The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized.

The media and this group should stop calling the new NASA directive a 'moon
plan'. It seems that the belief is that Bush is cancelling everything NASA
does and moving all the money into a manned moon base. This isn't the case
at all.

It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'. What's really
happening is that NASA's focus is changing from LEO cargo flights and ISS
maintenance, and towards more exploration and science. It's not even clear
at this point that the main focus will be a moon base - that was just the
hook for the public.

NASA has distributed its Vision under the new initiative to its employees.
Here's what it says:

(courtesy http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11605)

Guiding Principles for Exploration


a.. Pursue Compelling Questions


a.. Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions
of scientific and societal importance.
b.. Consistent with the NASA Vision and Mission, NASA exploration programs
will seek profound answers to questions of our origins, whether life exists
beyond Earth, and how we could live on other worlds.


a.. Across Multiple Worlds


a.. NASA will make progress across a broad front of destinations.
b.. Consistent with recent discoveries, NASA will focus on likely
habitable environments at the planet Mars, the moons of Jupiter, and in
other solar systems.
c.. Where advantageous, NASA will also make use of destinations likethe
Moon and near-Earth asteroids to test and demonstrate new exploration
capabilities.


a.. Employ Human and Robotic Capabilities


a.. NASA will send human and robotic explorers as partners, leveraging the
capabilities of each where most useful.
b.. Robotic explorers will visit new worlds first, to obtain scientific
data, demonstrate breakthrough technologies, identify space resources, and
send tantalizing imagery back to Earth.
c.. Human explorers will follow to conduct in-depth research, direct and
upgrade advanced robotic explorers, prepare space resources, and demonstrate
new exploration capabilities


a.. For Sustainable Exploration


a.. NASA will pursue breakthrough technologies, investigate planetary
resources, and align ongoing programs to develop sustainable, affordable,
and flexible solar system exploration strategies.
b.. The vision is not about one-time events and, thus, costs will be
reduced to maintain the affordability of the vision


a.. Starting Now


a.. NASA will pursue this vision as our highest priority.
b.. Consistent with the FY 2005 Budget, NASA will immediately begin to
realign programs and organization, demonstrate new technical capabilities,
and undertake new robotic precursor missions to the Moon and Mars before the
end of the decade.

Key Elements of New Space Policy


a.. Space Shuttle
a.. Return the Space Shuttle to flight and plan to retire it by the end of
this decade, following the completion of its role in the construction of the
International Space Station


a.. International Space Station Complete assembly


a.. Refocus research to exploration factors affecting astronaut health,
and
b.. Acquire crew and cargo systems, as necessary, during and after
availability of Shuttle.


a.. Crew Exploration Vehicle


a.. Develop a CEV to travel beyond low Earth orbit, the first new U.S.
human space flight vehicle since the 1980s.
b.. Undertake first test flight is planned by the end of this decadein
order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration
missions no later than 2014.


a.. Lunar Exploration


a.. Begin robotic missions to the Moon by 2008, followed by a period of
evaluating lunar resources and technologies for exploration.
b.. Begin human expeditions to the Moon in the 2015 2020 timeframe.


a.. Mars Exploration


a.. Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to
understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human
exploration.
b.. Timing of human missions to Mars will be based on available budgetary
resources, experience and knowledge gained from lunar exploration,
discoveries by robotic spacecraft at Mars and other solar system locations,
and development of required technologies and know-how.


a.. Other Solar System Exploration


a.. Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific
purposes and to support human exploration.
b.. In particular, explore Jupiter's moons, asteroids and other bodies to
search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system,
and to search for resources;


a.. Exploration Beyond


a.. Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and
habitable environments around other stars;


a.. Enabling Capabilities


a.. Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support,
and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable,
and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other
destinations.
It should be clear from this that this isn't really a "Moon Mission", or a
"Moon/Mars Mission". It's pure exploration - Taking the most logical steps
we can to expand our knowledge and occupation of space. No more flying
space trucks to LEO and back - it's time to look a little farther.

The reason the Moon is a *likely destination is simply that it's the most
logical waypoint. If your goal isn't a single target (landing a man on
Mars), but a systematic move into space in general, then the Moon is a
pretty logical place to go. It's the easiest, it's the only one that has
potential for serious economic exploitation. It makes a fine proving ground
for lots of things.

But the Moon isn't the final destination, and neither is Mars. The goal is
simply ongoing exploration and expansion. Note how much emphasis is placed
on space telescopes and robotic missions - about as much as going to the
Moon.

It's a forward looking, long range plan to get NASA out of its rut, and find
a meaning for the post-shuttle era. We're very lucky that this President
decided that the answer would be to step forward and set new goals and
challenges - the other result could very easily have been a 6 billion dollar
a year budget cut for NASA.

I think the full 'vision' outlined above can put to rest the idea that
Hubble was cancelled because NASA is going to sacrifice science for manned
flight. Telescopes like Hubble are a big part of the new vision. The
Hubble was cancelled simply because after you add up the risks and the cost,
in the end the value just wasn't there, even in the context of the shift
towards more exploration. Hubble is more a victim of bad timing and a
moribund shuttle program. All the more reason to get on with the next step
instead of trying to maintain the status quo.

The ball is now in NASA's court. Funding is going to depend on results.
They've been guaranteed seed capital and the ability to move shuttle
resources into exploration. If NASA can deliver results, I believe
additional funding would be there. I believe NASA's funding has been
stagnant simply because NASA hasn't made a compelling case for more. Now
they have a chance to make compelling cases.

"Dan Hanson" wrote

[lots of sane, reasoned commentary snipped]

The ball is now in NASA's court. Funding is going to depend on results.
They've been guaranteed seed capital and the ability to move shuttle
resources into exploration. If NASA can deliver results, I believe
additional funding would be there. I believe NASA's funding has been
stagnant simply because NASA hasn't made a compelling case for more. Now
they have a chance to make compelling cases.

Well said.

I'd wrap it all up into one word: "Focus".

Geez, it's nice to read something sane in the midst of all the ignorant
"Halliburton conspiracy / election ploy / etc." dribble.

Jon

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:05:00 GMT, "Dan Hanson"
wrote:

The media and this group should stop calling the new NASA directive a 'moon
plan'. It seems that the belief is that Bush is cancelling everything NASA
does

Not so, but a lot of funding is soon to be obtained from some project
or other, which will result in cancellations or suspensions.

The ISS is suffering the biggest funding cut, where of course Hubble
was cut for other reasons.

and moving all the money into a manned moon base. This isn't the case
at all.

Naturally.

It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'.

True, but the "moon plan" is a sub-section of this "exploration plan".

Further more it is the first real goal within this larger plan, when
they are between 2008 and 2020 focusing on this moon objective.

I doubt that even visiting asteroids or comets will happen before a
moon base is well established.

Mars is the obvious second main target along this larger exploration
plan.

What's really
happening is that NASA's focus is changing from LEO cargo flights and ISS
maintenance, and towards more exploration and science.

Human exploration and science, even if robotic missions will still
play a vital and larger part.

It's not even clear
at this point that the main focus will be a moon base - that was just the
hook for the public.

Bush's speech was clear enough, where again it is simple natural
progression of out wards manned space exploration.

NASA has distributed its Vision under the new initiative to its employees.
Here's what it says:

(courtesy http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11605)

Yes, where it says exactly what I would expect. Moon, Asteroids &
Comets, Mars, where it almost goes as far as human exploration of
Jupiter's satellites, but not quite.

Guiding Principles for Exploration

a.. Pursue Compelling Questions

a.. Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions
of scientific and societal importance.
b.. Consistent with the NASA Vision and Mission, NASA exploration programs
will seek profound answers to questions of our origins, whether life exists
beyond Earth, and how we could live on other worlds.

And first you need your moon base to test and advance technology in
order to make all that come about.

a.. Across Multiple Worlds

a.. NASA will make progress across a broad front of destinations.

Keeping everyone happy...

b.. Consistent with recent discoveries, NASA will focus on likely
habitable environments at the planet Mars, the moons of Jupiter, and in
other solar systems.

All the best stuff.

c.. Where advantageous, NASA will also make use of destinations likethe
Moon and near-Earth asteroids to test and demonstrate new exploration
capabilities.

There is your moon base, in not so many words.

a.. Employ Human and Robotic Capabilities

a.. NASA will send human and robotic explorers as partners, leveraging the
capabilities of each where most useful.
b.. Robotic explorers will visit new worlds first, to obtain scientific
data, demonstrate breakthrough technologies, identify space resources, and
send tantalizing imagery back to Earth.
c.. Human explorers will follow to conduct in-depth research, direct and
upgrade advanced robotic explorers, prepare space resources, and demonstrate
new exploration capabilities

Moon, Mars and so on.

a.. For Sustainable Exploration

a.. NASA will pursue breakthrough technologies, investigate planetary
resources, and align ongoing programs to develop sustainable, affordable,
and flexible solar system exploration strategies.

There goes many of your projects.

b.. The vision is not about one-time events and, thus, costs will be
reduced to maintain the affordability of the vision

Big plans, with no money to pay for it!

a.. Starting Now

a.. NASA will pursue this vision as our highest priority.
b.. Consistent with the FY 2005 Budget, NASA will immediately begin to
realign programs and organization,

Yes, program cuts and one or two moon ones added.

demonstrate new technical capabilities,

This is what will be happening on the CEV until about 2011, when they
really start to build the thing.

and undertake new robotic precursor missions to the Moon and Mars before the
end of the decade.

As expected.

Key Elements of New Space Policy

a.. Space Shuttle
a.. Return the Space Shuttle to flight and plan to retire it by the end of
this decade, following the completion of its role in the construction of the
International Space Station

Yes that one is clear as well.

a.. International Space Station Complete assembly

a.. Refocus research to exploration factors affecting astronaut health,
and

They do enough of that already, without doing too much seriously to
improve things, but at least this allows a budget cut on the ISS from
the micro gravity experiments.

Kind of a shame that the only one of those experiments I liked was to
study the strengths of smeltered metals in a low gravity environment,
when air bubbles can weaken things.

That got cut due to this, but I guess that they can always find that
out the hard way later when on the Moon. I liked that one because of
course this information could be useful to avoid your structures
breaking.

b.. Acquire crew and cargo systems, as necessary, during and after
availability of Shuttle.

Good to see that cargo got mentioned in there, where as long as crew
and cargo are not merged together into the one craft, then they should
be on the right track.

a.. Crew Exploration Vehicle

a.. Develop a CEV to travel beyond low Earth orbit, the first new U.S.
human space flight vehicle since the 1980s.
b.. Undertake first test flight is planned by the end of this decadein
order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration
missions no later than 2014.

They will be hoping for 2014 completion, when the bulk of the funding
only becomes available from 2011 due to the Shuttle support cuts.

a.. Lunar Exploration

See, the "moon plan". :-]

a.. Begin robotic missions to the Moon by 2008, followed by a period of
evaluating lunar resources and technologies for exploration.

They have 7 years.

I am currently wondering if they will use a Smart-1 type plan to lower
the launch costs or to go direct. Depends on how fast they want their
data back I guess.

b.. Begin human expeditions to the Moon in the 2015 2020 timeframe.

No doubt including a Moon Base if they have the funds for it, but no
need to "spook" those in congress yet with such ideas.

a.. Mars Exploration

a.. Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to
understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human
exploration.

No change their then.

b.. Timing of human missions to Mars will be based on available budgetary
resources,

That could take a long time.

If NASA gets to spend its budget as it pleases though, then they can
stretch such an expensive plan over as many years as it takes.

experience and knowledge gained from lunar exploration,

Yes, where a Moon Base will be extremely helpful in this objective.

discoveries by robotic spacecraft at Mars and other solar system locations,
and development of required technologies and know-how.

a.. Other Solar System Exploration

a.. Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific
purposes and to support human exploration.

Humans won't be going too far just yet. As once they have Mars, then
they have an entire world to explore. So no major rush to move
elsewhere, even if they could take a peek.

b.. In particular, explore Jupiter's moons, asteroids and other bodies to
search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system,
and to search for resources;

Hey lets all go to IO. ;-]

I like Ganymede most myself being the largest and with a few
surprises, but the first manned mission could well be to Callisto.

Now I am wondering how tricky it would be to move your CEV+2 between
these large satellites of Jupiter if say you established your base on
Callisto.

Moving on to Saturn would be quite interesting, when I am unsure as to
where you would plant your base. Titan is the largest option here, but
that atmosphere could be a problem.

Depends on what Hygens finds on Titan I guess.

Manned exploration to the inner solar system is bound to take some
time, when you can only orbit Venus, unless you desire a one way trip
to the surface.

Mercury is a little too close to the Sun for comfort, what with all
that radiation and heat. Still, your astronauts can spend up to a
maximum of 176 days on the much cooler dark side, before that very
spot is subject to intense heating.

I wonder if anyone here knows the facts concerning a manned Mercury
visit? Like the easier one of escape velocity. The temperature
concerns of manned approach to Mercury. Then of course the interesting
surface conditions.

A Mercury visit would be quite interesting considering the high
density of this planet. Lots of gold. ;-]

a.. Exploration Beyond

a.. Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and
habitable environments around other stars;

Good to see that extra solar planet finding is remaining in NASA's
plan, even if they will never do a manned mission out that far in
their known future.

No doubt the one reason for this is that it will generate huge
interest in space exploration should they find one or more life
bearing planets.

The public will demand answers, to the benefit of NASA's budget.

a.. Enabling Capabilities

a.. Develop and demonstrate power generation,

Their nuclear power generators.

propulsion,

Large ion drives mostly, but they are working on rocket technology as
well.

life support,

I wonder if they will get really serious about this? After all we know
that the ISS does not really do much recycling.

Air generation by plants also goes to provide food, where they also
help to deal with waste products. Apart from that they have to turn
pee in wine, whoops water.

and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable,
and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other
destinations.

Fuel, food and oxygen production on the Moon would be great in
achieving this objective, but maybe an asteroid or two could help out.

It should be clear from this that this isn't really a "Moon Mission",

No, but the Moon is the first goal of this plan.

or a "Moon/Mars Mission".

After the Moon comes...

It's pure exploration - Taking the most logical steps

Yes, logical steps. Test your remote human colony living off the Moon
before you have to try it elsewhere.

As if things go wrong, then it is not so far to go in order to reach
safety. Also the resources on the Moon will certainly provide many
benefits. Some ways we know, some won't work out, where most we are
currently clueless about.

we can to expand our knowledge and occupation of space. No more flying
space trucks to LEO and back - it's time to look a little farther.

And maybe even much further if they start finding other planets that
we could, in theory, live on.

The reason the Moon is a *likely destination is simply that it's the most
logical waypoint.

Correct, which is why nearly everyone here is talking about it. So
that is the "moon plan", which clearly is the start of a much later
plan.

Unfortunately, it is also true to say that if NASA messes up the CEV
and "moon plan", then they won't be going elsewhere.

If your goal isn't a single target (landing a man on
Mars), but a systematic move into space in general, then the Moon is a
pretty logical place to go. It's the easiest, it's the only one that has
potential for serious economic exploitation. It makes a fine proving ground
for lots of things.

So if you know this, then why are you questioning people talking about
it? People here know that the "moon plan" comes first, which is why
there is not much discussion on the "pluto plan".

Mars gets a fair degree of mention here though, when that is the real
goal. As the Moon is like a dried up prune compared to the mouth
watering peach of Mars.

And so the Moon sure is a nice first destination, but few people here
would choose the Moon over Mars if they had to choose one or the
other.

But the Moon isn't the final destination, and neither is Mars. The goal is
simply ongoing exploration and expansion.

Just think that all this could canceled not far into the future by
either congress or the next President.

Note how much emphasis is placed on space telescopes

Of limited design. Notice how those ones to peer deep into the
Universe did not get mentioned?

Goodbye James Webb, and thanks for all the fish.

Well the edge of the visible Universe will still be there in the more
distant future should that project indeed get cut.

I am going to have to go down NASA's project list and pick out the
ones not compatible with NASA's new objective.

More than a few will have to be cut, no doubt about that.

and robotic missions

Now better aimed in supporting future manned missions, which changes
their old Mars plan none.

You are likely to lose the projects to asteroids and comets in the
near future, when these will more be needed in the plus 2020 time
frame.

about as much as going to the Moon.

Yes, we know all that, but what comes first?

It's a forward looking, long range plan to get NASA out of its rut, and find
a meaning for the post-shuttle era. We're very lucky that this President
decided that the answer would be to step forward and set new goals and
challenges

Hopefully it is more than a puff of smoke, when we have heard ideas
like this before. Still, I would say that this is the best plan so far
in making it work out.

the other result could very easily have been a 6 billion dollar
a year budget cut for NASA.

Very unlikely considering that the Columbia accident report cited
continuous under funding and cuts to NASA's budget was partly to
blame.

So a small increase has always been expected.

I think the full 'vision' outlined above can put to rest the idea that
Hubble was cancelled because NASA is going to sacrifice science for manned
flight.

No one has claimed that as far as I recall. Sure there are going to be
huge cuts in the science area due to having to support manned
missions, but in the longer term the science return will greatly
increase due to humans being directly involved.

Telescopes like Hubble are a big part of the new vision.

Not quite, when only extra solar planet finding telescopes were
mentioned, which includes the future Kepler (2007), Space
Interferometry Mission (2009), then the most important one of all
Terrestrial Planet Finder (2014).

That list did not include types like the James Webb, through either
design or accident.

The
Hubble was cancelled simply because after you add up the risks

The risk in minimal, but of course each Shuttle flight increases the
risk of another accident.

and the cost, in the end the value just wasn't there,

Well it was, but astronauts repairing and upgrading telescopes is not
the best idea in the first place.

even in the context of the shift
towards more exploration. Hubble is more a victim of bad timing and a
moribund shuttle program. All the more reason to get on with the next step
instead of trying to maintain the status quo.

Other project managers will be crying over their losses soon enough,
but I would not expect any announcements for a while. After all this
plan has to get good acceptance before the bad news comes out.

No doubt they will announce the new projects and the cut of many old
ones at the same time.

The ball is now in NASA's court. Funding is going to depend on results.

If those results support NASA's new manned goal, where projects to the
Moon and Mars are the ones you will see most of.

They've been guaranteed seed capital

$1 billion spread over the next 5 years, where $11 billion over that
same time span has to be found from other projects.

The ISS and the micro gravity experiments excuse is the biggest loser,
which is just as well.

and the ability to move shuttle resources into exploration.

Following the cut of the Shuttle systems between 2010 and 2013, which
will pay for the CEV followed by general exploration.

If NASA can deliver results, I believe additional funding would be
there.

That is a hard thing to NASA to achieve when it comes to human
spaceflight, when even the robot missions are a bit touch and go.

Still, maybe NASA can morph into a new reformed NASA. Super NASA, the
people who can do successful missions in budget and on time.

I believe NASA's funding has been
stagnant simply because NASA hasn't made a compelling case for more.

That and the general public does not care about space exploration. As
even the people here who are interested in space are, as a group,
undecided.

Now they have a chance to make compelling cases.

Congress will most appreciate results, when NASA's human based
projects have not gone at all well so far.

So NASA won't even be able to discuss a moon base before they have
proved that the CEV is working well with cost figures that puts the
Shuttle to shame.

Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

In article 0Y1Qb.235603$ts4.56758@pd7tw3no, says...
The media and this group should stop calling the new NASA directive a 'moon
plan'. It seems that the belief is that Bush is cancelling everything NASA
does and moving all the money into a manned moon base. This isn't the case
at all.

No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial
and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a
wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will
be ruinously expensive. The fact is that real science is far to
expensive with a manned program. Robots must lead the way.




It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'.

No it wouldn't you republican shill. We can explore without manned
missions or a permanent moon base. Bush is destroying the real science
programs because he just doesn't get it. "Exploration" is just a
bull**** buzzword. You apparently weren't smart enough to figure that
out, so I'm afraid I've got to break it to you bluntly. The Bush
administration only wants diversionary stunts. They don't give a rat's
ass about science. They are theocratic cretins who know that if we do
eventually find evidence of past life on mars that it will be devatating
to their religious world view.


What's really
happening is that NASA's focus is changing from LEO cargo flights and ISS

That focus was instituted under the moronic Reagan adminstration. They
demanded "space station freedom" to keep up with the Ruskies. Bush
happily continued that program and even vowed to keep flying the shuttles
in the aftermath of columbia.


maintenance, and towards more exploration and science.

Bull****. We do science and exploration with unmanned probes. Period.
It would be inordinately dangerous with present technology to do any kind
of detailed science with manned missions. Instead of a robot like spirit
failing, our whole crew would die. People are too fragile to explore
most places. Even if we sent men to mars we would probably use them to
drive robots around remotely in real time. What we need to do is invest
in research and develop our technology. It's obvious that our present
technology is not quite up to the task of serious "exploration" as it is.
Relying upon it for a manned program is crazy.

It's not even clear
at this point that the main focus will be a moon base - that was just the
hook for the public.

What a ridiculous excuse. A politician directly states something as
policy and you're so in thrall to your right wing ideology that you now
say, "That's not what he really meant. That's just what he was telling
the plebes". If that was his idea of PR then it backfired bigtime. Most
people thought that a manned return to the moon would be a hugely
wasteful stunt. Now the Bushies are spinning like mad trying to back
pedal and soft pedal and do damage control.


NASA has distributed its Vision under the new initiative to its employees.
Here's what it says:

That's nice. But the idiot emperor Bush has demonstrated that he's gonna
micromanage and control the program for his own political ends. These
"vision" statements are never worth the paper they are printed on,
especially when coming at the behest of the bush administration.


(courtesy http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11605)

Guiding Principles for Exploration


a.. Pursue Compelling Questions


Only that has nothing to do with manned exploration.



a.. Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions
of scientific and societal importance.

The only compelling question the Bush admin wants answered is "Can we
beat the chinese back to the moon and waste hundreds of billion in the
process?"


b.. Consistent with the NASA Vision and Mission, NASA exploration programs
will seek profound answers

LOL. Yeah, profound answers to how many astronauts we can sardine into a
mars capsule and get killed in a futile bid to get them to Mars -- so
they can sit around and do nothing. This so-called vision statement
contains all the usual moronic drivel, just as I predicted.


to questions of our origins,

This from a president who claims a literal belief in the bible and the
genesis account. Not likely.


whether life exists
beyond Earth, and how we could live on other worlds.

We know what it takes to life on other worlds. We need to spend the
money developing the survival technology, rather than wasting 1.5
trillion on manned stunts.




a.. Across Multiple Worlds


a.. NASA will make progress across a broad front of destinations.
b.. Consistent with recent discoveries, NASA will focus on likely
habitable environments at the planet Mars, the moons of Jupiter, and in
other solar systems.


Yep, whatever you say.


c.. Where advantageous, NASA will also make use of destinations likethe
Moon and near-Earth asteroids to test and demonstrate new exploration
capabilities.


a.. Employ Human and Robotic Capabilities


a.. NASA will send human and robotic explorers as partners, leveraging the
capabilities of each where most useful.

Only they know without question that the robotic missions are superior in
just about every respect. Perhaps in 1969 we didn't have the robotic
technology to land on the moon, grab some rocks and return. However, we
certainly have that technology today. The best role for humans is as
mission controllers back on earth. Perhaps if we developed a better,
more reliable, deep space communication infrastructure then we'd actually
be making a prudent investment that would pay dividends on future
exploratory missions.


b.. Robotic explorers will visit new worlds first, to obtain scientific
data, demonstrate breakthrough technologies, identify space resources, and
send tantalizing imagery back to Earth.
c.. Human explorers will follow to conduct in-depth research,

Sorry, but any research that a human could do, "in-depth" could be done
by a robot as well or better, especially if there is a human controlling
it. At worst, the robot will be a litle slower and I know our
hyperactive president can't stand that. Fortunately, it looks like he
will be kicked out on his ass by next year and then he can do whatever
hyperactive nonsense he wants.
Getting back to the whole robot and human thing, we can't expect to just
send one or two probes and then humans. We need to send probe after
probe to look at things in depth. The money that we spend on the robotics
program will have important spin offs here on earth. Not so with a great
deal of manned space technology, which would primarily be useful only
off-world.



rest snipped
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

In article ,
quibbler wrote:

No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial
and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a
wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will
be ruinously expensive.

The realignment of NASA resources is the best thing to happen to NASA in
30 years. Not wasteful, but highly useful. Allowing NASA to drift
about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT
would be wasteful.

The fact is that real science is far too
expensive with a manned program.

I agree. So let's not attempt to do real science. Let's work on
opening the frontier for human habitation instead.

Robots must lead the way.

Robots have their place, but to get people living in space we really
need to have people living in space.

It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'.

No it wouldn't you republican shill. We can explore without manned
missions or a permanent moon base.

Not if by "exploration" you mean "expanding the range of places people
have visited and experienced firsthand," which is certainly what *I*
mean by it.

Bush is destroying the real science programs because he just doesn't get it.

Or maybe you're clinging to them because YOU don't get it. I don't care
about "real science." Real science isn't putting people on the Moon.
And I want people on the Moon. When the next killer asteroid comes our
way (or substitute your favorite global catastrophe), having pretty
pictures of distant galaxies and a deep understanding of the cosmos
isn't going to save humanity.

"Exploration" is just a bull**** buzzword. You apparently weren't smart
enough to figure that out, so I'm afraid I've got to break it to you bluntly.

Heh. More like, you haven't got a leg to stand on, so you're reduced to
swearing and other insults. More pity to you.

maintenance, and towards more exploration and science.

Bull****. We do science and exploration with unmanned probes. Period.
It would be inordinately dangerous with present technology to do any kind
of detailed science with manned missions.

Science science science... why exactly do you believe that space
development (or more specifically, NASA's expenditures) should be about
science? The "S" in NASA doesn't stand for Science, you know.

It's obvious that our present
technology is not quite up to the task of serious "exploration" as it is.
Relying upon it for a manned program is crazy.

Demonstrably false, given that a dozen people have been to the Moon
already, for days at a time. We just need to redevelop that capability,
and add infrastructure that allows for longer stays, reduced costs,
greater safety, etc.

a.. Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions
of scientific and societal importance.

The only compelling question the Bush admin wants answered is "Can we
beat the chinese back to the moon and waste hundreds of billion in the
process?"

Interesting how you first talk about examining the budget, and then
later demonstrate that you haven't done so yourself.

Getting back to the whole robot and human thing, we can't expect to just
send one or two probes and then humans. We need to send probe after
probe to look at things in depth.

I have no doubt that unmanned craft will be a regular part of developing
the Moon. But the point of that development is human habitation.

The money that we spend on the robotics
program will have important spin offs here on earth. Not so with a great
deal of manned space technology, which would primarily be useful only
off-world.

....and off-world technology is exactly what we need to develop.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
quibbler wrote:

No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial
and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a
wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will
be ruinously expensive.

The realignment of NASA resources is the best thing to happen to NASA in
30 years. Not wasteful, but highly useful. Allowing NASA to drift
about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT
would be wasteful.

If this document actually had focus... You'd have a point. But it
doesn't. It's a scattershot listing of all the space goals NASA and
the advocacy community have been salivating about for years, weakened
and fuzzed up to make a feel-good mission statement.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...

I don't care about "real science."

A pity, really.

In article 4llQb.60160$XD5.41416@fed1read06, "Chosp"
wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...

I don't care about "real science."

A pity, really.

And an exaggeration. I do read _Science_ each week, and I have a M.S.
in Neuroscience, so clearly I do care about some real science. I just
don't think that it is the proper justification for activities in space,
and moreover, that this myth that space is about science has been
holding back space development for decades.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

In article ,
says...
In article ,
quibbler wrote:

No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial
and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a
wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will
be ruinously expensive.

The realignment of NASA resources is the best thing to happen to NASA in
30 years.



The realignment is a desperate attempt to fix the idiotic reagan
administration priorities of things like a space station and shuttle
misssion. However, manned exploration is not the way to do it and manned
exploration will eat the lion's share of this budget.


Not wasteful, but highly useful.

You are uninformed. Manned exploration is ruinously expensive. We have
known since the inception of the space program that robotic missions
would be the most cost effective ways to produce scientific data and
that's still true today almost universally.

Allowing NASA to drift
about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT
would be wasteful.

NASA doesn't need a moron like Bush to pretend that he is now an expert
on space, when he's not an expert on anything except maybe smoking crack
or dodging service in vietnam. Bush is not qualified to micromanage NASA
and unfocused hodge podge of manned space stunts will only drop to zero
the amount of real science that NASA will be able to do. Yeah, we needed
to get rid of the shuttle, but Bush is the guy who vowed to keep it
flying after Columbia. Bush is all talk and no action. His proposals
give no serious amount of money to NASA to accomplish the grandiose
flagpole sitting Bush wants them to do. Rather, he is forcing them to
cancel real science in order to engage in an idiotic, completely
unnecessary moonbase boondoggle.


The fact is that real science is far too
expensive with a manned program.

I agree.

Good.

So let's not attempt to do real science.

LOL. You obviously don't understand that it is is the science that
underpins this whole program. We can't just jump in a rocket and go to
mars. We have to understand the science of how to provide life support,
shield from exotic radiations, etc. We won't know where we need to go
on mars or elsewhere without good science leading the way. Mars is a big
place. We can't just lope around it with our thumbs up our asses
pretending that we are Vasco de Gama or Christopher Columbus.



Let's work on
opening the frontier for human habitation instead.


That takes science and real intelligent planning, neither of which Bush's
plan supports. The moon would be a less hospitable place, for example,
than mars or perhaps some asteroids. We can't have a scientific
illiterate like Bush ramming his own ill-conceived politial nonsense,
like a moonbase through NASA. Reagan already ****ed NASA up thoroughly
by commiting their resources to albatrosses like ISS. We don't need Bush
doing that in spades with a moonbase which would have no source of food,
water or essential support. We don't need men on the moon right now. We
need robots to lead the way for another decade or two until we know
enough about the moon to intelligently plan our options. We also need to
spend far more on research and less on putting rocket on a lunar resort.





Robots must lead the way.

Robots have their place, but to get people living in space we really
need to have people living in space.

We've had them in space stations. There are serious health risks at
present. Similar health risks would apply on the moon. More
importantly, it would be far more expensive and difficult to constantly
send servicing and support to a moonbase as opposed to a space station.
The space station was an unnecessary piece of junk. But even sticking
with it would be better than Bush's alternative.



It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'.

No it wouldn't you republican shill. We can explore without manned
missions or a permanent moon base.

Not if by "exploration" you mean "expanding the range of places people
have visited and experienced firsthand,

That's flagpole sitting. We need to expand the range of places that our
robotic sensors have visited. We need more probes to pretty much every
planet. If Bush wants to do something for the space program then revive
the pluto-kuiper missions. Send more science packages to the outer
planets. Land robots on the moons of mars, rather than rushing to get
humans there. The experience will eventually make it much safer and
easier for humans to go there.


" which is certainly what *I*
mean by it.

Bush is destroying the real science programs because he just doesn't get it.

Or maybe you're clinging to them because YOU don't get it.

No, I get it. Science is the only thing that separates us from the lower
primates. It is more and more critical that we expand our scientific
capabilities. Bush's undermining of space science is reckless and will
only hold us back. We went to the moon and then, when we had our little
adventure fix we sat around for another 35 years doing relatively little.
The same may happen if we make one trip to mars. We'll shoot our wad and
that will be it for mars exploration for another few decades. Bush's
childish ego gratification scheme will make going back to mars the next
time that much harder.

I don't care
about "real science."

I know that because you fail to grasp that we live in a highly technical
world where we are utterly dependent on science. You also fail to grasp
the intense promise and power of science which could answer questions
about issues like whether life existed on Mars.


Real science isn't putting people on the Moon.
And I want people on the Moon. When the next killer asteroid comes our
way

We could do just as well with a space station, or bomb shelters/bunkers.
I bet the saddamesque bunker under Cheney's house would survive .


(or substitute your favorite global catastrophe), having pretty
pictures of distant galaxies and a deep understanding of the cosmos
isn't going to save humanity.

"Exploration" is just a bull**** buzzword. You apparently weren't smart
enough to figure that out, so I'm afraid I've got to break it to you bluntly.

Heh. More like, you haven't got a leg to stand on,

LOL. No, I have the legs of science, which you have decided to repudiate
in order to desperately support any crazy scheme Bush cooks up. Bush
never said he wanted his looney colony as a way to defend us from a
killer asteroid (or maybe some evil al quaeda bioweapon). Bush is just a
jackass trying to **** with the Chinese when we could be cooperating with
them. Bush doesn't give a damn about the moon or a space program. If he
had then we might have spend $200 billion on it instead of on his lies
about WMDs.


so you're reduced to
swearing and other insults. More pity to you.

Nope. However, in this case those parties deserved insults and they got
it.

rest of your repetitive junk snipped

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

In article ,
quibbler wrote:

The realignment is a desperate attempt to fix the idiotic reagan
administration priorities of things like a space station and shuttle
misssion.

Agreed.

However, manned exploration is not the way to do it

I disagree with that.

and manned exploration will eat the lion's share of this budget.

Good, that is as it should be.

Not wasteful, but highly useful.

You are uninformed.

No, I'm quite informed, thanks.

Manned exploration is ruinously expensive.

It is expensive, yes. Largely because we don't do enough of it. And
this is why it's important for the government to be doing it -- the
government can, in theory, develop things which are beyond the
return-on-investment horizon for the business world. This is a very
good use of tax dollars.

We have known since the inception of the space program that robotic missions
would be the most cost effective ways to produce scientific data and
that's still true today almost universally.

Agreed. But irrelevant. NASA is not about producing scientific data.
That was just a bad choice made after Apollo wound down when they said,
"Well we've won the Moon race, now what do we do?" A much better answer
would have been: "We develop infrastructure needed to live and work in
space, and strive to open up the space frontier as quickly as possible."
That's essentially what the new mandate does. Better late than never.

Allowing NASA to drift
about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT
would be wasteful.

NASA doesn't need a moron like Bush to pretend that he is now an expert
on space, when he's not an expert on anything except maybe smoking crack
or dodging service in vietnam. Bush is not qualified to micromanage NASA

I agree with all of that (except perhaps Bush's past activities, of
which I have no knowledge or interest). But he's not micromanaging
anything; he made one speech in which he set out some broad goals. He
didn't even present the budget chart; that was left to O'Keefe. It will
be up to O'Keefe to make this plan actually work. I don't know whether
O'Keefe is an idiot or not, but since he hasn't demonstrated so yet, I
think there's cause for optimism.

and unfocused hodge podge of manned space stunts will only drop to zero
the amount of real science that NASA will be able to do.

Well, that's a fine amount of real science for NASA to do. But I don't
think an unfocused hodgepodge of space stunts is what we're talking
about here. Instead, we're talking about building infrastructure,
especially on the Moon. That's quite focussed and very important.

Yeah, we needed
to get rid of the shuttle, but Bush is the guy who vowed to keep it
flying after Columbia. Bush is all talk and no action.

Bush Bush Bush. Will you get over it? I don't like the guy either but
so what? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Whatever his
reasons, or whoever may have been pulling the strings, is irrelevant.
The result is the most sensible plan NASA has had in a very long time,
and I don't care who made the speech about it.

His proposals
give no serious amount of money to NASA to accomplish the grandiose
flagpole sitting Bush wants them to do.

We're not talking about flagpole sitting, and you're right, the budget
proposed is modest enough to actually get funded by Congress. That's a
good thing. Whether NASA can be readjusted enough to put this small
budget to good use remains to be seen. Certainly it's plenty of money
in principle.

Rather, he is forcing them to cancel real science in order to engage
in an idiotic, completely unnecessary moonbase boondoggle.

No, he's forcing them to cancel real science (good!) in order to refocus
on what their mission should be, which is manned space development.
Whether the moonbase will turn out to be a boondoggle or not, we're
better off trying than not trying.

So let's not attempt to do real science.

LOL. You obviously don't understand that it is is the science that
underpins this whole program.

No, science has been the *excuse* that NASA has used to justify its
budget. That was a mistake. The sciencific results don't justify the
expense, even when talking about strictly robotic missions. Most
taxpayers really don't care exactly how old the universe is or whether
it's going to end by collapsing, ripping apart, or freezing.

We can't just jump in a rocket and go to
mars. We have to understand the science of how to provide life support,
shield from exotic radiations, etc.

Those are engineering questions, not science. And besides, who said
anything about going to Mars? We need to develop the Moon first before
we think seriously about any other large bodies in the solar system.

Let's work on opening the frontier for human habitation instead.

That takes science and real intelligent planning, neither of which Bush's
plan supports.

It takes much more engineering than science. The only bit of science I
can think of that would really be useful is data on how the body adapts
to long periods in 1/6 G. Perhaps some of that science will eventually
be done on ISS, but if not, then the best way to get that data would be
to collect it on the Moon.

The moon would be a less hospitable place, for example,
than mars or perhaps some asteroids.

Less hospitable than Mars: yes, but tremendously, ridiculously,
irreplaceably closer. It is pure folly to consider going directly to
Mars before we've learned how to stay for months or years at a time on
the Moon.

Less hospitable than some asteroids: pure bunk. Some asteroids may be
richer in volatiles, perhaps, but that doesn't make up for other factors.

We can't have a scientific illiterate like Bush ramming his own
ill-conceived politial nonsense, like a moonbase through NASA.

You seem much more concerned with who made the speech and why, than with
its content. Perhaps you should be venting in some politics newsgroup
instead of sci.space.policy.

We don't need Bush doing that in spades with a moonbase which would
have no source of food, water or essential support.

Nonsense. It has a ready source of all those things: a large, inhabited
planet rich in all of those and more, only a couple days' travel away.
Perhaps you've heard of it?

Moreover, once we're set up and taken care of a few more urgent needs
(like a pressurized, temperature-controlled environment to move around
in), we can start looking into finding them more locally. Food can be
grown. Water may be obtained at the poles. Etc.

We don't need men on the moon right now.

Agreed; we needed men (and women) on the moon 30 years ago. But again,
better late than never.

We need robots to lead the way for another decade or two until we know
enough about the moon to intelligently plan our options.

First: rubbish. We know plenty enough about the moon to get started;
the only major unknown is the form of the hydrogen at the poles.
Second: the plan involves unmanned missions, insofar as those contribute
to the goal. That means we WILL see robots going back to the Moon and
answering those questions that need to be answered, well before the
people go.

We also need to spend far more on research and less on putting rocket
on a lunar resort.

Ah, I'd love to see a lunar resort, but NASA isn't going to build one.
However, spending more on "research" isn't going to build one either --
what we need is infrastructure development. Once we have that, Disney
or Bigelow or somebody else will eventually build the resort.

Robots have their place, but to get people living in space we really
need to have people living in space.

We've had them in space stations.

Yes. That's good, but it's time for the next step.

There are serious health risks at
present. Similar health risks would apply on the moon.

Actually, not so much. Most of the health risks in the space station
are due to (1) microgravity and (2) radiation. Well, the Moon doesn't
have microgravity; we don't know how much 1/6 G helps but it certainly
can't hurt. And radiation shielding is cheap on the Moon; people there
will be much less irradiated than those in a space station.

More importantly, it would be far more expensive and difficult to constantly
send servicing and support to a moonbase as opposed to a space station.

Not far more expensive. Maybe twice as expensive. Until we develop
infrastructure that brings the cost down, such as a nuclear-electric
tug, or a tether transfer system, or something else. But those things
don't spring fully formed out of the head of Zeus; they arise only
*after* there is a need for them. So, to get the ball rolling, you
found your base and make do with what you have.

Not if by "exploration" you mean "expanding the range of places people
have visited and experienced firsthand,

That's flagpole sitting.

There is some truth to that. So I did cringe a bit when he talked of
"exploration" -- I'd rather have heard "development." However, the
details to sound more like development than exploration; we're going to
make a base and stay in it for increasingly long periods of time.
That's not flagpole-sitting, that's homesteading.

We need to expand the range of places that our
robotic sensors have visited. We need more probes to pretty much every
planet.

No we don't, and no we don't. Maybe you do. You pay for it, then. Or
better yet: this is the sort of thing the National Geographic Society
will no doubt get into when the cost comes down enough. So just get out
of the way, let us bring the costs down, and then you can join NGS and
urge them to take pretty pictures of remote and currently-irrelevant
planets.

If Bush wants to do something for the space program then revive
the pluto-kuiper missions. Send more science packages to the outer
planets. Land robots on the moons of mars, rather than rushing to get
humans there. The experience will eventually make it much safer and
easier for humans to go there.

No, that will just tie up NASA producing nothing but pictures and charts
for another half-century. I'm certainly glad you're not in charge!

No, I get it. Science is the only thing that separates us from the lower
primates. It is more and more critical that we expand our scientific
capabilities.

Learning to live and work in space will expand the important scientific
capabilities. And eventually, it will enable those less important ones
(cosmology, so-called astrobiology, etc.) to accomplish far more than
they could now as well.

Bush's undermining of space science is reckless and will
only hold us back. We went to the moon and then, when we had our little
adventure fix we sat around for another 35 years doing relatively little.
The same may happen if we make one trip to mars.

I agree. Fortunately nobody's proposing making one trip to Mars. And I
note that what you're proposing -- more robotic probes and so on -- is
the same thing NASA has been doing for the last 35 years, which you
correctly describe above as "doing relatively little." But, being able
to hold two contradictory points of view at the same time is what
separates us from the lower primates.

We'll shoot our wad and
that will be it for mars exploration for another few decades. Bush's
childish ego gratification scheme will make going back to mars the next
time that much harder.

Forget Mars. That was just a bone thrown to the Mars advocates. The
focus of the plan is the Moon, which is exactly where it should be.

I don't care about "real science."

I know that because you fail to grasp that we live in a highly technical
world where we are utterly dependent on science.

You are quite incorrect. Shall we get out our rulers and compare?

You also fail to grasp
the intense promise and power of science which could answer questions
about issues like whether life existed on Mars.

Ooh, whether life existed on Mars -- why didn't you say so! How did
they ever manage to build a car without knowing that? If we only knew
whether life existed on Mars, we could solve the energy crisis, cure
poverty, reinvigorate the economy, and protect humanity against global
catastrophe!

(I'm being sarcastic, BTW.)

Seriously though, it's great that you're so content with the world that
you think whether life existed on Mars is an important question. Good
for you. Most people are not so content, however. The world is
entering a crisis period, with several different global dangers
developing at once (including energy, climate change, genetically
engineered bioweapons, etc.). And closer to home, we have economic
problems (lots of low-tech jobs going to other parts of the world,
without enough high-tech jobs being developed to replace them) as well.
I'd rather see my tax dollars go into something that can help out with
these problems. Purely intellectual pursuits are worthwhile too --
that's what NEA is for, for example -- but not as relevant to me as
developing space.

rest of your repetitive junk snipped

ditto

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'