Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving

Gene DiGennaro wrote:

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
Let's assume Bush announces a bold new moon-Mars exploration program today.
What do you guys reckon are the chances of this endeavor surviving if a
Democrat becomes the new President?

My guess would be that the likeliest outcome is similar to what happened to
SDI under Clinton: it wasn't canceled, exactly, but it was renamed, its
finances were severely cut back, and any actual schedule for doing anything
was pushed off into the indefinite future.

Gotta agree with you on that one. If the new program unfolds the way
it is advertised, it will outlast several Presidents. My gut feeling
on this is that if Dubya is reelected it will survive until 2008.

If they build a rocket and system capable of getting beyond LEO, why
wouldn't they use it beyond LEO? Shuttle can't go much higher than where
they've taken it. If it could do a loop around the Moon and back to
Earth, do you think they wouldn't've done it?



If Bush loses in November, it's dead by 2005-6 in the scenario Henry
outlined above. The shuttle will continue to fly to finish ISS core
complete. After the last of the Shuttle/ISS missions, there will be a
lull of about 10-15 years while Amercian astronauts hitch rides to ISS
on foreign spacecraft including Shenzou. Eventually however a new US
manned spacecraft will be developed. My guess is that it would be alot
like OSP.

Isn't it time for the US to leave access to ISS to commercial providers?



After 2008, it depends on who is President. I don't know if Cheney
would run for Pres in 2008. If a Democrat wins in 2008, see the above
paragraph.

Other than that Bush made this proposal, what is the incentive for
Democrats to hate it? Politically, it is insane to support extended use
of the Shuttle since the next disaster would be attached to anyone who
insisted it be used even when something else could be made available.

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message ...


Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...
I think there's only a small chance of the program surviving if a Democrat
becomes the elected new President. What do you guys think?

If a Democrat is elected in 2004, probably 10%.

If a Democrat is elected in 2008, probably 90%.

Bruce
So if a Democrat is elected both in 2004 and 2008 we get
a total of 100% chance the program to survive :-)

No no no silly.
You've got the math backwards. It has a 100% chance of failing.
Or both. So to solve the dilemma first we'll need a cat. Then a poisoned pill, a radioactive source and then a box...




Alain Fournier

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...

I think I agree. I've been searching for information on Dean's take on
the subject. Of course all I can find are statements made before Bush's
announcement. But they seem reasonably positive; he says he's a strong
supporter of space, and while he makes some words about balancing the
budget and fiscal responsibility, he could hardly argue that the
proposed plan is going to be a problem in that regard.

(He also talks about alternative energy sources, which provides some
slim hope that he would increase funding for SSP.)

yet still another reason to support Bush g

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

Ian Stirling wrote in
:

Ring fenced?

A term meaning to fence in the money, and stop barbarians from other
departments coming in and making off with big piles of it.


We may have more Brits in this NG than Americans! I hope that barbarians
from other divisions *do* pillage it, especially for planetary science.
Bush's crackpot moon idea has killed the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space
Telescope, the Webb Space Telescope and the Kuiper Express. What's gong to
die next, JIMO? These projects are far more interesting than a moon base.
After all that collateral damage, the only thing that could redeem Bush's
plan would be a telescope on moon. Bush's priorities are all screwed up.

"John Schutkeker" wrote in message

Bush's crackpot moon idea has killed the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space
Telescope, the Webb Space Telescope and the Kuiper Express.

If you'd read a little bit, you'd discover that Bush was the messenger and a
participant in developing the new space vision. He didn't sit in his office
all day and dream this up himself.

Start he

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=915

Jon

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:18:37 GMT, John Schutkeker
wrote:

We may have more Brits in this NG than Americans!

The British Empire lives on...

I hope that barbarians
from other divisions *do* pillage it, especially for planetary science.
Bush's crackpot moon idea has killed the Space Shuttle,

The Space Shuttle was already dead long before this Moon plan came
around, when I knew myself that the Shuttle was on the way out as soon
as Columbia went bang.

So the Shuttle was canceled simply because it is too dangerous to the
astronauts who use it. Sure they won't complain much, but things can
and soon will be a lot better.

the Hubble Space Telescope,

Again the Hubble was dead already before this Moon plan, due to the
ever dangerous Shuttle not going there. Also they were talking about
getting rid of it years ago, when now is just the perfect time to do
so.

the Webb Space Telescope and the Kuiper Express.

They canned both of those?

What's gong to die next, JIMO?

Who knows.

These projects are far more interesting than a moon base.

Unless you were in the Moon Base. The point of having a Moon Base is
that you can do things very much better with a Moon Base than without.

After all that collateral damage, the only thing that could redeem Bush's
plan would be a telescope on moon.

Followed by Lunar fuel production, which would allow anything managing
to claw it's way out of our local gravity well to refuel and go just
about anywhere in our solar system.

Better still they can start building probes and ships on the Moon,
where by adding some mass production, then their probes and ships can
go all over the place.

Even more fun is to establish large scale crop production on the Moon,
not to forget animal farming. As when you have people traveling all
over the solar system, then they will need feeding on the cheap.

Having a few gigantic telescopes on the Moon is just the first good
thing that will come out of it.

Bush's priorities are all screwed up.

Some people just have better insight than with others. As when you are
on the Moon, then you can really go just about anywhere.

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

Cardman wrote in
:

The Space Shuttle was already dead long before this Moon plan came
around, when I knew myself that the Shuttle was on the way out as soon
as Columbia went bang.

There will be moments when the shuttle would have been handy. The best
thing they did with her was the satellite return mission performed many
years ago. But they only did that once.

I'm still a big fan of reusable vehicles, and I am watching Rutan's X-Plane
very closely. I figure that they will need a vehicle with about 5x the
carrying capacity of the Shuttle's crew area. 1/5 for the people and 4x
for tools, spare parts and space suits.

I'm even hoping against hope that I'll live to see them launch it from a
big plane (Is the 747 still king?). Why have a rocket propelled first
stage when a jet propelled one doesn't need to carry it's own oxygen?

PS. Speaking of advanced craft, did anybody see the toy VTOL that Letterman
had on his show? It's a little radio-controlled gizmo that's about twelve
inches across. If they weren't so rare, it would sell for $100, but
because of that, it's probably about $500.

the Webb Space Telescope and the Kuiper Express.

They canned both of those?

Yes, but in fairness, Kuiper was dead before Moon Base Alpha came along. I
think they moved it's 10x power Xenon-ion engine onto JIMO. However, I've
been wondering how they'd know where to send the KXpress, since we've still
got a pretty poor idea of where the trans-Plutonian bodies are. And
they're so far apart that I'm afraid it might take a loong time to go from
one to the next. Pluto's orbit is 250 yrs long, although admittedly it
only orbits at 5km/sec. I wonder who has the numbers on that...

But if you could use KX to *find* the trans-pluto objects better than we
can from Earth, then it would be a brilliant investment. I wonder how hard
it would be to make it orbit in reverse.

What's gong to die next, JIMO?

Who knows.

Don't be so cavalier. Jupiter is far more interesting than the frickin'
moon. The moon is goddam dead, and the only interesting question is why we
couldn't find ice at the poles when we crashed the Lunar Prospector. We
need a JIMO, large-sample return mission. I'd buy that for a billion!

These projects are far more interesting than a moon base.

Unless you were in the Moon Base. The point of having a Moon Base is
that you can do things very much better with a Moon Base than without.

Admittedly, but is there any reason to believe that there are useful
minerals on the moon? And what else is there do do besides geology? I've
heard murmurs about an observatory, but I'm not gonna hold my breath
waiting for it. What would a lunar observatory teach us that Webb
wouldn't? How to build a electronics to aim the damn thing? We've gotta
do better than that.

After all that collateral damage, the only thing that could redeem
Bush's plan would be a telescope on moon.

Followed by Lunar fuel production, which would allow anything managing
to claw it's way out of our local gravity well to refuel and go just
about anywhere in our solar system.

I think that this is much overstated. If you think that getting men to
Mars is hard, just wait 'til you try to build a refinery on the moon. And
you'd still have to loft all the equipment from the Earth. That's the
lion's share of the height of the gravity well.

Better still they can start building probes and ships on the Moon,
where by adding some mass production, then their probes and ships can
go all over the place.

****, now you're starting to convince me. You could probably launch a
large craft single stage to Pluto from the moon, couldn't you? But you can
only assemble them. You still have to build the pieces on Earth, And then
you'd have to land them on the moon shoehow. How, bounce and roll?

And if you're assembling ISS sized modules, you'll still need something
like a crane to move them, because at 1/6 gee, they're so big they'll still
be too heavy to lift. And if the landing goes wrong, you've gotta go
trucking halfway across the damn planet to retrieve it. Of course, there's
always the inflatable route, but that might be too dangerous for a Mars
trip.

You don't honestly believe that they'll launch an ultra large craft to
Mars, do you? A ship like 2001 or Red Planet? The moon base costs alone
will get out of control, completely ignoring the Mars mission. There are
still too many holes in the idea, and I tell you, it's purely and simply
grandiose. And he wants it for free, no less. I want JIMO, Webb, and
Kuiper back. They're all better than this. Whatever happened to smaller,
better, faster?

Even more fun is to establish large scale crop production on the Moon,
not to forget animal farming. As when you have people traveling all
over the solar system, then they will need feeding on the cheap.

You've been reading too much sci-fi.

Bush's priorities are all screwed up.

Some people just have better insight than with others. As when you are
on the Moon, then you can really go just about anywhere.

Yeah, but the cost per Apollo trip in 1973 was a quarter billion 1973
dollars. What does that come to in 2004 dollars? NASA has serious cost
control problems, and no matter how hard they try, they can't limit their
spending. They've gotta cut their head count to the bone on non-essential
projects. But I don't believe for a second that they can, because JFK
himself said that Apollo would be a great jobs project. It's just the
nature of big government, and it might as well be a law of nature. The
mantra of better, smaller, faster applies to people as well as machines and
money. NASA is a big, fat, drunken white elephant, and I seem to be the
only one who can see that the emperor has no clothes.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
:

So to solve the dilemma first we'll need a cat. Then a poisoned pill,
a radioactive source and then a box...


Don't get me started about The Myth of Schroedinger's Cat. The cat is not
in a superposition of states, because the detector is the observer, not the
scientist!!!

"Terrell Miller" wrote in
:

yet still another reason to support Bush

I want the Webb Space Telescope and the Kuiper Express to survive.

In article ,
John Schutkeker wrote:

Don't be so cavalier. Jupiter is far more interesting than the frickin'
moon. The moon is goddam dead, and the only interesting question is why we
couldn't find ice at the poles when we crashed the Lunar Prospector. We
need a JIMO, large-sample return mission. I'd buy that for a billion!

Yes, Jupiter is an exciting place, but we won't be living there for a
very long time -- it's just (much!) too far away. The Moon is right
next door. We need to start learning how to live off the Earth, and the
Moon is the only sensible place to begin.

It seems to me that scientific missions should be funded through some
other agency -- NSF for example. I'd be all in favor of that. But we
need somebody to concentrate on *developing* space, not just doing
science in it, and NASA is the only choice we have for that.

Some people just have better insight than with others. As when you are
on the Moon, then you can really go just about anywhere.

Yeah, but the cost per Apollo trip in 1973 was a quarter billion 1973
dollars. What does that come to in 2004 dollars?

A lot, but do you really think we couldn't do better in 2015, using
carefully developed 21st-century techniques and technologies, than we
did in a rush job using 1960s technology?

NASA has serious cost
control problems, and no matter how hard they try, they can't limit their
spending. They've gotta cut their head count to the bone on non-essential
projects.

Well, no argument there. It's remotely possible that O'Keefe will be
able to shake things up enough to keep the cost down, though. He does
come from OMB after all. But I agree it's a concern.

NASA is a big, fat, drunken white elephant, and I seem to be the
only one who can see that the emperor has no clothes.

No, that's a pretty common complaint here. Still, it's nice to have the
elephant at least pointed in the right direction for a change. Who
knows, maybe we'll get lucky and it'll trample out a useful path for the
rest of us.

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