects**.
Some were canned due to - in the big picture - trying to do too much at
once. Some were canned because they didn't fit into some nebulous and
unspoken, changing "vision". Having a long-term vision like that presented
by Bush the other day may help that, as will trying to use existing
technology as much as possible. But as many have said, accomplishing the
long-term vision will require a change in the way business is done.

Jon

** Though in defense of NASA, there is also a huge amount of good R&D done
successfully that most people never see.

-- The opinions expressed here are mine alone.

Jon Berndt wrote:

This is true: there is a long line of failed and abandoned X projects**.
Some were canned due to - in the big picture - trying to do too much at
once. Some were canned because they didn't fit into some nebulous and
unspoken, changing "vision". Having a long-term vision like that presented
by Bush the other day may help that, as will trying to use existing
technology as much as possible. But as many have said, accomplishing the
long-term vision will require a change in the way business is done.

Committing the shuttle program to termination also focuses the bureaucratic mind.

Paul

What gives me a bad feeling about the whole plan is NASA's abysmal
track record in this regard: if there's one thing they've proved
themselves utterly unable to do, it's to develop a shuttle
replacement. Deciding to retire the shuttle fleet without a viable
replacement seems a very risky decision.


If you get rid of the requirement that it be reusable, it becomes alot easier.
The Shuttle is alot more reusable that it has to be to accomplish its mission
for its cost to operate, it returns its cargo hold intact to be reused again.
All that's really required is to return the Crew safely to Earth. The Shuttle
has proven to be more expensive for the amount of cargo it delivers to orbit
for all the reusability it has. There are expendible rockets now available with
the same cargo capability as the Shuttle, all that's needed is a vehicle to
deliver a crew of 8 people max, to be used in consert with the expendible cargo
hauler and we just about have a shuttle replacement that costs less than the
Shuttle to operate.

Tom

In article , Magnus Olsson wrote:
In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote:
NASA is going to have
to move quickly on a shuttle replacement, and without spending a whole lot
of money on it either. Be interesting to see whether they can do it.

What gives me a bad feeling about the whole plan is NASA's abysmal
track record in this regard: if there's one thing they've proved
themselves utterly unable to do, it's to develop a shuttle
replacement. Deciding to retire the shuttle fleet without a viable
replacement seems a very risky decision.

OTOH, one could make a case that NASA have never really tried to make a
Shuttle replacement. There's been technology demonstrators, or
specific-use vehicle plans, and *plenty* of viewgraphs, but has there
ever been a politically-supported project to sit down and build The Next
One by *this* date, with *this* funding - not to design, or to study,
but to have sitting in the VAB before 2009, because there won't be a
shuttle; it's going, and whilst it may slip to 2012, it is likely to go;
whoevers elected in 2008 will have some task ahead of them to announce
it's getting another ten years, after all.

From that POV, they actually have to build one now; everything else was
abstractly ****ing money up trees for something that might be thought
about by (now+5 years).

--
-Andrew Gray