New Democratic Congress and the Future of Manned Spaceflight

[BReif]

The election is finally over, and we have a new congress coming into session in January 2007. The previous 109th Congress was overall supportive of NASA's manned spaceflight program, and the pursuit of the Vision for Space Exploration. After two years, some significant work has been done to get to the point of awarding contracts for the VSE, Orion, Ares, etc. And we are now at the point where actual hardware will be built and tested. Also, not to forget the robotic portion of the VSE, a new lunar robotic mission is also heading for the Moon in 2008, and new missions to Mars are coming up as well.<br /><br />How will the new Democratic leadership in Congress approach human spaceflight, and the VSE in particular?<br /><br />I have to say, I am afraid that the new leadership will be looking to cut back, or even cancel the VSE altogether, if for no other reason, because the VSE is a program announced and promoted by President Bush. Certainly, there will be more congressional oversight of NASA as a whole with this new Congress. My fear is that the new Congress will likely hold everything in the VSE in committee, and prevent it from actually taking shape.<br /><br />I certainly beleive that manned spaceflight, and the VSE as it is now concieved (pay as you go stepped approach) is in the best interest of the nation. I also beleive that regardless of political party, everyone in government is there to serve the people, and have a responsibility to do what is best for the nation. It is my hope that both parties will come together, and promote and further the work of the VSE so that it can be realized according to the timeframe outlined. There ought to be bi-partisan support for the VSE, and for the continuance of human spaceflight, and for breaking out of Low Earth Orbit.<br /><br />Will the democratic leadership see beyond partisan politics and support the VSE, and manned spaceflight?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, I don't think that the Dems will crush Bush's plan just because it's Bush's.<br /><br />The more troubling point is, where is the money going to come from? We are currently spending more in Iraq EACH MONTH than the annual NASA budget. Until that expenditure goes down, it's hard to find the money needed to expand any line item in the budget, when we are spiralling into debt.<br /><br />That's a harsh reality, but I am pessamistic until our country's spending is brought into line with the income.<br /><br />Maybe there should be a checkoff on the income tax form...." I will pay X$ extra in taxes if dedicated to NASA"<br /><br />Bush's "goal" was unfunded from the start.<br />Rather, not unfunded, but unrealistically funded.<br /><br />That's just my 2 billion cent's worth.<br /><br />MW<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

I'll just go ahead and lightly edit a previous post from another thread.<br /><br />It is good to remember that the new blood can be expected to pursue a 'progressive agenda'. So nominally at least, a move to slow down a program based on nearly flat budgets would be in conflict with their agenda. Nominally. They already have enough to do without calling for change at NASA. <br /><br />IMO, two factors are going to lead to proving the 'VSE will be cancelled' crowd wrong. <br /><br />Yes, I'm making a prediction here, and I'm willing to make a wager on it. <br /><br />Mike Griffin is not only the best man for the job, but second place is nowhere to be found. Now, it may be that other qualified folks were simply unwilling to work for dubya, but I still think that no incoming POTUS is going to spend much time looking for a new NASA Admin. Even if the new pres is a scary monster democrat, it'll <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> have better things to do, and at that point in time Mike's agency will be on a roll piling success on success. <br /><br />No change required or desired, no one to fire and hire, why mess with success? <br /><br />Factor two: by then, Americans will have re-acquired their taste for progress (missing lo these last six years) and the new Prez will be in position to be a hero in space without even trying: Increase NASA's budget and hey presto the effective Dr. Griffin delivers and let's go second term, that's what the next pres will be in a position to do. <br /><br />Go ahead with the doom and gloom on VSE cancellation, but I ain't buying it. My prediction is that the next POTUS will accelerate the program. <br /><br />In the meantime, the budget is essentially in place and it's just a matter of pork allocations, and if the Dems are true to their word that will be kept to an absolute minimum.<br /><br />If the Dems are looking for things that dubya has screwed up and they need to fix, VSE ain't one of them. Virtually everything else is a target-rich environment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

You're right.<br /><br />The only question is where will the large amounts of extra money (since the current NASA budget is clearly inadequate for the goals) come from.<br /><br />If we can find a source, I suspect the commitment will be continued. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

breif,<br /><br />The United States definitely could use something to cheer about, to make us proud again, and, even though space exploration is not wildly popular, at least it is not militant, religious, or involved in health care. We also need to work on our image as a technology leader, considering that our automobile industry is in decline, as well as stimulating interest in science and technology, so that young people will enter into career fields in those areas. Many leaders of various industries are making it known that they are seeing a contraction of the supply of young Americans with advanced degrees.<br /><br />But sitting back and waiting for the obvious to be seen is a recipe for being ignored. Over the last 20 years, there have been two excellent examples of a minority influencing the direction of American politics. One has been the religious right, and the other has been seniors. In both cases, the rank and file of these groups were willing to sit down and write letters, put them in envelopes, and stick stamps on the envelopes before taking them to the mailbox.<br /><br />We high tech, geeky types tend to think that email is the ultimate in communication, but I have never seen a stack of email before, nor do I recall anyone hauling a sack of them around. When it comes to making an impression on someone, burying them in paper is one of the best ways. It is real, tangible, weighty stuff, which represents a greater investment of both time and money than either a telephone call or an email. Being vocal means expressing yourself repeatedly, to anyone who might possibly have something to do with making decisions regarding what is important to you, even if they are not from your state.<br /><br />Congress will be hearing from many people, who each have agendas that they consider to be the highest priority. Even if space exploration were a guarenteed way of turning the economy around, someone still has to tell the politicans about it, because they make thei <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

AMEN! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I generally agree with what you are saying though I would like to point out the whole VSE idea was smoke and mirrors to begin with. Sort of like the wall on the boarder, no intention of actually doing it, just putting it out there to carner the support.<br /><br />The only problem I have with Griffin is that either he bought into the deception or he was part of it. Did they slap together a few ideas, "the Stick", "CEV", to make it believable? Or did they pull money from ongoing programs to pursue the VSE?<br /><br />Like it's been pointed out we spend more in Iraq in a month than NASA budgets for a year and at last count three times the number of our brave soldiers are killed every month than have been killed in the 40 plus years of NASA. My feeling is Space is our destiny, the new frontier and if we want to become more than a footnote in history, displayed in museums as a species that destroyed itself like the dinosaurs we have to move of this Planet.<br /><br />It transcends politics and should be looked at as benifiting all of humanity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Most members of Congress survived the election. If those who survived and who voted in favour of the VSE etc last time vote in favour again, there will still be a majority in favour (and that's assuming all the new members vote against, which is not likely).

 

[bpfeifer]

“The only problem I have with Griffin is that either he bought into the deception or he was part of it. Did they slap together a few ideas, "the Stick", "CEV", to make it believable? Or did they pull money from ongoing programs to pursue the VSE?”<br /><br />Mike Griffin is a true believer of manned missions to Mars. He was a founding member of the Mars Society and is a colleague of Robert Zubrin. Several components of the VSE implementation plans look as if they were drawn from Zubrin’s Mars Direct plan.<br /><br />The real issue is the ballooning budgets that NASA will require to fulfill VSE objectives. Today the Dems in Congress are unlikely to radically change NASA’s budget, but neither are they likely to support thee increases needed in the future.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I wasn't questioning Griffin's credentials or his commitment to a Mars mission. What I have questioned is the VSE plan in that it was proposed to carner votes and since then has been totally ignored by the Whitehouse. I don't think there was any intention of pursuing the project, no funding was asked for and it seems most, if not all activity has been pursued by NASA taking funding away from other areas. <br /><br />I get the feeling thye are pouring money down a dry hole especially if Republican win in 2008. I would like nothing better to see the VSE become reality but as long as we keep settling differences with war and pushing deficits through the ceiling I doubt any party could justify the expense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">The real issue is the ballooning budgets that NASA will require to fulfill VSE objectives.</font><br /><br />The budget is in place. I assume that you are assuming that past history of being over budget and late indicates that the existing VSE budget will need to see massive increases.<br /><br />That indeed is the key. The thing is that IMO Griffin is going to put those days behind us. He's that good. He swore to Congress that he was going to deliver on time and on budget and IMO that is exactly what he is going to do. Congress cannot ask for more, and he loves his job, so settle in for the Golden Era of Griffin, that's my perspective.<br /><br />Whether that is wild-eyed optimism or an accurate reading of the tea leaves, only time will tell. When I become convinced that he is not going to be able to walk his talk, that is the day I get off the bandwagon. But I honestly don't think it's gonna happen. He's that good. BTW, this is coming from an old hand at NASA bashing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I agree with you that Griffin's been good.<br /><br />I don't agree that the current and future budgets are anywhere near a realistic commitment as far as what will actually be needed to get the job done.<br /><br />That's up to Congress, and we, the taxpayers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Ah, now I see your perspective, Scott. The dry hole thing, that's the point of departure for me from your viewpoint. I'm totally with you on the smoke-and-mirrors observation.<br /><br />You prolly have some idea how much I loathe dubya - it goes back to Prescott for me and those Kennebunkport Kops. VSE was indeed born of smoke and mirrors IMO, it was a political ploy all the way. (WVBraun, where are you now? hehehe)<br /><br />Just as an aside, I recall that one of the purposes dubya served with the VSE exercise is that he was able to distract many Scientists and Engineers from his now well known hostility to Science by giving them the VSE project to work on.<br /><br />Anyway, it comes back to Griffin for me.<br /><br />I still am waiting for a journalist - Leonard David or Bill Harwood come to mind, or maybe Tariq Malik is the right guy - to dig in and tell us the story of the hiring of Mike Griffin.<br /><br />How long was it between O'Keefe's resignation and the hiring of Dr. Griffin?<br /><br />It is now a known fact that Mike is well qualified and loves the job. So why did it take so long? <br /><br />I'm thinking he knew about the job opening, lol. If it's his dream job, why did it take so long?<br /><br />My speculation - pure speculation in the absence of any journalism that I can find - is that dubya's people refused to hire him because he didn't pass their political litmus test. They finally gave in because nobody else wanted the job. If I'm right, then Griffin's politics would seem to put him right alongside many of the new Dems in Congress.<br /><br />Anyway, Scott, it is a bit difficult to swallow, knowing where VSE came from, but rather than a dry hole, I think we're lucky enough to have the right guy at the right place at the right time with the right politics.<br /><br />Apart from all of the above, the Dems have an opportunity right now to put some meat on the bones of their talk about Progressiveness by making sure that Mike Griffin has the resources he needs, and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well I guess we need to define 'get the job done'.<br /><br />I think the existing budget is adequate for the plan put forth.<br /><br />I think the plan put forth is ridiculously slow.<br /><br />I think that NASA can proceed on the schedule they are on and quite probably get severely embarrassed by the accomplishments of the private sector, which in the big picture is most definitely not getting the job done.<br /><br />So I repeat that the next POTUS will be offered the opportunity to be a hero by speeding up the program to the level needed to actually get the job done. <br /><br />Further, I think that is a big part of Dr. Griffin's Master Plan. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I sure hope you are right!<br />Time will tell, but at least it's an interesting time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

Well, my predictions have been pretty far off this election year, so I'll weigh in anyway.<br />NASA has support from a lot of democrats but only because it is perceived as a jobs program. Lockheed-Martin's plans to do a lot of CEV structural work in Michoud Louisiana was a damned smart move and will enjoy a lot of support in helping the Katrina-lashed Gulf coast. <br />However, NOT putting a lot of the work in California may hurt the program-lots of key democrats from out there. <br />The current track of reigning in science to pay for CEV has a lot of academia PO'd, and academia are overwhelmingly democratic, expect to see some fighting over crumbs there.<br />Whether or not manned spaceflight proceeds within current budgets, expect to see some overall reductions in the NASA budget as with a lot of government agencies because no matter how small NASA is, it is perceived to be big because of its high visibility and the democrats are all about political theater.

 

[qso1]

spacester:<br />The budget is in place. I assume that you are assuming that past history...<br /><br />Me:<br />Well stated. I for one hope Griffin can at least manage to keep any budget overruns from getting as out of hand as ISS budgets got. And he will surely be recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike if he stays withing budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

newsartist:<br />What happened in 1968?<br /><br />Me:<br />Apollo 8.<br /><br />The riots at the Democratic convention.<br /><br />Assasination of King and Kennedy.<br /><br />President Johnson declines to run for a second term.<br /><br />Richard Nixon elected President.<br /><br />The TV show Laugh in predicted Ronald Reagan would be President with a comedy skit naming him as such.<br /><br />The Tet (Lunar New Year) offensive launched by the Viet Cong in the early part of the year cast much doubt on President Johnsons 1967 assurances that the Vietnam war was being won. The Tet offensive was considered a military defeat for the Viet Cong but a propaganda victory as it continued to divide American public opinion.<br /><br />The Soviet Union invaded Chzecoslovakia (Sorry, its probably spelled wrong).<br /><br />Riots on college campus from Paris to Peoria (Well, maybe not Peoria).<br /><br />Just a few that I can recall. 1968 was eventually viewed as one of the most divisive years in America and in some cases even abroad. Apollo 8 taking place near the end of that year seemed to cause humanity to pause for a sec. and take a collective look at the world around them. A world symbolized by the famous image known as "Earthrise".<br /><br />Hope this helped a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

1968 is one of those singular points where the world changed, like 2001 and 1945. It was essentially a world-wide youth rebellion combined with everything QSO1 mentions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[halman]

steve82,<br /><br />Certainly it is unfortunate that NASA has had to cut the budgets of some of the science projects that were in the pipeline, or being proposed, but I think that we need to keep our prionities straight. Too many people have the perception that manned space exploration is merely an extension of the robotic probes, more scientific research, only performed by people on the spot.<br /><br />Off planet exploration and development is still difficult for a lot of people to comprehend, it would seem, because the idea of utilizing resources from the Moon, or unattenuated solar power, just doesn't click. Somohow, we need to get the word out that these manned missions are about expanding the realm of human activity, opening up a frontier where people will live and work someday. Making possible the creation of new wealth, alternatives to performing our dirtiest industrial operations right here where everybody lives.<br /><br />As long as space flight is viewed as a primarily scientific research type activity, the funding is going to continue to be meager and intermittent. Getting Congress to see off planet exploration as a means of opening up new resources, new energy supplies, is key to insuring that NASA will get the money needed to get us back to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

halman:<br />alternatives to performing our dirtiest industrial operations right here where everybody lives. <br /><br />Me:<br />Well said, and I singled out the industrial activity in space to highlight the fact that we could really benefit from moving as much industry as possible/practical into low orbit or lunar vicinity as required. This probably will have to be done by private industry/enterprise maybe with assistance from NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[halman]

qso1,<br /><br />The first steps off of this planet lead us to low Earth orbit, to be sure. But the big money is going to be in regions which receive uninterrupted sunlight, whether in high Earth orbit, or in an orbit around the Sun. This is because solar power will be essential to operations for factories which are smelting, alloying, and annealing, and power requirements for those types of processes preclude storing energy for any length of time. Solar Power Satellites will almost certainly have to be in geosynchronus (the Clarke) orbit, as tracking with arrays kilometers on a side is impractical. And beaming megawatts of energy through the atmosphere needs to be very carefully tested and studied, as minute effects that are cumulative can be very disruptive. (Witness chloroflourocarbons.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Sounds good to me. Some industrialization may or may not begin in low orbit depending on economic and technological factors. Industry would certainly want to go where the money potential is, especially to enable uninterrupted power access. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Hi, halman <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />You don't hear much talk about solar power satellites these days. One of the very serious problems these faced is the Kessler Syndrome:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Kessler Syndrome is a scenario, proposed by NASA consultant Donald J. Kessler, in which the volume of space debris in Low Earth Orbit is so high that objects in orbit are frequently struck by debris, creating even more debris and a greater risk of further impacts. The implication of this scenario is that the escalating amount of debris in orbit could eventually render space exploration, and even the use of satellites, too prone to loss to be feasible for many generations.<br /><br />The Kessler Syndrome is especially insidious because of the "domino effect." Any impact between two objects of sizable mass will create additional shrapnel debris from the force of collision. Each piece of shrapnel now has the potential to cause further damage, creating even more space debris. With a large enough collision (such as one between a space station and a defunct satellite), the amount of cascading debris could be enough to render Low Earth Orbit essentially impassable.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I got really interested in space because I saw solar power satellites as the solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation. But if the Kessler Syndrome is not addressed, then we will have to go with the IAEA and the Presidents who call them liars.<br /><br />So, rather than throw up our hands and give up, is there some way to solve the Kessler Syndrome?<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Kessler Syndrome presents a unique problem to human space travel. Space debris is very difficult to deal with directly, as the small size and high velocities of most debris would make retrieval and disposal impractically difficult. Given thousands of years, most</p></blockquote>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"You don't hear much talk about solar power satellites these days."<br /><br />Nobody even got close to thinking of things like the Kessler Syndrome. The reason you don't hear about solar power satellites is because for the amount of money needed to put one in orbit, you can obtain more power for the same money by building solar power facilities on Earth (even taking into account the cost of storing power for nighttime). It's a pretty simple economic calculation.