UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

In article ,
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes?

That will certainly get the scientific community in a frenzy. OTOH, the cost
of these missions is likely to be such that there isn't any other way to do
it, unless the U.S. wants to spend 5% of GDP on space exploration.

Agreed. But the scientific community needs to get a bit of perspective.
If we develop space, and get a decent amount of infrastructure and
long-term living-and-working population in orbit and on the Moon and a
more varied (and cheaper) selection of launchers, then those missions
which are hideously expensive now will be considerable less expensive.
It makes sense to focus on getting a significant offworld presence
first, and *then* do those offworld pure-research experiments that give
insights into cosmology and whatnot.

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

In article ,
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

5% of U.S. GDP would be $150 billion a year but NASA's annual budget is only
a tenth of that (so 0.5% of GDP). For that kind of money NASA will very hard
pressed to get anyone on the moon alive and back let alone Mars. So yes, I
believe very few new missions will be funded, if at all.

Ignoring Mars (which clearly was not a priority in the rumored
announcement -- and quite rightly so), there is no reason a vibrant
lunar base couldn't be maintained for that amount.

Of course, whether it could be done for that amount *by NASA* is another
question. I do have a deep concern that these ambitious new goals might
be approached with NASA's business-as-usual methods, in which case, they
will almost certainly fail (or be long, drawn-out, partial successes,
like ISS).

But OTOH NASA needs to take a convervative stand on accomplishing these
feats. That means it shouldn't try to invent wholly new technologies, but
merely adapting existing technology to fit the need.

I would argue it shouldn't do either one. Instead, it should act as a
customer, offering to pay $X for the safe delivery and return of three
crew members to a certain point on the Moon, $Y for a subsequent mission
of the same requirements (where Y X), etc. Let the companies trying
for these prizes decide whether it's better to invent new technology, or
use something off the shelf.

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

"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote in message
...
"John Cody" wrote:

wrote in message
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing
United Press International
moon but did not land. The orbital flights would conduct photo
reconnaissance of the Martian surface before sending landing craft,
What exactly would be the point of this? Anyone?

I found this a little odd also. If you want long duration experience,
do you really have to go to Mars orbit to get it?


There's no substitute for propulsion and power systems being tested in their
target environment.

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...
"John Cody" writes:

I'm not wholly against the idea of a crewed Mars orbital mission
(particularly if it includes flybys/landings on Phobos and/or Deimos as
a
bonus). It was the mention of 'photo reconnaissance of the Martian
surface'
as the primary aim (as opposed to Phobos science or the real-time
teleoperation of Martian robots) that confused me. Is there *really*
anything useful we could learn about Mars that could be obtained by the
early 21st century equivalent of an astronaut pointing a Hasselblad at
one
of the LM windows?

When you're flying back anyway you can avoid sending all data back via
the DSN bottleneck (and just take along a rack of harddisks). If you
look at the earth surface mapping missions (using STS) you will easily
see that the sheer amount of data gathered with some instruments are a
real showstopper otherwise.


That does not require a crew.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Going to mars without landing means the ship won't be able to manufacture
fuel
on Mars for the return journey. (although this would not prevent the
lander
from relying on Mars-manufactured fuel).

The journey to the Moon's surface is totally pointless in my opinion. The
ISS
is a far better platform to test a year long mission, hardware
performance,
reliability and servicability in space.


Where else would you perform long term experience exercises in a low
gravity, low pressure environment?

Good to see the full text of the story; all the news outlets have edited out
vital bits, like when Shuttle would be shut down. After completing Station
construction was my guess, but it's good to see it confirmed. Good work on
getting this story out, Keith and Frank!

Some implications I see...

First, the current NASA manned space organizations are seriously and
fundamentally broken, see the CAIB Report for details. Any major new
initiative that depends on them absent radical reform is going to end up like
Shuttle and Station - years late, billions over budget, and producing systems
so complex and fragile as to be at best of marginal actual utility in the
field.

The current NASA was built on the hasty ad-hoc Apollo structures that should
have been discarded with the end of that project. Instead, for over thirty
years they've been set into ever-accumulating bureaucratic concrete. The
result may well be unreformable for all practical purposes - certainly the
backsliding after Challenger, the prolonged mess of Station, the loss of
Columbia, and the current organizational attempts to pay only lip-service to
the CAIB reforms don't bode well.

My take is, reforming the main current NASA manned space organizations, JSC,
KSC, and MSFC, would be like trying to shovel out the Augean stables with a
teaspoon. The only NASA option with a reasonable chance of success is to start
new organizations elsewhere and slap the NASA logo on their buildings, while
winding down and pensioning off the existing NASA manned space bureaucracies.

I see two key litmus tests for whether this new Return To The Moon Then On
Outward policy has a chance of succeeding, one near-term and one a bit farther
off.

First, where will the new CEV, Crewed Exploration Vehicle program be run from?
I understand that JSC, KSC, and MSFC each already have their own OSP program
offices. These need to be radically trimmed if not shut down entirely, and CEV
run out of a fresh-start new place.

Second, what will happen to the current massive Shuttle operations
bureaucracies after Station is assembled and Shuttle shut down? These need to
be wound down and pensioned off, with a new outfit set up to run the return to
the Moon missions.

If CEV is handed to the existing organizations that have screwed up Shuttle,
NASP, X-33, and SLI over the years and are currently working on OSP in what is
at best a very nervous-making absence of external scrutiny, it's a very bad
sign. If Return To The Moon is handed to the lineal unreformed descendants of
the Shuttle operations organizations that brought us Challenger, Columbia, and
a half-dozen missions a year at a half-billion a mission, forget ever seeing a
practical permanent return.

All the preceding my humble but moderately informed opinions...

Henry Vanderbilt

wrote:
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing
United Press International



snip

--
Frank Sietzen Jr. covers aerospace issues for UPI Science News. Keith
L. Cowing is editor of NASAWatch.com and SpaceRef.com. E-mail


Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International



Contrast this with:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._what_s_needed

"For Mars, everything required by a moon voyage would have to be
multiplied, perhaps many fold. Some who have studied Mars exploration
say a manned expedition would last at least three years, with long
voyage out and back, and just a limited stay.

All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried along or
sent ahead on robot craft. The crew size would have to be expanded to
allow for sickness or death that is likely for such a risky expedition."

....

"NASA also has done studies on shelters for the lunar surface, on
vehicles that could be used for transport and on new surface space
suits. It also has studied the possibility of extracting rocket
propellant and oxygen from lunar soil, or from any water deposits that
might be discovered on the moon or Mars.

No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions
have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending
on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again,
would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface.


EDITOR'S NOTE - AP Science Writer Paul Recer has covered the U.S. space
program since 1964. "



I wonder if this guy has looked at any of the plans made since 1970..

Charles Buckley wrote:

wrote:
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing
United Press International



snip

--
Frank Sietzen Jr. covers aerospace issues for UPI Science News. Keith
L. Cowing is editor of NASAWatch.com and SpaceRef.com. E-mail


Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International

Contrast this with:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._what_s_needed

"For Mars, everything required by a moon voyage would have to be
multiplied, perhaps many fold. Some who have studied Mars exploration
say a manned expedition would last at least three years, with long
voyage out and back, and just a limited stay.

All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried along or
sent ahead on robot craft. The crew size would have to be expanded to
allow for sickness or death that is likely for such a risky expedition."

...

"NASA also has done studies on shelters for the lunar surface, on
vehicles that could be used for transport and on new surface space
suits. It also has studied the possibility of extracting rocket
propellant and oxygen from lunar soil, or from any water deposits that
might be discovered on the moon or Mars.

No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions
have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending
on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again,
would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface.

EDITOR'S NOTE - AP Science Writer Paul Recer has covered the U.S. space
program since 1964. "

I wonder if this guy has looked at any of the plans made since 1970..

I don't know, but he obviously hasn't looked at anything proposed since
1990. If there is anything behind that $1 trillion cost estimate, the
proposal will be as dead as SEI within a week.

In sci.space.policy Kaido Kert wrote:

"Hagar" wrote in message
...
In article
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

January 8, 2004

wrote:

UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing
United Press International

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- American astronauts will return
to ...

congress.

Wow, more footprints. Real Cool.

Note the fine print:

retiring the shuttle fleet

NASA would end substantial involvement in the space station

Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing
programs that do not support the new effort.

No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes?
What if this means "No more galileos, cassinis and space telescopes UNTIL"
those can be launched from lunar surface ?

But this is essentialy the same as never, as things stand or are even projected.
It means long delay or even cancelation of real science projects over a bunch
of unneeded footprints.


-kert


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:

No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes?
What if this means "No more galileos, cassinis and space telescopes UNTIL"
those can be launched from lunar surface ?

But this is essentialy the same as never, as things stand or are even
projected.

You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be
launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a
hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never."

It means long delay or even cancelation of real science projects over a bunch
of unneeded footprints.

No, it means delay or cancellation of science projects in favor of real
development of space. And I say, great! The first thing the Bush
administration has done (or at least, been rumored to be claiming to do)
that I've agreed with. Frankly, I really don't care all that much how
much dark matter and dark energy there are in the cosmos. But the fact
that the total lunar population is zero, and I couldn't take a vacation
there even if I were a billionaire -- these things I *do* care about.
We need to get off this rock, and to provide abundant clean energy to
the poor saps who are still here. Science projects isn't going to do
either of those, but space development will.

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