An avenue to real funding for Bush's moon/Mars "space vision"

Like many other people, I've been predicting that there will be no moon
base and no manned mission to Mars in the next 20 years, despite Bush's
"space vision" announced in January. Indeed, like many other people,
I've been pointing out that O'Keefe and Bush are only asking for token
funding for these projects for the next five years. The "vision" is mostly
just advice to future administrations.

However, there is one possibility on the horizen that didn't occur to
me until Allen Thomson brought it up. If the space station falls out of
the sky, then presumably it will end the space shuttle program as well.
(Would they resurrect the Hubble mission for one last hurrah?) Then NASA
might have the resources to at least try something new. As I understand
it, the space shuttle has been delayed so much that it will have only
one good shot at reboosting the station. Here is a striking chart of
the space station's altitude history:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/viewing/issvis.html

When the station was at its all-time lowest altitude in early 2000,
people really did worry publicly about it falling out of the sky.
I don't know why this hasn't been in the news more lately. Can Russian
flights help more than it appears that they can? Or is NASA leadership
staying silent on a looming problem?

If the altitude problem is real, then NASA may be reorganized rather
sooner than Bush or O'Keefe bargained for. I think that moon bases and
manned Mars missions are still grossly unrealistic even if the space
station crashes, but at least the funding might be genuine.
Either that or the money would go to deficit reduction.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

"Greg Kuperberg" a écrit dans le message de
...

However, there is one possibility on the horizen that didn't occur to
me until Allen Thomson brought it up. If the space station falls out of
the sky, then presumably it will end the space shuttle program as well.

Unlikely.

There is genuine support among the american people
for the space program.

Of course, many think that the people have nothing to say in
the U.S.

I do not think so.

The russian space program has survived everything
because the russians (since more than a century)
are fascinated with the idea, as americans are, and
as other nations are.

This huge compound coming back crashing into
earth would be such a blame that not any
goverment would risk that. Besides, as you may
know, there are people inside.

Europeans and russians would give it a lift.

The europeans are waiting to branch their module,
built with a lot of efforts, in 2006. They can't
branch it because of the failure of the U.S. spaceship.

U.S. spaceships can fail but the International
Space Station will not fall to earth, I am sure.

(Would they resurrect the Hubble mission for one last hurrah?) Then NASA
might have the resources to at least try something new.

???????

You propose throwing away all the money and
effort that has costed to build that?

With the pretext of "liberating resources", a general
shutdown of the american space program is proposed.

As I understand
it, the space shuttle has been delayed so much that it will have only
one good shot at reboosting the station. Here is a striking chart of
the space station's altitude history:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/viewing/issvis.html


Yes, but it will not fall out of the sky. Too many eyes,
too many people have glimpsed the other side.

Look at that Hubble decision. They can't maintain it.
Too many people saw those photographs. Too
many people have seen what awaits us at the other
side.

When the station was at its all-time lowest altitude in early 2000,
people really did worry publicly about it falling out of the sky.

Nothing serious.

I don't know why this hasn't been in the news more lately. Can Russian
flights help more than it appears that they can? Or is NASA leadership
staying silent on a looming problem?

Both governments want to spend as little as possible.
But they have a public opinion and a history of
space exploration.

If the altitude problem is real, then NASA may be reorganized rather
sooner than Bush or O'Keefe bargained for. I think that moon bases and
manned Mars missions are still grossly unrealistic even if the space
station crashes, but at least the funding might be genuine.
Either that or the money would go to deficit reduction.

What can happen is that the american space
program is destroyed. Nothing more.

Other people, other nations, will go out there.
There are too many hopes behind those
machines to stop this now.

The International Space Station was a common
project. It will not fall down to earth because:

I do not see the russians let it fall down.

The station works now because the russians
have developed that technology. They started
this with Sputnik and Gagarin.

They continued it with their MIR station
for years and years of continuous human
presence in space.

They supply the new station with their
automatic Soyuz and now they handle all
traffic.

I do not see them stop now.

jacob navia wrote:

"Greg Kuperberg" a écrit dans le message de
...

However, there is one possibility on the horizen that didn't occur to
me until Allen Thomson brought it up. If the space station falls out of
the sky, then presumably it will end the space shuttle program as well.


Unlikely.

There is genuine support among the american people
for the space program.




Shuttle is going in 2010. The *only* reason it will be flying
between now and then is because of ISS construction flights. It
was decided back early in the space station project to inextricably
link the shuttle and station programs. Much of the effort between now
and 2010 will be to roll as much off shuttle as is feasible.

If there is an accident between now and 2010 with either ISS or
Shuttle, the odds are that Shuttle will be grounded. If ISS is
rendered unlivable or they lose a critical element in launch that
keeps the rest of the staiton from being built, there simply is no
point to continuing flying shuttle. (The odds of another Shuttle
accident between now and 2010 is around 40%, btw. This isn't an
abstract discussion).

The fallacy here is assuming that Shuttle and the station is
the sum of the US space program. They aren't. The US has already
bit the bullet and decided to do a few years without it's own manned
flight system.


But, if it is just a decaying orbit, then there are a number of
ways to deal with that. Starting with incrememental boosts with
Progress, Soyuz, and ATV. They are going to have to develop that
capability anyway as Shuttle will be retired 4-5 yeard before ISS
end-of-life.

In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:
But, if it is just a decaying orbit, then there are a number of
ways to deal with that. Starting with incrememental boosts with
Progress, Soyuz, and ATV.

Progress and Soyuz apparently don't have enough "oomph" to do the job.
That leaves the shuttle and ATV. They are both scheduled to launch in
2005. How much breathing room does the space station schedule still have?

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

Greg Kuperberg wrote:

In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:

But, if it is just a decaying orbit, then there are a number of
ways to deal with that. Starting with incrememental boosts with
Progress, Soyuz, and ATV.


Progress and Soyuz apparently don't have enough "oomph" to do the job.
That leaves the shuttle and ATV. They are both scheduled to launch in
2005. How much breathing room does the space station schedule still have?



The reality of the situation is that Shuttle could fly within
a couple months from today without any real problem. Most of the
mandated changes are cosmetic, at best, and could be skipped.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:32:11 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The odds of another Shuttle
accident between now and 2010 is around 40%, btw.

Where in the world does *that* number come from? By accident, do you
mean loss of vehicle? I can't imagine that.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 23:51:20 +0200, "jacob navia"
wrote:

However, there is one possibility on the horizen that didn't occur to
me until Allen Thomson brought it up. If the space station falls out of
the sky, then presumably it will end the space shuttle program as well.

Unlikely.

There is genuine support among the american people
for the space program.

I believe you misread what Greg said, which was that the loss of ISS
would end the space *shuttle* program, not the entire space program.

I think he is right, but I also think loss of ISS is a very remote
possibility.

Brian

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 22:50:05 +0000 (UTC),
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

But, if it is just a decaying orbit, then there are a number of
ways to deal with that. Starting with incrememental boosts with
Progress, Soyuz, and ATV.

Progress and Soyuz apparently don't have enough "oomph" to do the job.
That leaves the shuttle and ATV.

Remember that Shuttle reboost was a stopgap measure and an
afterthought. It was originally believed that Shuttle would not be
able to reboost ISS at all after (I think it was) P6 was installed.
NASA engineers came up with "neat tricks" to allow Shuttle to continue
ISS reboost.

So Progress should be fully capable of ISS reboost, so long as the
Russians have the money to supply them. Remember also that the
Russians are still behind in the number of Progress flights they
originally agreed to, even with Shuttle grounded.

Brian

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:32:11 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


The odds of another Shuttle
accident between now and 2010 is around 40%, btw.


Where in the world does *that* number come from? By accident, do you
mean loss of vehicle? I can't imagine that.


It's roughly a 2% risk per flight. 25 remaining flights.
Could be wrong as I haven't run the numbers yet. It's
not a small risk though. IIRC, NASA is claiming the calculated
risk now as the same as the demonstrated risk.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:43:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Where in the world does *that* number come from? By accident, do you
mean loss of vehicle? I can't imagine that.

It's roughly a 2% risk per flight. 25 remaining flights.
Could be wrong as I haven't run the numbers yet. It's
not a small risk though. IIRC, NASA is claiming the calculated
risk now as the same as the demonstrated risk.

That's probably a reasonable conservative estimate, but I think that
it's much lower than that, considering that they've fixed the thing
that caused one of the previous losses.