Here we go again

I admit that I didn't think that Dubya would stick out his neck and opt for
a return to the Moon/let's go to Mars initiative. But reconsidering, it's
not hard to see the rationale here. Son Bush is in the process of cleaning
up the left over business in Iraq that his Daddy started in 1991 and thereby
removing one of the blots on the Bush family escutcheon. And Dubya's space
announcement yesterday resurrects Daddy's ill-fated Space Exploration
Initiative (SEI) started in July 1989 and killed by the Clinton
Administration in Feb 1993.(I worked on the SEI off-and-on from 1989-91
while at McDonnell Douglas).

But, maybe our President is on to something here and perhaps the third time
will be the charm. In Sept 1969 the Space Task Group (STG), chaired by VP
Spiro Agnew, called for a very ambitious effort to build a national space
transportation infrastructure extending from the surface of the Earth to the
lunar surface and onto the martian surface. The STG Report envisioned huge
LEO space stations with 50-100 crew, lunar bases in the 1980s and a human
presence on Mars in the 1990s. Nixon tossed that report into the crapper and
agreed to build the space shuttle that we all have come to know and love.

The second attempt at Apollo redux was Daddy Bush's SEI, but NASA realized
that this $500B+ (current dollar) turkey would be dead on arrival in
Congress. Dick Truly, the NASA Administrator at the time, kept SEI in study
mode for three years. He paid for his lack of enthusiasm when he was fired
by VP Dan Quayle in March 1992.

Dubya has some of the same problems that faced his Daddy in 1989 when the
SEI was started. Then there were the post-Challenger return-to-flight
headaches. Now there are the post-Columbia return-to-flight problems. Then
there was the Space Station Freedom (SSF) mess. Now we have a half-built ISS
that's hemorrhaging red ink to the tune of $5B and counting. And Congress
and public opinion do not seem any more enthusiastic about Moon/Mars
programs today than they did 15 years ago.

Interestingly, it's the Republican administrations that seem to get a kick
out of periodically starting these Moon/Mars initiatives, evidently hoping
to repeat the Kennedy coup of 25May1961 when his Apollo speech to Congress
got that ball rolling. However, there was one overriding factor that
justified Apollo to Congress and the taxpayers, namely, fear. Fear that
Sputnik I (4Oct1957) and Yuri Gagarin's flight (12Apr 1961) represented a
technological Pearl Harbor. Fear that the Soviet booster technology used for
Sputnik and Vostok had threatening military implications (it didn't). Fear
that the vaunted U.S. technological superiority (we invented the Bomb, etc)
was slipping. Later, starting in 1965, when congressional support for Apollo
began to slip, all of the now well-known and well-worn rationalizations for
manned missions into deep space were trotted out (scientific progress,
national pride, motivation for educational excellence in the our youth,
spirit of adventure, the human need to explore, etc. etc).

However, a lot of history has piled up during the past 43 years. The Cold
War is over. The Soviet Union is on history's junkpile. We have an ongoing
war on terrorism that's eating our budgetary lunch and generating huge
federal budget deficits (like the Vietnam War and Great Society programs did
in the late 1960s). And I don't think that you can pile up a bunch of
individually inadequate rationalizations for Dubya's Moon/Mars effort and
expect by summation to come up with one good reason that will compel
Congress to fork over the bucks. My guess is that it's going to be deja vu
all over again.

Later
Ray Schmitt

"rschmitt23" wrote in message
news:2%HNb.26334$zs4.24435@fed1read01...
However, a lot of history has piled up during the past 43 years. The Cold
War is over. The Soviet Union is on history's junkpile. We have an ongoing
war on terrorism that's eating our budgetary lunch and generating huge
federal budget deficits (like the Vietnam War and Great Society programs
did
in the late 1960s). And I don't think that you can pile up a bunch of
individually inadequate rationalizations for Dubya's Moon/Mars effort and
expect by summation to come up with one good reason that will compel
Congress to fork over the bucks. My guess is that it's going to be deja vu
all over again.

Later
Ray Schmitt


There's always the possibility that China will go to the moon or mars and
claim them as Chinese teritory. What if they sink a few trillion dollars
into a massive moon colony while we sit back and do nothing?

"rschmitt23" wrote:

And Congress and public opinion do not seem any more enthusiastic about
Moon/Mars programs today than they did 15 years ago.

It's a tossup as for what the public really thinks. It depends on which way
the wind is blowing at any moment in time. As for Congress, so you think
this year they are making any proclamations based on anything other than
politics. The dems won't like the plan simply because it is Bush's plan. Has
Congress ever liked any long term space plan? This is where leadership comes
in -- presidential leadership.

And I don't think that you can pile up a bunch of
individually inadequate rationalizations for Dubya's Moon/Mars effort and
expect by summation to come up with one good reason that will compel
Congress to fork over the bucks. My guess is that it's going to be deja vu
all over again.

One good reason -- summed up by many opinion columns in the past days -- is
that for the first time in decades NASA actually has a long term vision --
and an appropriate one. One that's not motivated by fear, mind you. It's
going to require a change in the way business is done, for sure, but it
should also be affordable. The chaff will fall by the wayside to make way
for those tasks that align with the vision. If that can't be made to
happen, then there would be trouble. I think Sean O'Keefe has got a pretty
fair chance to make this happen, as long as the leadership from the top is
there.

Jon

Chris J...... wrote in
:

Sorry if this has been asked before, or is a dumb question;
I've searched the group, but haven't found an answer.

My question is; why can a Shuttle achieve a 51.6 degree orbital
inclination from Kennedy (latitude 28 degrees aprox.) but the
Russians can't achieve a lower inclination from Baikonur (Latitude 46
degrees aprox).?

In other words, why is the ISS in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit? I'm
assuming there must be some reason based on orbital mechanics why
Shuttles (admittedly with a payload decrease) can reach the ISS orbit
but the 28 degree inclination orbit could not have been reached by the
Russians launching out of Baikonur?

Basic principles (you can visualize these with a globe and a hula-hoop):

An orbit of inclination i will have a maximum latitude of +i and a minimum
latitude of -i, and the groundtrack of the orbit will pass through all
latitudes in between. Half the orbit, the spacecraft will be travelling
northward from -i to +i, the other half southward from +i to -i.

To a first approximation, launch-to-rendezvous occurs when the launch site
(rotating with the Earth) passes through the target orbital plane
(inertially stable). For a launch site at latitude L, there will be two
such opportunities per day for i|L| (one northward, one southward), one
for i=|L| (due east), and zero for i|L|.

The result of the above is that the minimum inclination achievable from a
given launch site is equal to the latitude. The real world throws in some
complications:

The actual inclination achieved by a given launch is determined by the
launch azimuth A, which is the direction the rocket flies after launch. A=0
for northward launches and is measured clockwise from there (e.g. due east
A=90).

For a given launch site, some launch azimuths are off-limits due to range
safety concerns (e.g. shuttle launches are limited by SRB recovery and ET
disposal).

Also, after launch, a rocket can steer side-to-side (called yaw steering)
to change its inclination by a few degrees. The space shuttle is normally
limited to inclinations between 28.45 and 57 degrees, but it has flown
missions from 28.35 to 62 degrees thanks to yaw steering.

OK... bottom line time he The Russians can't reach 28 degrees from
Baikonur (46 degrees latitude) because range safety restrictions prevent
them from launching into inclinations less than 51.6 and because their
rockets don't have enough yaw steering capability to go from 51.6 to 28
degrees.

a lower inclination orbit seems to me (and I freely admit I don't know
enough about this subject) to be a better choice for ISS, as it would
allow ISS to be used as a "lifeboat" if, for example, something went
wrong on a HST service mission or other 28 degree inclination orbit
(such as roughly what Columbia was in).

This is not true. For rendezvous to be possible, both spacecraft must be in
the same (or very close to the same) orbital plane. The orientation of the
orbital plane is not just a function of the inclination angle, it also
depends on the right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN) - think of it
as the point on the equator where the spacecraft orbit crosses going south-
to-north. Two orbits of the same inclination do not necessarily have the
same RAAN. And even if they start out the same, the Earth's equatorial
bulge causes the RAAN to shift westward, at faster rates for lower orbits.
So the space station would shift westward faster than HST, which is in a
higher orbit. A "lifeboat" mission would only be possible at the times when
the RAANs lined up, which could be years apart. To make a lifeboat option
available at all times, you'd have to carefully maintain the space station
and HST at the same altitude so that their RAANs would stay the same. That
would either mean requiring the station to fly too high (reducing shuttle
payload capacity) or flying HST too low (more aero drag, more frequent
reboosts required).

BTW, Columbia was in a 39 degree orbit on STS-107.

Also, there is the efficiency
of launching to a 28 degree orbit out of Kennedy to consider, as the
ISS in it;s 51.6 degree orbit would not make a very good orbital base
for mission to the moon and beyond?

It is true that high inclination orbits carry a large performance penalty
to reach. The US took that penalty in order to allow the Russians into the
ISS project. Applicability for missions to the moon was not a
consideration; the Clinton administration was not interested.

Also, I thought the Latitude of the launch point dictated the easiest
orbital inclination to reach; But, Baikonur has a latitude of 46
degrees yet ISS is in the even higher inclination orbit of 51.6? I
know I'm missing something obvious here, but can't figure it out.

See above. With a globe and hula-hoop, you can see that a launch site of
latitude L can reach an inclination i if i=L, but not if iL.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

I'm sorry to say that from a non US citizen's point of view, Georgie-boys
speech failed to inspire on many levels.

JFK really got the people of the worlds attention by putting forward an
exciting idea within a time frame able to hold real intrest. The average
schmuck can't envisage five minutes down the track let alone twenty-five
years. George has offered going back to the moon during the pentium age in
more time than it took to get there in the sixties using UYK-7 computers.
Sorry, bored already.

Georges vision of space exploration will fail as badly as that of the Nixon
administrations and his own fathers for the same reasons. His intention is
to pump more money into that underachieving white elephant known as NASA
instead of embracing the private sector. The human race will not acheive
real space exploration until it becomes comercially interesting. Real
exploration of space will occur as an aside to the comercial exploitation of
space. It is a romantic notion that the drive to explore is some deeply
ingrained need of the human psyche, but it is utter rubbish. We have always
gone into the unknown searching for profit or gain. That is how space will
be explored as well. Until such time as Joe Nobody thinks a holiday on the
moon is as realistic as a week camping at yellowstone, we are not going
anywhere fast.

Lastly (well not really but I can't be bothered writing any more) George
left out the rest of the world. He seemed to treat the completion of the ISS
as a contractual obligation to the fifteen other nations involved and
nothing more. I understand that the average american finds it hard to
remember that there are about 5 billion of us humans that don't know the
words to the Star Spangled Banner, but I expect more from the POTUS. I
suspect that a cooperative effort of the worlds space interested nations
would have us all on the moon and Mars a good deal faster, especially if the
focus was profit and not idealism. But then again if that happened then we
all might find out that the first moon landings were a fake after
all.........That is why the Chineese are going you know.

BC
Melbourne, Australia

Chris J...... wrote in
:

On 16 Jan 2004 13:41:49 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Chris J...... wrote in
m:


In that case, would I be right in assuming that the shuttle would have
sufficient delta-v capacity in orbit to change orbital plane (Such as
to reach ISS if it was in the same inclination but different plane)?

Only to a very limited extent. Plane changes in low Earth orbit are *very*
expensive. It takes about 440 fps delta-V to change planes by 1 degree. The
shuttle's OMS tanks carry about enough propellant for 1000 fps delta-V, and
you need half of that just for the OMS-2 and deorbit burns.

The general rule is that it's best to launch directly into a desired
orbital plane rather than try to change planes in orbit.

I
was thinking they could either increase or decrease orbital altitude
until the planes aligned, but it looks like that might take weeks at
least (thus running out of consumables before reaching ISS) given the
limited amount of orbital change capacity the shuttle has once in
orbit?

Right, it would take a very long time. More like months or years, since the
shuttle has a relatively narrow band of delta-altitudes it can go to, with
respect to ISS.

Also, there is the efficiency
of launching to a 28 degree orbit out of Kennedy to consider, as the
ISS in it;s 51.6 degree orbit would not make a very good orbital
base for mission to the moon and beyond?

It is true that high inclination orbits carry a large performance
penalty to reach. The US took that penalty in order to allow the
Russians into the ISS project. Applicability for missions to the moon
was not a consideration; the Clinton administration was not
interested.

I thought (evidently wrongly) that use as an "orbital construction
shack" was one of the future functions planned for ISS?

It was one ofthe functions planned for SSF, but dropped when SSF became
ISS.

As the launch
penalties apply for any launch to ISS, wouldn't the orbit be a prime
factor? Does Russian participation really make all the compromises
worth it?

Good question. It depends on your reasons for inviting the Russians. If
your objectives are to reduce the cost of ISS. provide a back-channel for
aid to Russia that doesn't go through the State Dept., and encourage Russia
not to sell nuclear technology to Iran, then no, it isn't worth it. If your
objective is to provide technical robustness and survivability of the
station in the event of a lengthy shuttle stand-down, then it is.

Thanks very much for the orbital mechanics info. I sure appreciate it.

No problem!

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

BC wrote:
JFK really got the people of the worlds attention by putting forward an
exciting idea within a time frame able to hold real intrest.

Also, JFK had one goal that stood out: put a man on the moon and return him
back safely.

From that one Goal, NASA then proceeded to establish what steps would be
needed to get to that goal. First, orbit a man, then try to dock two vehicles
in orbit, then test the apollo, test the lem, then send for a spin around moon
and finally land.

Bush should have simply stated he wanted to put a man on mars and return him
safely and then let NASA figure out the different steps needed to get there.

NASA may very well have decided that a test to the moon was needed as part of
the big picture project. Or it may have decided it wasn't necessary. But the
Bush speech was poorly formulated and even spoke of building a ship from the
moon's resources and that lost a lot of credibility.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
BC wrote:
JFK really got the people of the worlds attention by putting forward an
exciting idea within a time frame able to hold real intrest.

Also, JFK had one goal that stood out: put a man on the moon and return
him
back safely.

From that one Goal, NASA then proceeded to establish what steps would be
needed to get to that goal. First, orbit a man, then try to dock two
vehicles
in orbit, then test the apollo, test the lem, then send for a spin around
moon
and finally land.

Bush should have simply stated he wanted to put a man on mars and return
him
safely and then let NASA figure out the different steps needed to get
there.

NASA may very well have decided that a test to the moon was needed as part
of
the big picture project. Or it may have decided it wasn't necessary. But
the
Bush speech was poorly formulated and even spoke of building a ship from
the
moon's resources and that lost a lot of credibility.

What if your goal is to establish manfacturing capability on the moon? What
is the minimum we would need to send to the moon so that it could start
manufacturing everything it needs, no imports at all from earth except for
data?

"rk" wrote in message
...
John Doe wrote:

BC wrote:
JFK really got the people of the worlds attention by putting
forward an exciting idea within a time frame able to hold real
intrest.

Also, JFK had one goal that stood out: put a man on the moon
and return him back safely.

Nope.

JFK had one goal, showing technical superiority in space with
respect to the USSR for USA national prestige.

From a memorandum written to LBJ in April, 1960:

Do we have a chance of beating the Soviets by
putting a laboratory in space, or by a trip
around the moon, or by a rocket to go to the
moon and back with a man? Is there any other
space program that promises dramatic results
in which we could win?

It wasn't about the Moon.

Just think of where we could be today if we worked with them instead of
against them.

In article , Chris J . . . . . wrote:

Any idea why more zero-G science (except for human physiology) isn't
being done on the ISS? I thought that was one of it's primary goals,
especially materials research.

The usual reason: funding.

A fully complete ISS in a science-supporting configuration envisions at
least 6 crew members, with 3 dedicated to station-keeping, and 3 (or more)
to scientific research.

In the early years, there were huge budgetary overruns, leading some
grumpiness (at least, on the U.S. side... don't know about other partners)
about spending being out of control for the ISS so 'nice to have'
essentially got trimmed down to 'must have to keep it orbiting'.

That is essentially a crew with just enough time to focus on station
keeping and *maybe* just a little science if time and resources permits.

Unfortunate, but such is the current reality... especially with two aboard.

(And said budgetary overruns was a significant reason why the White House
installed a notorious bean counter known to impose significant fiscal
discipline in programs he oversaw -- Sean O'Keefe -- as the NASA
administrator a while ago.)

However, to be fair, there has been a significant amount of discussion
about the usefulness and true need for the ISS in LEO in certain scientific
circles while pointing out oftentimes the biggest breaks can be done in an
entirely remote manner and at far lower cost due to not needing human-proof
(safety) things for the most part if done right.

So you'll get some people saying that ISS is just a pork barrel item, and
you'll get some people saying that ISS has potential to be great but is not
currently so due to being underfunded. There's truth in both positions.

However, I have to say I dislike the role politics seemed to play in
including the Russians; I'd have hoped that that decision would have
been made from a primarily engineering and cost perspective, however
that would have turned out.

Likewise... but there's a large gap, and significant state-sponsored
projects are ultimately political in nature considering funding sources and
whom makes the ultimate decisions (White House, Congress).

For instance, the selection of Israeli Col. Ramon, Saudi Prince Sultan bin
Salman, or Senator Jake Garn for previous Shuttle flights... politics does
indeed play a non-insignificant role in things, especially large scale
international projects such as the ISS.

I was sorry to see the Shuttle-C concept scrapped. It would have been an
awesome capability.

It's certainly an intriguing idea. It was thrown around for years on end
without any real resolution given existing mindset and a sense of 'sounds
nice, but our current direction is adequate, thank you very much'.

Ultimately, STS-107's fiery demise forced a reassessment of goals as well
as details on how we'd reach restated goals once decided upon, and I guess
that idea was one of the many losers.

There's always a lot of interesting and intriguing ideas at any given time;
doesn't mean that they were necessarily eliminated because they were poor,
but often because there were other constraints that won out in the end --
maybe budgetary, maybe technical, maybe political, maybe security, maybe
something else.

-Dan