• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Back to the moon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

webmaster

The Grass is Greener!
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Well, it looks like Bush is going to push for us to go back to the moon and possibly beyond. I grew up on the Space Coast, did the space camp thing, and watched Deltas, Titans, and the shuttles go off from my backyard. I watched all my friends parents lose their jobs in the wake of the Challenger disaster (was on the playground for that one in middle school). And the economy of the Space Coast crash, and then it slowly comes back, only to lose Columbia. Oh well, for me at least, and I know I am biased, this is the best news, I don't want to give up the "high ground" to any other nation.... Go Bush!

John

Bush to Announce Missions to Mars, Moon
Jan 8, 10:02 PM (ET)
By SCOTT LINDLAW
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV1JJ80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and establish a permanent human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night.

Bush won't propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon; rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now, one official said.

In addition to proposing the first trip to the moon since December 1972, the president wants to build a permanent space station there.

Three senior officials said Bush wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, which has been demoralized by a series of setbacks, including the space shuttle disaster last February that killed seven astronauts.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's announcement would come in the middle of next week.

Bush has been expected to propose a bold new space mission in an effort to rally Americans around a unifying theme as he campaigns for re-election.

Many insiders had speculated he might set forth goals at the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' famed flight last month in North Carolina. Instead, he said only that America would continue to lead the world in aviation.

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with Bush in Florida that the president would make an announcement about space next week, but he declined to give details.

It's possible Bush could make the announcement in his State of the Union address later this month, painfully close to the anniversaries of both the Challenger and Columbia tragedies.

It was the Columbia tragedy that helped force a discussion of where NASA should venture beyond the space shuttle and international space station. The panel that investigated the Columbia accident called for a clearly defined long-term mission - a national vision for space that has gone missing for three decades.

House Science Committee spokeswoman Heidi Tringe said lawmakers on the panel "haven't been briefed on the specifics" of the plan but expected an announcement.

Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, a member of the House Science Committee, said he welcomed the move because he has tried to get the president more interested in space exploration.

"I had the feeling the last 2 1/2 years people would rather make a trip to the grocery store than a trip to the moon because of the economy," Hall said. "As things are turning around, we need to stay in touch with space" and the science spinoffs it provides.

On Saturday, NASA landed a six-wheeled robot on Mars to study the planet. However, the Spirit rover is stuck because the air bags that cushioned its landing are obstructing its movement. A second rover named Opportunity was sent in its wake and should land on Jan. 24.

Asked Wednesday whether the success of the Mars rovers could lead to a human mission to Mars, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said, "The rovers are a precursor mission - kind of an advance team - to figuring out what the conditions are on the planet, and once we figure out how to deal with the human effects, we can then send humans to explore in real time."

While answering questions on the White House Web site, O'Keefe said interplanetary exploration depends on "what we learn and whether we can develop the power and ... propulsion capabilities necessary to get there faster and stay longer and potentially support humans in doing so."

On the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing in 1989, his father, then-President Bush, called for lunar colonies and a Mars expedition: "I'm not proposing a 10-year plan like Apollo; I'm proposing a long-range, continuing commitment. ... For the new century: Back to the moon; back to the future. And this time, back to stay. And then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet: a manned mission to Mars."

The prohibitively expensive plan went nowhere.

No one, least of all members of Congress, knows how NASA would pay for lunar camps or Mars expeditions. When the first President Bush proposed such a project, the estimated price tag was $400 billion to $500 billion.

The moon is just three days away while Mars is at least six months away, and the lunar surface therefore could be a safe place to shake out Martian equipment. Observatories also could be built on the moon, and mining camps could be set up to gather helium-3 for conversion into fuel for use back on Earth.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, among others, has called for an expansion of the U.S. space program, including a return to the moon. The United States put 12 men on the moon between July 1969 and December 1972.

An interagency task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney has been considering options for a space mission since summer.

Former Ohio Sen. John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, has said that before deciding to race off to the moon or Mars, the nation needs to complete the international space station and provide the taxi service to accommodate a full crew of six or seven. The station currently houses two.

At the same time, Glenn has said, NASA could be laying out a long-term plan, setting a loose timetable and investing in the engineering challenges of sending people to Mars. The only sensible reason for going to the moon first, he says, would be to test the technology for a Mars trip.
 

EA-6B1

PLC Jrs 1st Inc. Kilo-3
I've always loved the idea of space exploration. One of my favorite movies is Apollo 13. I think Bush has got a good plan ahead for us.
 

NeoCortex

Castle Law for all States!!!
pilot
Bush is asking for a 15 mil increase in the NASA budget and a 5% increase per year after that. Here is a better article http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/WorldNewsTonight/space_exploration_040109.html

I'm with Webbie, I love space and I'm all for the plan. I also grew up near and around Georgia/Florida, did the space camp thing. I've always wanted to go to space, but here is my problem, maybe you guys can help me out. The problem that I see is that there is no real reason to go to the moon. By reason I mean Economic, there are alot of Scientific reasons. I feel what we need to do is privatize the space industry. The government solves a problem by throwing money at it. The private sector does it better and cheaper. So if we can find a economic reason for space we'll be better off. (I have some of my own ideas about the private, but I'll save them for later.) On a side note, has any one read "Man who sold the moon" by Heinlien? Great book.

Ben

PS Webbie, are you from the Cape?
 

utrico

Applying for OCS
That was an interesting article. I have, like many of you, also gone to spacecamp and studied Aerospace Engineering in college and I unfortunately have a much less optimistic outlook of our space program. A report I read this morning said that a mission to mars would realistically cost around one trillion dollars. Plus we still have the problem of replacing the shuttle. They say they will retire it soon and build another craft for mars, but they still need something to ferry people and supplies back and fourth between the station and the ground which is what they are currently working on. Even to just go back to the moon would be an enourmous investment. We lack all of the infrastructure to make it happen. I 100% think we should be going to mars and beyond but I just don't see how it will happen. I hope I am wrong.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Regardless of the funding thing, it's good to see a President who isn't afraid to show a little vision beyond his expected 4 or 8 years in office. Bravo to the CinC for sticking his neck out and challenging NASA, something they haven't done much of themselves lately it seems. To paraphrase JFK's moon speech, you should "go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Regarding the bottom line, though, it does trouble me that a President so sold on revamping the economy through supply-side economics (read: tax cuts) wants to add yet another spending source to an already burdened budget. And they're talking about needing to expand the military, too. It's great to do all these things but eventually you're going to have to raise taxes. (Gasp! Oh, no! Not that! I'll never get reelected!
propeller_125.gif
) And, yes, I think politicans, out of fear, underestimate the will of the American people to tolerate that provided that the money goes to something beneficial. I'm all for returning to the moon (especially before the Commies get there) but we need a sensible plan too.

Personally I'd bet on guys like Burt Rutan's team and the other folks vying for the X-prize to take the lead in space exploration away from goverments pretty soon. The first supersonic flight by a non-government aircraft and they do wind tunnel testing with a Ford F-250. God bless Yankee ingenuity!
smirk_125.gif
 

kimphil

Registered User
Why do we have a space shuttle? Basically, it's the only spacecraft that exists to service the International Space Station. Why do we have the International Space Station? Well if there wasn't an ISS the space shuttle wouldn't be needed. The rationale for the former and latter to exist rely wholly on the other, not for any other legit rationale. The science from the ISS is of dubious value, and satellites can be launched much cheaper and more reliably from less sexy unmanned rockets.

Why do we want to send men to the moon? Well, its a logical stepping stone to going to Mars (one of the rationales tossed out to build the ISS). Why do we want to go to Mars? Well that's the million dollar question. Going to Mars is dangerous, expensive, and most (if not all) of the science could be accomplished by unmanned robots.

Since we can't afford to pay for No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, or for that matter the the war in Iraq, it makes little fiscal sense to talk about more spending on big science that can and should be done by cheaper, less ambitious unmanned probes.
 

BigWorm

Marine Aviator
pilot
Kimphil, your thinking about it a little too deeply. Yeah, there are a lot of socialist programs out there and we could all go to France and be happy.
Putting a Man on Mars would be the most exciting thing I could imagine. It’s more than putting some satellites in the air so consumers can download the Internet on their cell phone. I would gladly pay extra tax if it were to go toward (Human) space exploration.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
You don't need more taxes, you need a faster growing economy to generate more revenue, and you can't waste money on $400 billion drug givaways to the geezer lobby. But enough on supply-side economics.

Great societies have always tried to expand human knowledge and human exploration. Putting men on Mars is justified simply for the sake of PUTTING MEN ON MARS. If the human race loses its desire to expand its boundaries, then we deserve to go the way of the dodo.

Besides, if we're going to mortgage our futures for something, I'd rather pay to put a flag on Mars than pay for grandad's Viagra or some 19-year-old to have her 4th out-of-wedlock child.
 

webmaster

The Grass is Greener!
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Originally posted by kimphil
Why do we have a space shuttle? Basically, it's the only spacecraft that exists to service the International Space Station. Why do we have the International Space Station? Well if there wasn't an ISS the space shuttle wouldn't be needed. The rationale for the former and latter to exist rely wholly on the other, not for any other legit rationale.
Wrong. The space shuttle (cough, like the P3) is a vehicle that is being used beyond its projected service life. Nasa has been forced to scrap all plans for follow on aerospace vehicles, and continue to use the orbiters to keep us in space, through budget cutbacks, neglects, and a society that is afraid of the risks inherint in the day to day business of space travel. Right now the orbiter is the ONLY platform that we have in inventory to put astronauts in near earth orbit.

Originally posted by kimphil
The science from the ISS is of dubious value, and satellites can be launched much cheaper and more reliably from less sexy unmanned rockets.
The orbiters have been the workhorse for the last two decades, putting countless satellites into orbit, building ISS, servicing Hubble, and generally being the cargo hauler that not even our Titan rockets could match. Yes, Deltas and Titans can put many of the same payloads into space, but none of them have the same success record that the orbiter fleet has provided.

As for the science being of "dubious value", which portion are you questioning? The fact that it provides the ONLY low gravity laboratory of a long term nature in orbit for the furthering of science is something that concerns me. Everything from advances in metallurgy, medical, structural, communications, and countless others have come as a result of the manned space effort. Current work on the ISS includes crystal, medical, tissue growth, zero g effects on the human body, and countless other science related testing that can't be done on earth. Not to mention the platform itself is in a unique position for monitoring environmentals of planet earth itself (climatology, geology, agricultural patterns, pollution).

Originally posted by kimphil
Since we can't afford to pay for No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, or for that matter the the war in Iraq, it makes little fiscal sense to talk about more spending on big science that can and should be done by cheaper, less ambitious unmanned probes.
Those words, "less ambitious", scare the living hell out of me. What happened to the America that led the way, challenged itself, set goals and wondered what was over the next horizon? I had all but given up that I wasn't going to see us go back to space in my lifetime, or if not see someone else do it for us. Leaving all the fiscal, science, and moral spirit stuff behind, there is one major reason we should be in space, and especially the near earth orbit including the moon. And that would be either controlling the "high ground" or at the very least having a strong presence there. Right now is not the time to give up a 15 year (if it is STILL that much) technological lead in space, to put our heads in the sand.
 

Meridiani

Registered User
I agree whole-heartedly with the idea that civilization is about more than putting food on the table and meeting the necessities of survival. Art, music, architecture, exploration, science--this is what sets us apart as a species! Space is the last great frontier for human exploration. Take it from someone who used to work on those "unmanned robots"--it's not nearly as satisfying, scientifically or personally, to send machines in our stead. Have you any idea how much more we learned about the Moon by sending astronauts in addition to robots?

For my part, I'm happy that the president has announced a long range vision for space exploration. However, I'm skeptical that these projects will come to pass unless there is a clear political advantage. Too much money is involved for future administrations to embrace it, and such projects will certainly span several presidential adminstrations. Perhaps the entry of China into manned space exploration will spur things along. Privatisation of space exploration is also great in theory, but I have doubts that any corporation capable of funding such projects has enough vision to accept the financial risks when the rewards ($$) may be years if not decades off. I suspect that NASA will pave the way in space for a long time to come.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Not to mention that when there's people on board, you pretty much know what works and what doesn't by the time you get to your goal. Can anyone spell Beagle 2? Besides, do we really want our grandkids to look up at the moon and wonder why we never went back? Phrogdriver is spot on there. People climbed Everest because it was there, not to look for a quick buck. Despite my previously expressed budgetay concerns, If you spend all your time making things perfect here before you go there, and fret about "wasting" money on "unnecessary" but rewarding things, you'll have a pretty sorry and boring existence IMO.
 

BigWorm

Marine Aviator
pilot
In attempt to put things in perspective, the raptor program is what – 67 Billion? The last article I read about the V-22, they were trying to reduce the cost from 74 million a plane to 58. Fox was reporting the cost of making five star wars films around 400 million. And then it costs about 800 million to put a robot on Mars.
From what someone said about privatizing the industry, I bet if we had a reality show we could put men on Mars. “five male sluts and three catholic school girls” what will happen on the trip to Mars?
 

Daedalus

Registered User
To the moon and Mars we go, I'm ready! I'm with the webmaster and Meridiani. I watch a lot of NASA videos, and remember Regan talking about the space shuttle, and the space station. There was so much optimism then.
For what it's worth I believe congress made a law whereby the shuttle can only carry cargos that need human intervention to be deployed, and that the firecrackers do carry most of the billion dollar chaff.
When humans are involved the success rate tends to go up, in safety and in complete missions.

One odd thing I saw, http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/12/04/us.moon/index.html talking of phasing out the space station We just spent the last decade building it for the purpose of going to Mars (among other things) and halfway done Bush wants to get rid of it? For what purpose, to realize that we need it for his goals and having to spend another ten years building another one?
Also I have read that the cost of a shuttle is about 2 billion (to simplify), around the same for a B2 bomber, and we have a lot more of them than shuttles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top