|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts ...
From:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10956120.htm A few paragraphs in the article at the above link (Knight Ridder) brought some thoughts to mind: From the article: NASA is "trying to do too much at once," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, a strong supporter of the space agency. He protested that NASA is "barreling ahead" even though Congress "has never endorsed - in fact, never even discussed - the vision." I feel that the VSE is a _clarifying_ policy (compared to past policy or lack thereof) that helps focus efforts along a meaningful path. And, one way to kill any PROgress would be to have CONgress hold hearings and committee meetings endlessly, stalling any momentum. The title of the article is: "NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts among scientists, Congress". Has there ever been a significant government project such as the VSE where all scientists and Congress were completely on board? From the article: "The goal of sending humans to Mars needs more definition," Meyer, NASA's Mars scientist, told the National Academy committee. "What are humans going to do on Mars? We have to protect Mars. Do we want to send astronauts with all their dead skin cells and bacteria? We don't want to contaminate the planet and replace possible extant life." I'd like a description of the phrase: "We have to protect Mars". That's pretty broad. If we plan to extend our species into the cosmos, we better get used to the idea of our dead skin cells and bacteria taking up residence everywhere along the way. How far do we take "not wanting to contaminate" a planet? I guess we are getting close to having a real need for a Prime Directive. Jon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Jon S. Berndt" jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote in message
... From: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10956120.htm A few paragraphs in the article at the above link (Knight Ridder) brought some thoughts to mind: From the article: NASA is "trying to do too much at once," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, a strong supporter of the space agency. He protested that NASA is "barreling ahead" even though Congress "has never endorsed - in fact, never even discussed - the vision." I feel that the VSE is a _clarifying_ policy (compared to past policy or lack thereof) that helps focus efforts along a meaningful path. And, one way to kill any PROgress would be to have CONgress hold hearings and committee meetings endlessly, stalling any momentum. The title of the article is: "NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts among scientists, Congress". Has there ever been a significant government project such as the VSE where all scientists and Congress were completely on board? From the article: "The goal of sending humans to Mars needs more definition," Meyer, NASA's Mars scientist, told the National Academy committee. "What are humans going to do on Mars? We have to protect Mars. Do we want to send astronauts with all their dead skin cells and bacteria? We don't want to contaminate the planet and replace possible extant life." I'd like a description of the phrase: "We have to protect Mars". That's pretty broad. If we plan to extend our species into the cosmos, we better get used to the idea of our dead skin cells and bacteria taking up residence everywhere along the way. How far do we take "not wanting to contaminate" a planet? I guess we are getting close to having a real need for a Prime Directive. Bush has been accused of leaving several budget time bombs for his successor. He wants to make tax cuts permanent, change social security, but put the changes off until 2009, and there's the prescription drug bill. He may be doing the same thing with the NASA budget, starting projects that require massive spending after he's gone. If it was up to me, I would go to the moon, but cancel ISS, the shuttle, and the Mars mission. This would make the CEV design requirements more clear in that there would only be one destination it has to reach. I would like a thorough search for life on Mars before we send people there. If Martian life produces methane, we should be able to sniff it out. Cities can be built on the moon, so we can start colonization without Mars. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote: I feel that the VSE is a _clarifying_ policy (compared to past policy or lack thereof) that helps focus efforts along a meaningful path. Actually the VSE is an obfuscating policy that outlines a meaningless path with the pretense that existing efforts follow it. As you said, the title of the skeptical article that you read is, "NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts among scientists, Congress". But this title is simply wrong. NASA is defending a side plan to build an LEO barrel that holds three astronauts. The barrel is called a "crew exploration vehicle" and the plan is called "moon, Mars, and beyond", but no one will take this barrel to the moon or Mars, or otherwise use it for exploration. After this barrel does its rounds, some future administration is supposed to build another barrel that goes to the moon. But probably not. In particular, the only thing that NASA is rushing is Congressional approval. The plan itself is as slow as molasses. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print * |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Mike Rhino" wrote: If it was up to me, I would go to the moon, but cancel ISS, the shuttle, and the Mars mission. Well, to be fair, the Shuttle is already being cancelled, and our participation in ISS is supposed to be drastically cut back, once minimal commitments have been met. And there is no Mars mission, despite the media's repeated statements to the contrary. The plan is very clearly for a return to and extended presence on the Moon. Mars was mentioned in passing, lumped together with "other destinations" to be explored at some indeterminate time in the future. This would make the CEV design requirements more clear in that there would only be one destination it has to reach. True, as it stands the CEV will need to reach ISS as well as the Moon. That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me though. I would like a thorough search for life on Mars before we send people there. If Martian life produces methane, we should be able to sniff it out. Cities can be built on the moon, so we can start colonization without Mars. Agreed. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
NASA is defending a side plan to build an LEO barrel that holds three astronauts. The barrel is called a "crew exploration vehicle" ... The initial CEV crew size is specified to be no less than four. and the plan is called "moon, Mars, and beyond", but no one will take this barrel to the moon or Mars, or otherwise use it for exploration. After this barrel does its rounds, some future administration is supposed to build another barrel that goes to the moon. But probably not. Glass half empty? Consider that the original shuttle plans called for a space station to be added by a later administration at an unspecified date. It took too long, and the thing is not complete, but a space station does orbit the earth now. - Ed Kyle |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote: Greg Kuperberg wrote: NASA is defending a side plan to build an LEO barrel that holds three astronauts. The barrel is called a "crew exploration vehicle" ... The initial CEV crew size is specified to be no less than four. Fine, it will be a barrel for at least four astronauts. The point is, it won't be nearly as much fun for astronauts as the space shuttle is. Therefore the astronaut establishment within NASA is not going to like it. In fact, astronauts probably won't care about it one way or the other as long as the shuttle keeps flying. and the plan is called "moon, Mars, and beyond", but no one will take this barrel to the moon or Mars, or otherwise use it for exploration. After this barrel does its rounds, some future administration is supposed to build another barrel that goes to the moon. But probably not. .... Consider that the original shuttle plans called for a space station to be added by a later administration at an unspecified date. It took too long, and the thing is not complete, but a space station does orbit the earth now. First, the space station is a travesty; it should never have flown and the bad news from it isn't over yet. Second, unlike the CEV, the space shuttle had the benefit of very large budgets from the early 70s. It is possible that future presidents really will spend much more on the CEV than Bush plans to spend himself. But probably not. Probably they will just keep stretching out the project until they forget what it's for. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print * |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Kuperberg" wrote in message
Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org wrote: I feel that the VSE is a _clarifying_ policy (compared to past policy or lack thereof) that helps focus efforts along a meaningful path. Actually the VSE is an obfuscating policy that outlines a meaningless path with the pretense that existing efforts follow it. As you said, the title of the skeptical article that you read is, "NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts among scientists, Congress". But this title is simply wrong. NASA is defending a side plan to build an LEO barrel that holds three astronauts. The barrel is called a "crew exploration vehicle" and the plan is called "moon, Mars, and beyond", but no one will take this barrel to the moon or Mars, or otherwise use it for exploration. After this barrel does its rounds, some future administration is supposed to build another barrel that goes to the moon. But probably not. The VSE is at least a clarifying policy in that it is _a_ policy, where none existed before. It is the backbone off of which flesh will be added, it is the hand on the rudder. You may disagree on the direction, or that there is a national space program at all, but the policy is by no means an obfuscating policy. It still leaves us wanting more answers, but at least more appropriate and focused questions are being raised and discussed. Noting the errors in your statements above, you might want to read some of these before making further mistakes: The Vision for Space Exploration http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsy...lore_main.html Interview with Craig Steidle in Aerospace America: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images...february05.pdf AIAA Testimony to the President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy www.aiaa.org/pdf/public/duroshertest.pdf CEV Draft RFP http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ep...d%20Draft%2001 Jon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Strout" wrote in message news:joe-
True, as it stands the CEV will need to reach ISS as well as the Moon. That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me though. It's been done. It was called Apollo. :-) Jon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
Shuttle (actual) CEV 1970 50.2 2004 922.8 (actual) 1971 300.3 2005 526.0 (actual) 1972 365.3 2006 1103.5 (requested) 1973 694.9 2007 1530.6 (projected) 1974 1550.2 2008 1448.8 (projected) 1975 2357.5 2009 1855.4 (projected; last Bush budget) ------ ------ 5318.6 7387.2 (all figures in constant-year FY2005 dollars in millions; totals may not add due to rounding) When reading these numbers I can't help but think: where on earth does all that money go? Yet, what are the development costs for a large modern airliner? IIRC, $10 billion is in the ballpark. Jon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - April 30, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 30th 04 03:55 PM |
Space Calendar - April 30, 2004 | Ron | Misc | 0 | April 30th 04 03:55 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | UK Astronomy | 8 | February 4th 04 07:48 PM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 10:21 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |