President Bush to announce manned trip to Moon, Mars (merged) (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

My understanding, Brian, is that the CEV is a "baseline" design, the core piece in the interplanetary-infrastructure game. It will be adapted according to specific mission profiles. For longhaul missions to Mars or to asteroids, two or three CEVs might be "strapped" or docked in some fashion. Meanwhile, bear in mind that "Project Prometheus," the nuclear-propulsion endeavor, is being folded into this new space initiative. By the time we actually get around to gearing up for a manned Mars mission, chemical rockets may be eschewed for boosting the spacecraft on a Mars trajectory. Who knows at this point?

Andrew, you bet I've been noticing the staffing trend you mentioned! O'Keefe definitely appears to be addressing the "culture" issue detailed in the CAIB report, eh? NASA is being overhauled, personnel-wise, as we speak. I've gone from being an O'Keefe skeptic to an O'Keefe booster (no pun, of course).

 

[Pascal A]

O'Keefe visited Goddard today specifically to talk to the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) project team and break the news that HST Servicing Mission 4 is officially cancelled. The funding is being diverted to the moon/Mars initiative.

 

[CharlesD]

Well thats bad news about the HST. I have a bad feeling about this entire proposal.

 

[LarryDavenport]

I'm as romantic about space as the next guy, but the amount of money the government wants to spend on the moon/mars expeditions would cover everyone's healthcare (including drugs) for decades.

It might be time to start phasing space exploration over to the private sector since Boeing, Lockheed, etcetera, are the ones making all the money. The government and the UN could still regulate things so we don't see a giant Union 76 logo beaming down from the moon.

 

[CharlesD]

Hardly. The US spends aprox 1 trillion a year on healthcare. NASA's budget is something like 15 billion, and this "proposal" calls for a 5% increase in NASA's budget.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Cancelling the HST servicing mission was a given. Every single shuttle launch will be used to get ISS finished as quickly as possible. There's only five or six years available to the orbiters. They can only get three or four launches per year, and may not get any until well into 2005. There's going to be a crunch to get ISS done by 2010. Any and everything in the ISS and Shuttle programs not geared towards ISS assembly is toast. New shuttle systems required for Return to Flight are still active, but any other upgrades are out. Why bother? It takes several years to get an upgrade approved, tested, and installed. It's not worth the money if the orbiter's going on static display after two more flights.

Larry, at the present private sector space exploration is not feasible. There's no money to be made in it, and the companies must answer to the stockholders. Lockheed and others have sunk their own cash into prototypes hoping to convince NASA to fund a program, but as soon as something failed they bailed out. They just can't afford to fund a pure research project of this magnitude, even if there are significant dividends in the years to follow. Shareholders want a return on investment in the annual report. They aren't interested that there may be profit from it in ten or twenty years. And of all the many programs Lockheed and others are in, they barely break even on the NASA engineering support contracts.

Andy

 

[Jack Briggs]

Keith Cowing has opened up his superb NASAwatch site for reader comments about the new proposal. If you have a little time, check them out here.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack,

I've been avoiding that reader comment section, for the same reason that I change channels the instant a news channel starts showing a series of "man on the street" interviews. I'll say no more lest I be branded a misanthrope.

Loving my fellow Man,

Andy

 

[Jack Briggs]

I think some of your colleagues are posting in the discussion, Andy! The level of conversation is clearly a cut above even the best offered by today's newscasters, much less "man-on-the-street" commentators spouting about which they no nothing. Otherwise, I know full well how you feel, buddy.

 

[ChrisMatson]

I think international cooperation is key. If NASA feels that it is best to maintain operational control, fine, but excluding others would run contrary to the spirit of exploration.

I hope that any program remains peaceful and open to all countries as outlined in the fiver international space treaties and agreements through the United Nations.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html

I fear the weaponization of space.

 

[Andrew Testa]

International cooperation can be important, but it can also be a huge hindrance. It's created huge headaches on ISS, from the obvious mega-dollar Russian one to the smaller but no less aggravating arguments over standardization of equipment. The U.S. wants all equipment and controls to be standard to monimize training, while some of the partners have fought for years to have their own system that's not compatible with the U.S. side, which would force crews to train on multiple systems that do the same thing from different modules.

And I can assure you that nothing that NASA pays for will be part of a weapons system. It'll be hard enough to get crews into space within the budget goal without adding that on top. Besides, every major country with launch systems already has anti-satellite systems, and has had them for decades. DoD has been testing various systems just short of the treaties for a long time. Space is already weaponized, and NASA is well below the budgetary or practicality radar for that type of activity.

Andy

 

[BrianShort]

If they go with a capsule style spacecraft, which it's sounding like they will, about how big can a capsule be? Could you conceivably design a capsule that would comfortably hold 6 or 7 people?

Brian

 

[Andrew Testa]

Brian,

Yes, it's possible, although the crew size may be more like 4 or maybe 5. Both the Delta IV and the Atlas 5 500 series are designed for a payload fairing 5 meters in diameter. So a capsule up to ~16.4 feet wide at the interface with the control module is the upper limit. For comparison the Apollo capsule was 13.3 feet in diameter. So the new capsule could be up to 3 feet wider. This doesn't sound like much, but it's a 23% increase in the linear dimension, and volume scales with the cube of the linear dimensions. So if the capsule shape was the same but increased in size to 5 meters, the volume would be 87% larger than the Apollo.

Andy

 

[Cees Alons]

You need different vehicles to run on land, or to sail on sea, to dive under the sea or to fly through the air.

Likewise, you need differently constructed vehicles to leave the atmosphere and gravity of the earth, or to go through space, etc.
When time and technology ran out at the end of the sixties, a clever and complicated concept was created to bring people to the moon-surface at once - in a three-in-one vehicle.

I may be just an old-fashioned Sci-Fi reader, but I still believe the space station in orbit approach will be the very best in the long term. (Hey, Jack, read and seen 2001: A Space Odyssey again lately?)
Special crafts to bring people and materials from the surface to the station. Special modules to travel to the moon and/or other planets. Special landing vehicles again, etc. May first be more expensive, but much cheaper in the long run.

I even believe it will be safer also.

Oh, well. Perhaps I'm all wrong.

Cees

 

[BrianShort]

I'd still say I'm a fan of a Mars Direct style plan, or at least semi direct. The ship design at http://www.exploremarsnow.com looks pretty similar to what is featured in the NASA Design Reference Mission, and I think it looks well thought out and designed. But then again, I don't really know anything about spaceship construction

Brian

 

[Andrew Testa]

Cees,

No, you're not all wrong. You're quite correct. The reason other Mars proposals failed is that they started from the assumption that everything had to be built from scratch, and everything was only applicable to a single mission. That's why the cost projections were so huge. The modular approach is by far the best for a large variety of missions. My only disagreement with you is the need for a space station. We are actually extremely good at vehicle docking in orbit. All modules required for a mission can easily be mated in Earth orbit and sent on their way. There really is no need for an orbital station so far as manned missions out of LEO are concerned.

Brian,

While Mars Direct and the NASA reference plan may be well thought out and seem like attractive ideas, they are different missions than what is being proposed. As I've said before, they are one-trick ponies. It is FAR more desirable to have a system of vehicles that can go ANYWHERE. Neither of those designs can do that. While they would get a man on Mars faster, that's not the point. Once they were done, we'd be in exactly the same spot: spent a few billion to visit a place but still have no long term goals. Mars Direct is fatally flawed in the same way the Apollo program was flawed: the only purpose is the destination. Once the destination is reached, the program has no place to go.

On the other hand, if the goal is to build a transportation system, then you have the ability to make it modular and adaptable. It's slower, but that makes it less expensive in the short term. If this is the goal then it will be a fluid one where new technologies can be incorporated as they are found, as opposed to the current paradigm where everything is designed at once and the technology is locked into that era (shuttle is obvious example: core systems are 1970's vintage and cannot be upgraded).

The difference in goals is very important, and I really wish that Bush had expressed this more in his speech. In the first, the destination is the goal, and the technology is specific to that goal only and obsolete afterward. In the second, the transportation system is the goal, which can evolve with new technology, and allow many different destinations, some we may not be think possible today.

The press has completely missed this distinction, and so every article about the program is written in terms of the destination-oriented approach. Of coarse the budget doesn't make sense in that light: it's not supposed to. It's supposed to only support the beginnings of an infrastructure. We have no idea what the Mars vehicle will look like or what it will cost until AFTER the transportation system model has been defined and work begins on how to make a CEV and transform it into an interplanetary vehicle.

Jack,

I tried reading the comments page at NASA Watch, and had to quit after only a few pages. While there were a few though provoking opinions, there were unfortunately enough cow patties passing as thoughts to run me off. There's more than one reason why opinions are like assholes, and the fact that everybody has one is by far the least objectionable.

Andy the malcontented misanthope

 

[Cees Alons]

Andrew,

Yes, and technically it would amount to the same - for one trip that is. I don't think we disagree that much.

In fact, given the number of flights to Mars we might expect in the very near future, I have no doubt that you're right. At least for a space station orbiting Mars.
But I still think we should start thinking about (and planning and discussing, especially politically) a real space station near our own planet. You could dock more different parts there, for various periods, have people stay for a few "nights", plan trips to different places (shorter trips and longer ones like to Mars as well as the Moon or perhaps even other planets), have special assembly lines there for space vehicles and also use it for all sorts of scientific goals, etc.

Of course, that would mean a real and solid space program. I suppose that's also what you're referring to when you mention different destinations and an infrastructure.


Cees

 

[Jack Briggs]

Cees, of course I've recently screened 2001. I've always "recently screened" it at any given time in my life.

As for Andrew's most recent post, there isn't a thing in it with which I disagree. Remember, Andy, when I decried the idea of a capsule-like "OSP" only a few months ago? Now, as The Monkees sang, "I'm a believer."

 

[Dick]

I loved the space program in its heydey, and I would be so-o-o- thrilled to see it make a comeback....but Now? Bush waits until we are mired in war in foreign countries and have a zillion dollar national debt to propose this? What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Jack Briggs]

And that's precisely where we can't go here, Dick. Somehow, we have to limit the discussion to the merits of the proposed initiative itself while eschewing the political context in which it occurs. So, please, no comments on the president or his overall agenda. Per HTF rules.