Bush wants new expeditions to the Moon and Mars. Good idea?

[Sam_Stone]

…And I disagree with both of you. *Some science missions may have their funding lowered, but plenty of others will have increased funding. The really exciting programs to me, such as the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the James Webb Telescope, and the Terrestrial Planet Finder may actually get increased funding. I hear there is talk of moving the schedule for the JWST up by a year.

The fact is, NASA is pouring almost six billion dollars a YEAR down a rat hole right now. The Shuttle is a dead end, and the ISS is a bit of a boondoggle. Sure, it’s easy to nitpick details of a visionary new plan, but does anyone think the status quo was going to work? If Bush hadn’t done this, here’s what would have happened: NASA would have gone on to recertify the shuttle, spending billions of dollars in so doing. Then eventually a year or five or ten from now, there will be another Shuttle disaster. Then the program would be cancelled with no replacement in sight. In the meantime, billions and billions of dollars will have been wasted.

And by the way, John Kerry and John Edwards, who are probably going to be the front-runners for the Democrats, are both “Why spend money in space when people on Earth need it” kind of guys. Which brings us to the 3rd option - Bush could have done nothing, and then if one of those two gets elected we could have seen an order to wrap up Shuttle by 2010 (the recertification deadline), and have NASA’s budget CUT by five billion a year and the savings spent on someone’s pet social program. That may in fact still happen if Bush loses.

I never thought I’d see the day when a president would come along and announce a new recommitment to space, moon bases, mars bases, and increased funds for NASA, and hear a lot of space fans bitch about it. We could go back to the Clinton years if you’d like, with a president who didn’t give a crap about space. NASA floundered around for eight years with its budget being cut almost every year.

[scr4]

@Sam Stone

The really exciting programs to me, such as the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the James Webb Telescope, and the Terrestrial Planet Finder may actually get increased funding. I hear there is talk of moving the schedule for the JWST up by a year.

But the article I linked to seems to contradict your info:

The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, which had been planned for a launch in 2011 or 2012 will slip a couple of years to about 2015, according to a NASA chart that accompanies the budget request.

Though it doesn’t say anything about Astronomical Search for Origins (James Webb and TPF). Do you have a cite that it gets increased funding?

[carnivorousplant]

@Sam Stone

If Bush hadn’t done this, here’s what would have happened: NASA would have gone on to recertify the shuttle,
I never thought I’d see the day when a president would come along and announce a new recommitment to space,

They were working on the space plan, Sam.
You really believe this to be a “recommitment to space” rather than a re-election ploy? A wish it were. Beats the hell out of what little taxes I now pay to kill people.

[Sam_Stone]

Long term plans at NASA were adrift. And, without this new initiative NASA’s funding WOULD have been cut - O’Keefe showed a chart last week which had NASA’s old 5-year budget overlaid over the new one - without the new initiative, NASA would have lost about 500 million dollars a year, compounding over the next few years, as programs ended without scheduled replacements.

This whole initiative has been micharacterized as a ‘manned mission to the moon at the expense of everything else’. A better description of the plan is that ‘maintenance’ activities like flying to LEO to resupply the ISS and maintenance of a space shuttle fleet are being cut, and the money saved is being poured into the ‘exploration’ budget, which includes both manned and unmanned programs.

Here’s a description of the new plan as given to NASA employees after the annoucement: New Exploration Vision. Here are the details:

Guiding Principles for Exploration

[ul]
[li]Pursue Compelling Questions [/li][list]
[li]Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions of scientific and societal importance. [/li][li]Consistent with the NASA Vision and Mission, NASA exploration programs will seek profound answers to questions of our origins, whether life exists beyond Earth, and how we could live on other worlds. [/li][/ul]

[li]Across Multiple Worlds [/li]
[ul]
[li]NASA will make progress across a broad front of destinations. [/li]Consistent with recent discoveries, NASA will focus on likely habitable environments at the planet Mars, the moons of Jupiter, and in other solar systems.
[li]Where advantageous, NASA will also make use of destinations likethe Moon and near-Earth asteroids to test and demonstrate new exploration capabilities. [/li][/ul]

[li]Employ Human and Robotic Capabilities [/li]
[ul]
[li]NASA will send human and robotic explorers as partners, leveraging the capabilities of each where most useful. [/li][li]Robotic explorers will visit new worlds first, to obtain scientific data, demonstrate breakthrough technologies, identify space resources, and send tantalizing imagery back to Earth. [/li][li]Human explorers will follow to conduct in-depth research, direct and upgrade advanced robotic explorers, prepare space resources, and demonstrate new exploration capabilities [/li][/ul]

[li]For Sustainable Exploration [/li]
[ul]
[li]NASA will pursue breakthrough technologies, investigate planetary resources, and align ongoing programs to develop sustainable, affordable, and flexible solar system exploration strategies. [/li][li]The vision is not about one-time events and, thus, costs will be reduced to maintain the affordability of the vision [/li][/ul]

[li]Starting Now [/li]
[ul]
[li]NASA will pursue this vision as our highest priority. [/li][li]Consistent with the FY 2005 Budget, NASA will immediately begin to realign programs and organization, demonstrate new technical capabilities, and undertake new robotic precursor missions to the Moon and Mars before the end of the decade. [/li][/ul]
[li]Key Elements of New Space Policy [/li]
[ul]
[li]Space Shuttle [/li]Return the Space Shuttle to flight and plan to retire it by the end of this decade, following the completion of its role in the construction of the International Space Station
[li]International Space Station Complete assembly [/li][li]Refocus research to exploration factors affecting astronaut health, and [/li]Acquire crew and cargo systems, as necessary, during and after availability of Shuttle.
[/ul]

[li]Crew Exploration Vehicle [/li]
[ul]
[li]Develop a CEV to travel beyond low Earth orbit, the first new U.S. human space flight vehicle since the 1980s. [/li][li]Undertake first test flight is planned by the end of this decadein order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014. [/li][/ul]

[li]Lunar Exploration [/li]
[ul]
[li]Begin robotic missions to the Moon by 2008, followed by a period of evaluating lunar resources and technologies for exploration. [/li][li]Begin human expeditions to the Moon in the 2015 2020 timeframe. [/li][/ul]

[li]Mars Exploration [/li]
[ul]
[li]Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration. [/li][li]Timing of human missions to Mars will be based on available budgetary resources, experience and knowledge gained from lunar exploration, discoveries by robotic spacecraft at Mars and other solar system locations, and development of required technologies and know-how. [/li][/ul]

[li]Other Solar System Exploration [/li]
[ul]
[li]Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human exploration. [/li][li]In particular, explore Jupiter’s moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources; [/li][/ul]

[li]Exploration Beyond [/li]
[ul]
[li]Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars; [/li][/ul]

[li]Enabling Capabilities [/li]
[ul]
[li]Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations. [/li][/ul]
[/list]

It should be clear from this that really what has happened here is that NASA is being moved away from commercial exploitation of space in LEO, and being turned into an agency that has the primary duty of exploration. Human, robotic, and telescopic exploration of our universe. And it’s being done right - no ‘flags and footprints’ one-shot missions, but a gradual, sustainable capability to conduct long-term and long-range operations in space. The CEV itself is likely to be a modular design that can be re-configured from flights to LEO, to the Moon, to L2, Mars, and even beyond. See this concept from Boeing for hints as to what such a vehicle might look like.

Note that there is emphasis in this ‘vision’ on robotic and telescopic research, with special mention of Jupiter’s moons and the Terrestrial Planet Finder.

This is the best thing that has happened to NASA and space exploration in general in my lifetime. I can’t believe how much opposition there is from space fans - I wonder how much of it is the result of this being announced by George Bush? If Clinton or President Gore had announced this same vision, do you think it would be received with such hostility?

[Sam_Stone]

By the way, my reading of this is that a manned Mars mission will only be done if it makes sense. In particular, this paragraph:

Timing of human missions to Mars will be based on available budgetary resources, experience and knowledge gained from lunar exploration, discoveries by robotic spacecraft at Mars and other solar system locations, and development of required technologies and know-how.

In other words, we go to the moon first. If we find that maintaining long-term bases is more difficult than we thought, then we don’t go to Mars. Or, if robotic technology improves to the point where we can accomplish a lot with more robots, we’ll send them instead. Or if other major discoveries are made in the solar system, such as a liquid ocean on Europa or something compelling on Titan, perhaps we’ll refocus on those with more robotic missions.

The whole thing is pretty open-ended. It basically just sets the vision: “NASA has spent too long spinning its wheels and flying a truck into LEO and back. Time to start a new round of exploration and discovery.”

Sounds good to me.

[dude]

you yanks just cant handle that china will be all over the news when their probes land on the moon

send probes, its cheaper

the moon…but you been allready !

[scr4]

@Sam Stone

Long term plans at NASA were adrift.

The manned space program plans were adrift, and I’m all for restructuring that. But why should the science programs pay the price? So far I haven’t see any indications that any astronomical and environmental science programs will benefit, and many indications that they will suffer.

[Sam_Stone]

I’ve seen no evidence that they are paying any price. JIMO hasn’t been delayed for lack of funding - it’s been delayed because they still have technological problems with the nuclear reactors. The vision explicitly calls for increased funding for scientific missions. But it’s true that the focus of the science is being redirected - moving away from some kinds of research into increased funding for the fundamental purpose of discovering life, earthlike planets, and the origins of the universe. To answer the great questions of the day.

Any time funding is re-allocated for any purpose, you will find disgruntled people, because someone’s funding has to be cut. And they’ll have good reasons for feeling the way they do. But you have to step back and look at the larger picture. NASA is being told to get out there and explore instead of hanging around LEO and playing with more sophisticated LEO trucks. This is a very good thing.

[scr4]

@Sam Stone

I’ve seen no evidence that they are paying any price.

I already showed a cite that says $2.7 billion will come from “deferring the start of several planned new missions, including the Global Precipitation Measuring Mission, solar terrestrial probes and Beyond Einstein.” That’s a substantial price to pay. Are you saying that the increased funding in other areas of science will make up for this? As important as planetary exploration may be, it’s not a substitute for research in theoretical physics, astronomy and environmental science. You’re not going to find the “origin of the universe” by looking at other planets in this solar system.

But you have to step back and look at the larger picture. NASA is being told to get out there and explore instead of hanging around LEO and playing with more sophisticated LEO trucks.

Again, I’m not arguing against the restructuring of the manned program. But when Bush talks about sacrificing the science missions to accomplish this goal, the message becomes “Give me one big success and put my name on it, and forget everything else.”

Please don’t think of this as knee-jerk anti-Bush reaction. I’m just speaking as a scientist what I think would be good for the scientific community. (Though I admit it’s hard not to take it personally, since my paychecks will soon be coming from NASA’s Sun-Earth Connections budget.)

[Sam_Stone]

Again, I’m not arguing against the restructuring of the manned program. But when Bush talks about sacrificing the science missions to accomplish this goal, the message becomes “Give me one big success and put my name on it, and forget everything else.”

Where did he talk about sacrificing science missions? The budget chart I saw basically showed a whole bunch of money into ‘Exploration’. The manned and unmanned programs are being lumped together, but the funding levels for the new division are higher than the sum total of the two individually.

As for how it will all break out in the end we still don’t know. The Presidential Commission was just put into place yesterday. I only recognize one or two names on the list. Does anyone know these people? Who they are might tell us a lot about what the planned direction is.

[scotandrsn]

@Sam Stone

Does anyone know these people? Who they are might tell us a lot about what the planned direction is.

Sorry for no links, I got the details from so many sources that plugging in the links was more than my early morning brain could focus on. Trust me that the info is from the most reliable sources avaiable:

Edward C Aldridge was (until last March) Undersecretary of Defense for Acquistion, Technology and Logistics. In the past, he was president of both The Aerospace Corporation and McDonnell-Douglas Electronic Systems.
Carleton Fiorina is CEO of Hewlitt-Packard, and has split her time between tech management jobs and more strictly commercial jobs
Michael P. Jackson was a VP at Lockheed Martin when he became Bush’s pick to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation. As of December 11th, someone else now fills that post.
Laurie Ann Leshin is a planetary geochemist at Arizona state University
Lester Lyles is a retired air Force General, and was Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization until 2000, when he was assigned to be commander of the Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson AFB.
Paul Spudis is a visiting scientist with the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston
Neil deGrasse Tyson is from the Rose Center for Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History.
Robert Smith Walker was a Representative from Pennsylvania for 20 years, and served on the Committee on Science in the 104th Congress
Maria Zuber is a Mars scientist at MIT

So the score is:

Defense: 1.33 Aldridge, Lyles
Commercial High-Tech: 2.33 Aldridge, Fiorina, Jackson
Gummint: 1.33 Aldridge, Walker
Science: 4 Leshin, Spudis, Tyson, Zuber

I could have done with one more scientist on board, an expert in Human Physiology under extreme conditions, in place of Lyles, who’s strictly defense.

[Sam_Stone]

So does it make you feel better that the committee that is going to make recommendations for NASA’s exploration plan is top heavy with scientists? The number of scientists actually surprises me. I thought it was going to be someone from each of the big space contractors, plus a management type, and a couple of astronauts with a scientist or two thrown in for completeness.

[scotandrsn]

@Sam Stone

So does it make you feel better that the committee that is going to make recommendations for NASA’s exploration plan is top heavy with scientists? The number of scientists actually surprises me. I thought it was going to be someone from each of the big space contractors, plus a management type, and a couple of astronauts with a scientist or two thrown in for completeness.

Actually, what I was really afraid of was that Bush would put another one of his god-damned oil industry cronies on board, although Lyles was a Rumsfeld lackey, which is why I think he could use replacing. Aldridge is Defense enough for a purely scientific and engineering endeavor. Fiorina is your management type, having the least sci-tech credentials of anyone on the panel.

As impressed I am by the list of people involved, I still don’t think this is necessarily the right group for the job at hand.

Why no one from Boeing, who has built the American components of the ISS? Human life-support will bey a key factor in any Mission to Mars, my reason for replacing Lyles with a Human Physiology expert. Also, was Aldridge running M-D when the Reagan administration notoriously gave them billions for a Space Station that never saw the light of day? If so, dark forebodings indeed.

The key to getting a person to Mars will be knowing how the human body reacts to long-term exposure to low- and micro-gravity. The only reasonable way to study this currently is teh ISS, which Bush crippled early in his administration, by cancelling the Crew Return Vehicle (the technology of which was to be used to build a better shuttle, contrary to the claims of those who believe that NASA was in love with the old one), which would greatly increase the utility of the station, and the Centrifuge Module, which would be used to generate different levels of artificial gravity suitable for Martian physiological studies.

Until Bush announces that he is reviving these two projects, along with a workhorse reusable launcher to get them into place quickly, I can’t really regard his announcements as anything other than an election year dog-and-pony show.

[scotandrsn]

To use a Reagan-era phrase, I have “misspoken” myself.

Billions were spent in the 1980s on a potential Space Station project, but not all was necessarioly given to McDonnell Douglas. Having recently worked at a science education facility, I have seen an extensive packet published by M-D in the 1980s to get people excited about this great station they were going to build. We even had a scale model of Space Station Freedom, as conceived at the time, although I do not know if they are one and the same plan.

Aldridge was an Astronaut! He never flew a mission, but that doesn’t usually matter to NASA.

From his NASA bio:

1986 - 1988 Secretary of the Air Force; 1989 - 1992 President McDonnell Douglas Corporations`s Electronic Systems Division; then he worked with The Aerospace Corporation; later Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; retired from government service in May 2003; since 26.06.2003 elected to the Lockheed Martin Board of Directors.

I suppose his position at M-D does not qualify him to be responsible for the Freedom boondoggle, so I back off from that point. Still doesn’t make him the expert in microgravity physiology I would like to see on such a board though.

[scr4]

@Sam Stone

Where did he talk about sacrificing science missions?

I’m not sure what your objection is. The space.com article I linked to above clearly states that Bush’s proposal takes $2.7 billion away from the Sun-Earth and Beyond Einstein initiatives. Do you think (1) this is made up by increases in the other fields of science, or (2) the article is of questionable authority, or (3) it’s just a proposal and unlikely to resemble the final decision, or (4) some other reason?

[Sam_Stone]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
Where did he talk about sacrificing science missions?

I’m not sure what your objection is. The space.com article I linked to above clearly states that Bush’s proposal takes $2.7 billion away from the Sun-Earth and Beyond Einstein initiatives. Do you think (1) this is made up by increases in the other fields of science, or (2) the article is of questionable authority, or (3) it’s just a proposal and unlikely to resemble the final decision, or (4) some other reason?

I waited until today to respond, because the budget details were scheduled to come out. It would appear that answer 1) is the correct one. Here are some details of the new budget: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=924

From the article:

Contrary to arm waving prior to the release of the budget NASA’s Space Science programs are not being hit. Indeed, Space Science actually benefits from the new exploration focus and the new synergy that will now be promoted for human and robotic programs.

Here are some details on the new space science budget:

Space Science:
$1.2 billion for solar system exploration;
$691 million for Mars exploration (16% increase over FY 2004 - will double by FY 2009);
$70 million to lunar exploration (will amount to $420 million by FY 2009 with the first robotic mission in 2008);
$1.1 billion for Origins (19% more than in FY 2004);
378 Million for the structure and evolution of the universe; and $746 million for Sun-Earth connections.

The JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) spacecraft and its nuclear propulsion systems (developed under Project Prometheus) will be covered in the Office of Exploration Systems budget. The scientific instrumentation specific to that mission will remain under development in the Office of Space Science budget.

Note the 19% increase in one year for the Origins program, which includes the James Webb Space Telescope, Kepler, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, the Life Finder, and the Planet Imager. This is great news to me, because I think this is the most exciting and important work NASA is doing.

Another very exciting thing is that the Exploration budget for next year includes 20 million dollars for prizes like the X-prize. I’ve been harping on this for a long time, and it’s great to see NASA try this. If it’s successful, let’s hope we see larger prizes for loftier goals in the future.

[jshore]

@Sam Stone

So does it make you feel better that the committee that is going to make recommendations for NASA’s exploration plan is top heavy with scientists? The number of scientists actually surprises me. I thought it was going to be someone from each of the big space contractors, plus a management type, and a couple of astronauts with a scientist or two thrown in for completeness.

Talk about the era of reduced expectations! Bush can actually speak in complete sentences and he puts a plurality (although not majority) of scientists on a committee to study what should basically be a scientific issue.

The sad thing is that this does almost pleasantly surprise me!

[The_Broken_Column]

@GoHeels

Personally, I wish we’d devote all that Mars money toward a national initiative to come up with a safe, environmentally-sound, cost-efficient alternative energy source, and watch with satisfaction as our Saudi friends go broke and return to the desert as nomads, and we can quit kissing their asses.

I can dream, can’t I?

Well your dream is pretty messed up…you have a problem in your thinking.

1. The Private Sector can handle development of alternative energy sources and already has done a significant job, the Private Sector can not handle Space Exploration as it requires too many companies, too many fields of research, and too much resources.

2. If you thought Terrorism is bad now…just wait until we stop using Oil.

@sctandrsn

Aldridge was an Astronaut! He never flew a mission, but that doesn’t usually matter to NASA.

Actually yes it does, being selected to the Astronaut Core but never flying usually denotes something terribly wrong about the person. Either lack of initiative or a failure to actually fullfill their requirements. I’ll look up his bio now…

Hmm…I guess his not getting a flight was such a big deal.

He doesn’t have a Bio, that means he never completed his year of technical training, whether he couldn’t or opted out is unkown to me, but for whatever purpose you are bringing him up, the fact that he was selected as an Astronaut doesn’t give him any more validity in anything. Considering these facts I’ve brought up.

[carnivorousplant]

@The_Broken_Column

2. If you thought Terrorism is bad now…just wait until we stop using Oil.

On the one hand there would be no reason for us to have a presence in Saudi Arabi or any other country to keep the oil safe, so we wouldn’t be messing with their culture.
On the other hand, we would probably still be supporting Israel.

[jshore]

@The_Broken_Column

1. The Private Sector can handle development of alternative energy sources and already has done a significant job…

Interesting thought…Then I imagine you must be quite upset about all the subsidies that have gone to nuclear power industry over the years…and especially the new ones proposed by President Bush (and this when nuclear power is already a mature industry that certainly ought to be able to fend for its own in the marketplace)? And, then there are the [url=]subsidies for the fossil fuel industry:

The sixteen subsidies highlighted in this fact sheet give coal, oil, and natural gas over $5 billion per year. The industry has already received more than its fair share, collecting $150 billion in subsidies from the federal government between 1918 and 1978, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.