Is it ever going to happen? VSE

[BReif]

Looking at the Vision for Space Exploration as a whole, as well as its fundamental elements (Shuttle RTF, ISS, Moon, Mars, Beyond), and then looking at the United States Congress, the political game playing and partisan politics, the Federal Debt, rising interest rates, rising fuel costs, the re-building of New Orleans and the Gulf Coasts of Mississippi and Alabama, the War on Terror, and public dis-interest, I do not beleive that all of the elements of this program will be implemented. As much as I would love to see it in my life-time (I am one who has every mission patch for every manned US spaceflight since Freedom 7, one who has written to Congress and the President several times a year in support of the Space program, and a long-time member of the National Space Society), I don't think I will, and I am in my mid-30's. What I see happening is support lasting for the VSE as long as G.W. Bush is president, and the GOP retains the majority in the Congress. Once that changes, the program, I beleive, will be scrapped (all of it except shuttle retirement), and there will be no manned space program in the United States. The VSE does not have the momentum to survive the 2006 congressional elections if the Democratic Party wins the majority in the House, or Senate. Because of the War in Iraq, I see that as very likely. Many Democrats see the VSE as a Bush program, and have never beleived in it or suppoted it, and would like to see it die. When it does, there will be a vaccuum that will last years, possibly decades, in the US's capability to send humans into space. So, while we sit here bantering over the STS/ISS program and whether it was a mistake or not (frankly, STS is going to be phased out by 2010 so any arguments about it is moot. We can not chage the past or change the 2010 retirement plan), the long term future of manned spaceflight faces political peril that goes unaddressed. If we want to save it, and make sure that it happens in our lifetime, shouldn

 

[spacefire]

my bet would be no. ISS is going to be abandoned by the US , Shuttle ditched and every other project undertaken by NASA in the past 20 years never came to completion. What are the chances of this-such uninspiring- program to ever be completed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

A majority of both parties support a US manned space program. This is likely to still be the case for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />A new president might want to re-state the plan, perhaps with a new name, and enough minor amendments to justify doing so, so that he/she can call it his/her plan. But the basics will persist.

 

[erauskydiver]

What is uninspiring about putting people on the moon. Heck, even if they just stepped out, grabbed a rock, and ran back inside, I'd still be inspired.

 

[wdobner]

I think the better question to ask, rather than simply begging congress for money, is what justification does NASA have for going to the Moon and Mars other than "Dubya told us to" or "We're Humans, we need to explore"? I agree that we need to explore, but disagree with the method in which VSE would shortchange our long term access to space for what currently seems to be a vapid propoganda stunt. Kennedy told us to go to the moon and we did it, but then he was assainated and I'm sure there were folks in the Apollo program who felt (not unjustifiably) that they were working to carry out his legacy. However, when a tragically deceased president's legacy, especially one as popular as Kennedy, can get us to the moon but can't keep us shelling out the money for a permanent program I have to wonder if it is possible for us to reach the moon on a permanent basis using our current systems. Who knows, maybe if Kennedy had changed his speech to include putting moonbase up congress would have found the money, but by 1972 I strongly doubt they were up to spending that kind of money. As you say, given the partisan nature of VSE, it is unlikely that a Democratic congress or presidency would keep it around, just out of spite. <br /><br />Do we know of any valuable materials on the moon which might be of use here on earth? I realize that the moon can be of great use supplying some raw materials for later flights further out into the solar system, but right now lets concentrate on staying on the moon. Congress isn't going to keep shelling out money for a moon program that's just landing a dozen guys there, taking pictures and doing a few scientific experiments. Either we find some way to lessen the cost, find some way to return useful materials to Earth (or at least earth orbit), or face the prospect that somebody in congress (even without a 'regime change') will get sticker shock from just going to the Moon and our Mars plans will go poof. <br /><br />I feel a better use of N

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">What is uninspiring about putting people on the moon. Heck, even if they just stepped out, grabbed a rock, and ran back inside, I'd still be inspired.</font><br /><br />Why don't you watch some Apollo footage then? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br />I want more.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

well said. That's why this so called 'return to the Moon' resembles a low-budget scifi flick. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

Your sour grapes attitude is starting to get boring. If the exact same architecture and mission had been selected with the LockMart lifting body, you'ld be jumping around hootin' and hollerin' for joy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

"The public largely supports NASA, and no administration is ever going to gut it....it's one of the few things Americans can legitimately be proud of, these days. NASA and the space program also represents high-technology jobs, a fact that no politician is likely to ignore. "<br />Sadly, I wonder if that is the case. I live in a typical college town; that is, predictably left-wing. When Columbia disintegrated, all I heard was whining about what a waste of money the space program was. Some of these comments came from teachers, whom I've heard telling students what their political views should be. The old mantra of "we should spend that money on welfare" is still alive and kicking. The Left does not really care about the kind of people who work in high-technology jobs, except as a source of tax revenue for "re-distribution" of wealth.<br />

 

[BReif]

Crazzieeddie: I hope you are right, and that things are not as dire as they appear, and you are also right, we can not ignore the debt, and continue to run deficits year after year. I feel like every time there is a budget cut, the space program is the first target, and it certainly has been in the past. Part of that had to do with the fact that NASA appropriations are a part of the Housing and Urban Development budget (HUD), which forces NASA to compete with funding for Section 8 housing, and other programs for the needy. If it hasn't already, NASA should be placed under a different Cabinet department competeing with other science programs, or become a Cabinet department unto itself.

 

[BReif]

"Sadly, I wonder if that is the case. I live in a typical college town; that is, predictably left-wing. When Columbia disintegrated, all I heard was whining about what a waste of money the space program was"<br /><br />This is exactly what I am talking about. Back in the 2004 presidential election, after GW outlined the VSE, Sen. Kerry attacjed it as a waste of money better spent elsewhere, and many other politicians on that side of the aisle agreed with him. While I hope that Crazzieeddie is right, that it isn't that dire, I also can't shake that fear that it is, given how partisan it appears to be. Another posted that no administration would gut the space program. I don't beleive that is true either. They would if there were no political consquences, I am afraid.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">If the exact same architecture and mission had been selected with the LockMart lifting body, you'ld be jumping around hootin' and hollerin' for joy. </font><br />yes, I would. I firmly believe that the lifting body shape is optimal for Earth to Leo spacecraft. I would get more excited about the lessons learned by actually building a manned lifting body spacecraft than for going to the moon to plant another flag.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wdobner]

Hey, now that was rather uncalled for. I consider myself a member of 'the left', I attend college with many people who are similarly thinking, and I live in a city which is quite left leaning. Your blanket statements are not only an unprovoked insult on at least 30% of this nation, but are totally false. For some of the more vocal proponents of social welfare programs they may regard a space program as a guilty pleasure, but will vote for it so long as it's going well. They're the folks who will then say what a waste a space program is when everything turns south. You'll find plenty of support for <u>a</u> space program amongst Democrats, but most likely not the space program spelled out by Dubya. Like other ventures he's gotten us stuck into the moon program is poorly concieved, poorly planned, and is being poorly executed. <br /><br />I'm all for space exploration, I hate being painted as 'anti-exporation' just because I happen to disagree with the fearless leader's current brainfart. I want to see an evolution in our space program such that we gradually reduce the cost and increase the convenience of spaceflight for everyone while making missions to the other planets cheaper. With things like SSTOs and such manned spaceflight is open to become a more regular part of our day to day lives, becoming both less heroic and more commonplace. It's also going to be a lot cheaper to use a heavy-lift HOTOL SSTO to get bits of your mars craft into orbit rather than trying to do so with a conventional rocket. Lessening the heroism associated with flying in LEO may be bad for astronauts and history book writers, but it's great for you, me and Joe the investor. Things like landing on Mars or other outer bodies will always be a heroic thing, at least until we colonize them, but I have to wonder why we're going to the moon and mars when we consider getting a crew into orbit and back home something akin to a miracle. Perhaps we should get our home (LEO access) in orde

 

[7419]

Is there wide spread and broad support for NASA and space exploration? Saddly I don't think so. But if NASA gets .6% of the budget abd there is say 10 to 15 % support then I think it can be justified. But saddly the attitudes of William Proxmire are still with us. Proxy wasn't so much anti NASA as anti waste and cost over-runs (please don't bring up the old chestnut about milk subsidies, Wisconsin has the lowest price support per hundred weight in the country, price supports are figured on the distance from either Wausau or Eau Claire). He read the GOA reports on Shuttle operations prior to the first flight of Columbia and he for one did not beleive the smoke NASA was trying to blow. Right now I think NASA needs to develop a cheaper means to access LEO. But unfortunately NASA seems to be wedded to the artillery version of spaceflight. Personally I thought that the Black Horse concept had validity. Both from a cost reduction stand point and from an operational one. The USAF does inflight refueling on a daily basis so refueling a 1-1/2 stage to orbit HTOL space plane should not be too difficult. The major issues are does one refuel just the oxidizer or bot the fuel and oxidizer both. And what fuels/oxidizer combinations does one use? Would Kerosene and H2O2 be pracitical. From one standpoint they would not need the cryogenic handling procedures. Or would the mid air tranfer of LOX be pracitical. But instead NASA has looked at what it has and decided not to throw the baby out with bath water. Some of it an attempt I think to salvage some of the systems in place but at the same time just how much is NIH. The suttle derived heavy lift is a different matter along with the sitck SRB based launcher. How much money could be saved if they did not have to be man rated.

 

[wvbraun]

The private sector will develop CATS, NASA has time and again demonstrated their inability to do so. But since you're a 'member of the left' it figures that you think that only the state can bring about progress in space transportation...<br /><br />BTW: You come across as pretty arrogant and ignorant if you brush aside the results of a study conducted by hundreds of highly qualified people at NASA and want to replace it with a naive 'build SSTO spaceplanes and everything will be fine'-scheme.<br />I'm sure Dr. Griffin has a much better understanding of what is possible and what is not than you have.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I'm sure Dr. Griffin has a much better understanding of what is possible and what is not than you have. </font><br />no, dr Griffin has to answer to a bunch of politicians with less knowledge of technical issues than most posters on this board.<br /> Unlike your namesake, Griffin doesn't strike me like the type that could impose his will on them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

my bet would be no. ISS is going to be abandoned by the US , Shuttle ditched and every other project undertaken by NASA in the past 20 years never came to completion, What are the chances of this-such uninspiring- program to ever be completed?>>><br /><br />If the Shuttle just concentrated on ISS completion of those components that couldn't get there any other way, plus at least one trip to Hubble, any follow-up should be able to get to ISS and dock at the bare minimum.<br /><br />The VSE will fulfill NASA's needs but just those. To base a commercial system on it would be dead end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The shuttle has survived many administrations, dispite being terribly expensive and inefficient. Because the 'vision' spacecraft are for the most part built on the existing shuttle infrastructure, I believe it will have similar staying power over several administrations. <br /><br />Nobody in congress wants to shut down the shuttle-related operations because it's serious pork for districts on both sides of the isle. Because of that, and the forced retirement of the shuttle, the heavy launch vehicle will be developed and deployed at a similar launch rate as the shuttle - to preserve the shuttle-pork. The only mission for such a large number of heavy launches is human exploration of moon/mars. Between the options of spending a bit more to keep the pork, or losing the pork, they'll always go for the bacon. <br />

 

[vt_hokie]

I'm of the same opinion as wdobner, and he has stated the case more eloquently than I could! <br /><br />Personally, I think we'll probably see the "SRB stick" and the LEO version of the "CEV" capsule, and not much more.

 

[vt_hokie]

Hear, hear!

 

[wdobner]

<i>The private sector will develop CATS, NASA has time and again demonstrated their inability to do so.</i><br /><br />If you have such faith in the commercial sector why even bother with a moon program? Why don't we just have the Virgin SpaceX/Boeing lunar program brought to you by Astra Zeneca? That way you can have your tax cut of 300 dollars and none of us will have a reason to complain about our tax money being frittered away on a photo-excursion to the moon for a dozen people. If you think private industry is up to the task of investing over the long term to create a scramjet and accompanying spaceplane then surely they must be prepared for only a moderately greater investment in spaceflight. <br /><br /><i> NASA has time and again demonstrated their inability to do so.</i><br /><br />That's because there has never been a great push to replace the space shuttle until recently. The marginal savings the X-33 would have introduced over the Space Shuttle did not justify it's creation prior to the Columbia disaster and the X-30 hinged what was then a still iffy propulsion proposition, the scramjet. Now we have more than enough political will to spend the money to replace the space shuttle, but we've lost the vision with which the X-30 and X-33 programs were presented. We now know that scramjets not only work, but are a highly economical way of getting payloads through the upper atmosphere and into space. Why we are not developing this potentially critical technology baffles me. We're shrinking from the technological leading edge to chase a recreation of a lunar program we already did. I would like it noted that advocating an SSTO is in no way a partisan thing as the X-30 (by far the superior choice IMHO) was presented by President Reagan. I'm somewhat confused that Pres. Bush claimed to be a Republican who follows Reagan's lead, yet he's scrapping so many of the programs created by our 40th president.<br /><br /><i>BTW: You come across as pretty arrogant and ign</i>

 

[wvbraun]

"If you have such faith in the commercial sector why even bother with a moon program?"<br /><br />The private sector is currently focussed on lowering the costs of earth to LEO transportation, as they should be. They'll achieve better results than NASA ever could. Let NASA be the trailblazer, let them do what they're good at which is space *exploration*.<br /><br /><br />"The marginal savings the X-33 would have introduced over the Space Shuttle did not justify it's creation prior to the Columbia disaster..."<br /><br />The X-33 was projected to be ten times cheaper to operate than the Shuttle...<br /><br /><br />"We now know that scramjets not only work, but are a highly economical way of getting payloads through the upper atmosphere and into space."<br /><br />We only know that scramjets work. We don't know if they'll give us CATS. We might just as well refine the rocket propulsion systems we already have (SpaceX's approach). <br /><br /><br />"Why we are not developing this potentially critical technology baffles me."<br /><br />What baffles me is your obsession with scramjets. There are other (in my view more promising) technologies out there. A space elevator will be orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than a scramjet powered spaceplane.<br /><br /><br />"We're all supposed to tote the line and place blind faith in our leaders?"<br /><br />No. The Griffin/Bush plan withstands scrutiny. It's just that you can't make everybody happy and not every pet project (i.e. scramjets, nuclear electric propulsion) can get full funding.<br /><br /><br />And please shorten your replies, dobner, it's really tiresome to read a post of 40 lines when the key points could be summed up in maybe 10 lines...<br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

Scramjets so far have only attained 1/4 of orbital velocity, and they're going about as fast as they can go in the atmosphere without burning up. They also need a traditional jet to get up to speed, so you require 3 different propulsion systems on your SST0 craft. Doesn't sound efficient to me... <br /><br />Military folks seem interested in scramjet missiles, so NASA may just be sitting back and letting DOD do the research until something useful comes out of it.

 

[wvbraun]

Exactly. NASP was doomed to failure from the start.

 

[nacnud]

Yeah but the key thing that should be learnt and remebered from NASP is that a scramjet to orbit won't work. Before NASP that was still a very grey area.