posted 01-08-2004 08:44 PM               

Full article can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/3729r

quote:

---

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- American astronauts will return to the moon early in the next decade in preparation for sending crews to explore Mars and nearby asteroids, President Bush is expected to propose next week as part of a sweeping reform of the U.S. space program.

To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules in the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be retired as soon as construction of the International Space Station is completed, senior administration sources told United Press International.

---

[snip]

quote:

---

To begin the initiative, the president will ask Congress for a down payment of $800 million for fiscal year 2005, most of which will go to develop new robotic space vehicles and begin work on advanced human exploration systems. Bush also plans to ask Congress to boost NASA's budget by 5 percent annually over at least the next five years, with all of the increase supporting space exploration. With the exception of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, no other agency is expected to receive a budget increase above inflation in FY 2005.

Along with retiring the shuttle fleet, the new plan calls for NASA to convert a planned follow-on spacecraft -- called the orbital space plane -- into versions of a new spaceship called the crew exploration vehicle. NASA would end substantial involvement in the space station project about the same time the moon landings would begin -- beginning in 2013, according to an administration timetable shown to UPI.

The first test flights of unmanned prototypes of the CEV could occur as soon as 2007. An orbital version would replace the shuttle to transport astronauts to and from the space station. However, sources said, the current timetable leaves a period several years when NASA would lack manned space capability -- hence the need to use Soyuz vehicles for flights to the station. Ariane rockets also might be used to launch lunar missions.

---

[snip]

quote:

---

Under the current plan, sources said, the first lunar landings would carry only enough resources to test advanced equipment that would be employed on voyages beyond the moon. Because the early moon missions would use existing rockets, they could deliver only small equipment packages. So the initial, return-to-the-moon missions essentially would begin where the Apollo landings left off -- a few days at a time, growing gradually longer. The human landings could be both preceded and accompanied by robotic vehicles.

The first manned Mars expeditions would attempt to orbit the red planet in advance of landings -- much as Apollo 8 and 10 orbited the moon but did not land. The orbital flights would conduct photo reconnaissance of the Martian surface before sending landing craft, said sources familiar with the plan's details.

---

[snip]

quote:

---

Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the plan and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA briefings next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to Congress.

---

posted 01-08-2004 10:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 072069:
One neat little thing a manned orbit around Mars could accomplish is to send an unmanned drone to the surface to collect samples, return them to the mother ship and then back to Earth for analysis.

---

Thanks Bernie, I hadn't thought about that. It would also mean that real time control of any robotic rovers would be possible, allowing for much quicker operations on the surface unlike the step-by-step, Sol-by-Sol approach we are seeing with Spirit (and soon to be with Opportunity).

That said, would it prudent to send the humans back to Earth, or just the samples they collect? What I mean, is use the knowledge we have gained (and will gain) from the ISS to send a station to Martian orbit, permanently manned from the start with two-year shifts of duty rather than six months. Robotic sample returns could be sent to rendezvous with the ISS in Earth orbit.

posted 01-08-2004 10:07 PM            

Does it make sense to have a Mars and Moon program that does nothing to make cost-to-orbit cheaper by a couple orders of magnitude? Absolutely not. I don't want to be sitting here in 30 years, thinking wistfully about whether Robert Curbeam should have gotten to the (inevitably cancelled) command Mars Mission #4.

Nothing suggests to me that this program is either (a) sustainable or (b) makes space access cheaper. It keeps NASA as the one tube through which the human race extrudes itself into space. So I cannot get that excited about the program.

Now, mind you, I own a $500 bottle of scotch whisky, bottled in 1961, which I am saving for a Mars landing and I will toast our astronauts gladly, but this ain't the way to get to space to stay.

posted 01-08-2004 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Robotic sample returns could be sent to rendezvous with the ISS in Earth orbit.

---

That's a lot of extra delta-v, Robert. Just send em right down the pipe and have them land in Utah, like the stardust sample return. Cheaper and safer.

posted 01-08-2004 10:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
That's a lot of extra delta-v, Robert. Just send em right down the pipe and have them land in Utah, like the stardust sample return. Cheaper and safer.

---

And a nightmare to get past the FAA.

posted 01-08-2004 10:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
Nothing suggests to me that this program is either (a) sustainable or (b) makes space access cheaper. It keeps NASA as the one tube through which the human race extrudes itself into space. So I cannot get that excited about the program.

---

posted 01-08-2004 11:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fabfivefreddy:
China's recent manned program makes me believe that the Bush Admin. sees a possible "space race" developing.

---

Many space policy analysts and/or watchdogs agree, this has little to nothing to do with China and has everything to do with Columbia. The CAIB issued a direct order for the White House to establish a goal for NASA. That is what the President is doing with this announcement.

If Bush deserves any credit for this, it is that he isn't relying on a race or political foe to push him forward with a new space policy. If there is a foe in this situation, it is the losses of Challenger and Columbia.

posted 01-08-2004 11:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fabfivefreddy:
We never would have funded Apollo without the Russian involvement. I believe China is the next great world power- nukes, subs, satellites, men in space... what more? I don't think we are afraid of them, just competing. The Bush Admin. has the intelligence, not us.

---

Apollo was driven by the Cold War, no doubt about it. But the Cold War existed prior to the space program, it wasn't created because of it.

I am not saying that the Bush administration isn't aware of China's space program, and that it wasn't a consideration, but the planning for this new initiative predates Yang Liwei and any statements made by China regarding a lunar program.

In my opinion, saying that China's space program is pushing Bush to make this announcement is comparable to saying that science drove Kennedy's backing of Apollo. Yes, Kennedy knew of the scientific benefits that a lunar mission could return -- he had been briefed about it by James Webb -- but it wasn't on Kennedy's radar when he challenged the nation to reach the Moon.

posted 01-09-2004 12:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fabfivefreddy:
I don't believe for a minute that China has nothing to do with it.
We never would have funded Apollo without the Russian involvement.
I believe China is the next great world power- nukes, subs, satellites, men in space... what more? I don't think we are afraid of them, just competing. The Bush Admin. has the intelligence, not us.
Tahir

---

I think you may be absolutely right, Tahir. Maybe this is the kick in the pants we've needed. I really think we're going back, fellas.
Rob

posted 01-09-2004 12:12 AM               

Just my 2 cents.

posted 01-09-2004 12:32 AM               

Does that mean an end to Earth observation missions?

What about Messenger, which is targeted at Mercury?

Do we remove the Aeronautics from NASA's name and re-title it the National Space Administration?

Where would you draw the line?

posted 01-09-2004 01:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Any efforts to develop a new series of CEVs (Crew Exploration Vehicles) will undoubtedly lead to cost savings. We've learned lessons from Shuttle, just haven't had a chance to implement them. Further, a true Presidential and Congressional push today should be just what is needed to increase Wall Street support for private development efforts. Its possible the spinoffs from a program like this today could be greater than the initial concept for advancing the mass expansion into space.

---

posted 01-09-2004 01:55 AM               

Fortunately, we have ISS to work out the answers.

Unfortunately, science on ISS is limited because we are limited by crew and supplies.

ISS is a platform to learn how to live and work in space. It is also a unique laboratory that was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.

Here's what I want to know; 1) Once ISS is complete, how big will the crew be? 2) How will scientific resupply occur? The racks in the science lab Destiny are modular so that science can be brought down to earth on the shuttle and new racks can be brought up by the shuttle. These racks won't fit in a Soyuz or Progress capsule.

Plan for Mars, but don't yet abandon the shuttle and ISS.

Liz

posted 01-09-2004 02:17 PM            

To address some previous ideas: I think an Apollo 8 style orbit and reconnaissance is highly unlikely. One critical project on the drawing board is a single robotic mission that would accomplish two of the most important issues that face a human mission to Mars. First, to collect samples and bring them back to earth/ISS for hands-on study, and second, to create methane fuel from the Mars atmosphere and ice/water to get the vehicle/samples back, which would support the idea of making propellant on Mars vs. bringing it there. I imagine we will see dozens of robotic missions like this in the near future that will insure nothing short of a direct, manned landing to planet.

On the topic of China being a ‘push for Bush’: I think they are, but not for the reasons discussed. I don't believe this will be a ‘space race’ with China. To make all of this really work, I believe it will have to be a global effort. Not just China, Russia, and the UK, but big money like the Saudis and India could play a huge role.

In the meantime…lets finish that Space Station!

posted 01-09-2004 03:56 PM               

I think it's a great idea to divest ourselves of the ISS and retire the aging shuttle fleet. The shuttle & ISS is sucking NASA's limited funds dry. Why not use Russian & European orbital capability to keep Alpha manned? The billions this will free up should easily fund the design of new orbital spacecraft and deep space vehicles.

I happen to agree with Robert that to first go to orbit Mars without landing is a waste of valuable funds UNLESS a permanent Mars space station is contemplated.

As mentioned above this will all hinge on Congress's desire to fund this AND do so year after year for decades. Sad to say I think it'll fail for that reason alone. That's why it's so important for ALL OF YOU to write your Congressmen & women with your support. If you can't be bothered with writing a few letters, say an hour of your time, then this initiative will never get off the ground. So don't bitch on these pages, take your bitches to Congress.

posted 01-09-2004 04:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fabfivefreddy:
I believe China is the next great world power- nukes, subs, satellites, men in space... what more? I don't think we are afraid of them, just competing. The Bush Admin. has the intelligence, not us.
Tahir

---

Tahir, I agree - except I think there may be genuine concern - or fear - as well. There's an article which puts the pieces together and seems to paint the picture in terms of an arms race in space...

Look at the 12/2003 article "New Star Rising in the East" at this site:
http://members.fortunecity.com/starpoints/

You'll see what I mean.

posted 01-09-2004 04:18 PM               

------------------
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972

posted 01-09-2004 06:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Many space policy analysts and/or watchdogs agree, this has little to nothing to do with China and has everything to do with Columbia. The CAIB issued a direct order for the White House to establish a goal for NASA. That is what the President is doing with this announcement.

If Bush deserves any credit for this, it is that he isn't relying on a race or political foe to push him forward with a new space policy. If there is a foe in this situation, it is the losses of Challenger and Columbia.

[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited January 09, 2004).]

---

In fact the only solid point in this proposal, originating from the findings of CAIB, is that the shuttle flights shall end after the ISS is built. The operational tasks are then to be fulfilled by whom? The Russians and the Europeans? Were they asked, consulted, did they OK their contribution? Or is NASA paying them to do the job?

At present, NASA isn't even paying the Russians to bail them out with the Soyuz flights to deliver expedition crews to ISS, and I doubt anyone would take US astronaus to an ISS that the US have de facto abandoned unless the ticket price is paid.

And from such a bad bargaining position - how do we think negotiations about the price of the ticket will go?

posted 01-09-2004 06:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
I doubt anyone would take US astronaus to an ISS that the US have de facto abandoned unless the ticket price is paid.

---

First, the reports do not say that the ISS will be abandoned, rather that the shuttle will be retired after ISS assembly is complete. It is entirely realistic to believe that any CEV (crew exploration vehicle) developed will have the ability to dock and service the ISS.

What the reports do say is that NASA will end substantial involvement with the ISS in 2013 -- 13 years after its launch. Given that the ISS has a planned life span of 15 years, why is this a controversy? Had no new plan been announced, NASA would still be looking to pull out around that time.

Lastly, no where do the reports say that the U.S. will expect Europe and the Russians to pick up the bill. Rather it says that the US might look to Europe to launch lunar missions, a.k.a. buying flights. Since it is the President who could overturn or create an exemption to current policy to allow fund transfers to Rosaviakosmos, Russia could foreseeably benefit from this proposal as well.

posted 01-09-2004 11:46 PM            

And yeah, if we're dependent on Ariane flights, I suppose they can charge more -- but not so much that they can't price themselves out of the contract, either by making it too costly to work with Ariane and therefore switch to more Russian or American boosters (whether existing or new designs), or so costly it won't kill the ISS serving altogether.

posted 01-10-2004 04:40 AM               

Even announcing a decision to return to the moon won't amount to anything unless NASA's budget is substantia;;y increaed

1) Let's wait for an actual announcement
2) Let's wait and see how any announcement would be funded
3) Let's wait until NASA actually get a significant budget increase passed through congress or sentate (sorry not to up on my US politics)
4) Let's wait for a commitment from Russia and Europa to get involved as well...

posted 01-11-2004 03:03 AM               

No-one wants to see any more casualties in the manned space program, however your message implies a desire that the shuttle program never be resurrected. Sorry, I do not agree.

posted 01-11-2004 02:59 PM               

We are using 60's & 70's technology in shuttles 15-20 years old. The huge bill that the ISS and the shuttle fleet have incurred have all but prevented the needed research and developement of a new manned orbital capability.

Don't forget that when the shuttles were in their prime they had no place to go. Now that they have a destination (ISS Alpha) they are dangerously outdated and way too expensive to fly. Don't forget that the shuttle fleet's primary mission was to lower the cost per pound to reach orbit. They failed miserably in that regard.

It's time to move on. Otherwise when the last shuttle wears out or, God forbid, fails in flight we'll have nothing but robots to explore space with. Exciting as the Spirit landing of last weekend was, it pales almost to insignificance when compared to a manned landing.

To move into the future you first have to be willing to let go of the past.