Finally, An Entry About Space!
Jan. 14th, 2004 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
willow_redI know, you're shocked and dismayed, but I'm finally going to write about space! (This really should have been a space blog, but oh well.)
After all the rumors for months, the announcement finally happened today: President George W. Bush announced a direction for America's space program. At least, that's what he wants you to think. To the 99.9% of the population that is not involved with the space program, the goals he set out sound perfectly reasonable. However, if you know anything about the history and function of the space program, it is a blatant election-year red herring that will be knocked out by Congress, if Bush doesn't do it himself.
First, I will list out the major points of the speech in more or less chronological order as these events would happen. Then, I will explain the problems with each. Yes, for the record, I did listen to the speech live. This is the second time I've ever done that. The first, of course, was his speech after the Columbia tragedy.
- Follow the recommendations of the CAIB Report and get the Space Shuttle flying again.
- Send robotic missions to the Moon in 2008.
- Complete the International Space Station by 2010.
- Retire the Space Shuttle in 2010.
- Design and build the Crew Exploration Vehicle to start flying in 2014.
- Land humans on the Moon as early as 2015.
- Send humans to Mars (unspecified date, seen in documentation as sometime between 2020 and 2030).
- Send humans to the moons of Jupiter (this was in the backup documentation for the speech, only said as, "and beyond" in the speech, but I'll include it here for sake of completeness).
- Give NASA a budget increase of 5% per year for 5 years, totalling $1 billion.
- Reallocate $11 billion of NASA's existing budget over the next 5 years to these goals.
This all sounds good, particularly given the high support for NASA post-Columbia and the perceived (and actual) need to give NASA a goal to shoot for. Alas, all is not as it seems. Here are the issues at hand.
- Follow the recommendations of the CAIB Report and get the Space Shuttle flying again. Yes, absolutely. I don't think this one was ever in doubt. The CAIB wrote an excellent, perceptive report, and I would love to see it followed to the letter. The likelihood of this is small, but that is a separate rant. The reality of the situation is that we have to get the shuttles flying again because there is a space station out there with people on board. And due to a Congressional mandate, there will soon be no more Soyuz craft to ferry people back and forth. (I want to say it's after 2005, but it might be 2006. Either way, it's coming soon.)
- Send robotic missions to the Moon in 2008. This has been in the works for a long time. This is not news; keep going.
- Complete the International Space Station by 2010. Well, this all depends on your definition of "complete." Unless I miss my mark, Bush means "Core Complete," a compromised design first introduced in (I believe) 2001 as a response to the ISS budget spiraling out of control. What this means is only sending up the modules necessary to allow Europe and Japan to connect their pieces. Once Node 2 is up, NASA calls it good and ignores the complete and nearly complete other modules sitting in storage in Florida that have already been paid for. When the notion of Core Complete was first put forward by NASA, the Europeans got so upset they very nearly dropped out of the ISS project altogether. Cooler heads prevailed, and they decided the best way to show up the US would be to actually fulfill their obligations, something NASA was unable to do.
What's the difference? Good question. The difference is that ISS Core Complete has no habitation module and no Crew Return Vehicle (note: the CRV was scrapped multiple times before dying a final death a couple of years ago). The Russian section has crew quarters for two, but traditionally one American sleeps in the Lab. At Core Complete, ISS sleeps three, more if you're resourceful. The CRV would have had a capacity to return seven people. The rule is: no one goes into space without a ticket home. This is the limiting factor on how many people can be on the ISS at a time. Assuming a deal gets worked out to keep using Soyuz as an escape craft, that allows for a crew of three. The international agreement dictates that while there are only three crewmembers, they can only be Russian or American. Europeans and Japanese don't get a ticket until crews increase to four or more. This was considered reasonable at the time as Russia and the US are footing most of the bill.
So we'll complete the ISS. This is not a bold, new direction. This is a weasel half-measure toward fulfilling an international agreement that will still leave other nations fairly pissed at us. But then, since when does the US care what the rest of the world thinks?
- Retire the Space Shuttle in 2010. Good. The Space Shuttle is 1970s technology, an imperfect compromise to conflicting design requirements. (For a full discussion, see the CAIB report, Volume I.) However, we can't just bail on the Shuttle immediately after finishing the ISS. ISS needs a supply ship. Parts are already breaking down that cannot be sent up with a Progress. The Shuttle is also the main source of water for the ISS. The main reason ISS is down to two crew at the moment is to conserve on supplies that are difficult to bring up any other way. Again, I feel the need to point out that there won't be any more Soyuz for ISS by 2010 unless Congress lifts the ban. Thus, we are left without manned space flight capability until...
- Design and build the Crew Exploration Vehicle to start flying in 2014. Another in a long line of vehicles that get partially developed then cancelled after a significant amount of money has been thrown at them. Examples include X-38/CRV, X-33/VentureStar, and the Orbital Space Plane. So forgive me if I'm a little unimpressed by the standard operating procedure of throwing money down a hole you have no intention of pursuing. Who knows? Maybe this will be the one that finally flies. Let's go with that for a minute. Let's say everything works out exactly as planned, on schedule and on budget. That still leaves the US without manned spaceflight capability for four years. In reality, spacecraft (particularly manned) are almost never on time or on budget. They're simply too complicated and we are too inexperienced. Ten years for development is a good goal, but know that it will stretch to a dozen or more. I wonder what China will be up to in the meantime?
- Land humans on the Moon as early as 2015. The CEV is in serious danger here of being another "everything to everyone" craft, but they might go for a "large Apollo" design. I'll wait and see until I've heard any design requirements. In 2015, we reenact Apollo 11 -- 46 years later. Now I have no problem going back to the Moon. I think the critics who say, "been there, done that," need to get a clue. However, I have heard no goals for this return, aside from a generic idea that there's stuff there we might want at some point. I would love to see humans return to the Moon; I think it's terrible that we've abandoned it for so long. But the worst return I can imagine is another "flags and footprints" program that brings back a couple hundred pounds of rocks. If we're going to the Moon, we need to do something there. It's a wonderful resource I could rant on for pages, but I'll cut off here with one last comment. Last time, we were on the moon eight years after sending up our first astronaut, twelve years after Sputnik proved that spaceflight was even possible.
- Send humans to Mars (unspecified date, seen in documentation as sometime between 2020 and 2030). Cool. You just made a bunch of people really happy. The Mars Society will be annoyed at the timeframe, but most people will think it nifty that we're going to Mars. But gosh, isn't that a long way off? I really want to see us go to Mars, but I don't see much of a plan here. And what was up with that "advance guard" statement? Makes me visualize Mars rovers with AK-47s. Not everything is a war, you know.
- Send humans to the moons of Jupiter (this was in the backup documentation for the speech, only said as, "and beyond" in the speech, but I'll include it here for sake of completeness). I'm a huge sci-fi fan; I loved 2001. Humans to the Jovian system is a really bad idea in the foreseeable future. The radiation environment near Jupiter is the worst of anywhere in the Solar System. We have lots to learn about radiation, shielding, propulsion, and power generation before we even think about this one. Sad as I am to say this, I won't see this one in my lifetime. (But I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong!)
- Give NASA a budget increase of 5% per year for 5 years, totalling $1 billion. Now onto the money. This is a nice pay increase; NASA will be happy to have it. It'll do marginally better than maintain the status quo, but it won't get us back to the Moon. That's the reason for the next item.
- Reallocate $11 billion of NASA's existing budget over the next 5 years to these goals. This is the thing that scares me the most. The idea is that most of this would come out of current manned projects (ie Shuttle and ISS). That won't be quite enough to cover it. The word is that a significant number of other projects within NASA would be slashed to make up the difference. The only things that would be safe from these cuts would be missions to the Moon, Mars, and JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) because Bush committed us to Project Prometheus last year.
These monetary changes are the only things that have accomplishment dates within the next presidential term. Everything else is on a longer timeline. Therefore, anything that fails gets blamed on the next guy. It's a brilliant strategy if you don't care what you screw up along the way -- oh, wait. This is an election year stunt, pure and simple. Unfortunately, the reasons why it's a blatant stunt are longer than the attention span of the average American.
I desperately want a coherent plan for America's space program. Yet another commission has been charged with this task. In the meantime, you could fill shelf after shelf with previous commission findings that all say nearly the same thing. I also found it most interesting that Bush explicitly said that NASA would get $86 billion over the next five years. Hmm, didn't we just spend $87 billion in Iraq? I, for one, would much rather see that kind of money go into the expansion of an industry that would create new jobs and open new resources that enrich our lives and inspire our children than going into an effort that gets our soldiers killed. But then, I'm biased.
If you actually read this far, I owe you a cookie or something. Please leave a comment.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Macbeth
After all the rumors for months, the announcement finally happened today: President George W. Bush announced a direction for America's space program. At least, that's what he wants you to think. To the 99.9% of the population that is not involved with the space program, the goals he set out sound perfectly reasonable. However, if you know anything about the history and function of the space program, it is a blatant election-year red herring that will be knocked out by Congress, if Bush doesn't do it himself.
First, I will list out the major points of the speech in more or less chronological order as these events would happen. Then, I will explain the problems with each. Yes, for the record, I did listen to the speech live. This is the second time I've ever done that. The first, of course, was his speech after the Columbia tragedy.
- Follow the recommendations of the CAIB Report and get the Space Shuttle flying again.
- Send robotic missions to the Moon in 2008.
- Complete the International Space Station by 2010.
- Retire the Space Shuttle in 2010.
- Design and build the Crew Exploration Vehicle to start flying in 2014.
- Land humans on the Moon as early as 2015.
- Send humans to Mars (unspecified date, seen in documentation as sometime between 2020 and 2030).
- Send humans to the moons of Jupiter (this was in the backup documentation for the speech, only said as, "and beyond" in the speech, but I'll include it here for sake of completeness).
- Give NASA a budget increase of 5% per year for 5 years, totalling $1 billion.
- Reallocate $11 billion of NASA's existing budget over the next 5 years to these goals.
This all sounds good, particularly given the high support for NASA post-Columbia and the perceived (and actual) need to give NASA a goal to shoot for. Alas, all is not as it seems. Here are the issues at hand.
- Follow the recommendations of the CAIB Report and get the Space Shuttle flying again. Yes, absolutely. I don't think this one was ever in doubt. The CAIB wrote an excellent, perceptive report, and I would love to see it followed to the letter. The likelihood of this is small, but that is a separate rant. The reality of the situation is that we have to get the shuttles flying again because there is a space station out there with people on board. And due to a Congressional mandate, there will soon be no more Soyuz craft to ferry people back and forth. (I want to say it's after 2005, but it might be 2006. Either way, it's coming soon.)
- Send robotic missions to the Moon in 2008. This has been in the works for a long time. This is not news; keep going.
- Complete the International Space Station by 2010. Well, this all depends on your definition of "complete." Unless I miss my mark, Bush means "Core Complete," a compromised design first introduced in (I believe) 2001 as a response to the ISS budget spiraling out of control. What this means is only sending up the modules necessary to allow Europe and Japan to connect their pieces. Once Node 2 is up, NASA calls it good and ignores the complete and nearly complete other modules sitting in storage in Florida that have already been paid for. When the notion of Core Complete was first put forward by NASA, the Europeans got so upset they very nearly dropped out of the ISS project altogether. Cooler heads prevailed, and they decided the best way to show up the US would be to actually fulfill their obligations, something NASA was unable to do.
What's the difference? Good question. The difference is that ISS Core Complete has no habitation module and no Crew Return Vehicle (note: the CRV was scrapped multiple times before dying a final death a couple of years ago). The Russian section has crew quarters for two, but traditionally one American sleeps in the Lab. At Core Complete, ISS sleeps three, more if you're resourceful. The CRV would have had a capacity to return seven people. The rule is: no one goes into space without a ticket home. This is the limiting factor on how many people can be on the ISS at a time. Assuming a deal gets worked out to keep using Soyuz as an escape craft, that allows for a crew of three. The international agreement dictates that while there are only three crewmembers, they can only be Russian or American. Europeans and Japanese don't get a ticket until crews increase to four or more. This was considered reasonable at the time as Russia and the US are footing most of the bill.
So we'll complete the ISS. This is not a bold, new direction. This is a weasel half-measure toward fulfilling an international agreement that will still leave other nations fairly pissed at us. But then, since when does the US care what the rest of the world thinks?
- Retire the Space Shuttle in 2010. Good. The Space Shuttle is 1970s technology, an imperfect compromise to conflicting design requirements. (For a full discussion, see the CAIB report, Volume I.) However, we can't just bail on the Shuttle immediately after finishing the ISS. ISS needs a supply ship. Parts are already breaking down that cannot be sent up with a Progress. The Shuttle is also the main source of water for the ISS. The main reason ISS is down to two crew at the moment is to conserve on supplies that are difficult to bring up any other way. Again, I feel the need to point out that there won't be any more Soyuz for ISS by 2010 unless Congress lifts the ban. Thus, we are left without manned space flight capability until...
- Design and build the Crew Exploration Vehicle to start flying in 2014. Another in a long line of vehicles that get partially developed then cancelled after a significant amount of money has been thrown at them. Examples include X-38/CRV, X-33/VentureStar, and the Orbital Space Plane. So forgive me if I'm a little unimpressed by the standard operating procedure of throwing money down a hole you have no intention of pursuing. Who knows? Maybe this will be the one that finally flies. Let's go with that for a minute. Let's say everything works out exactly as planned, on schedule and on budget. That still leaves the US without manned spaceflight capability for four years. In reality, spacecraft (particularly manned) are almost never on time or on budget. They're simply too complicated and we are too inexperienced. Ten years for development is a good goal, but know that it will stretch to a dozen or more. I wonder what China will be up to in the meantime?
- Land humans on the Moon as early as 2015. The CEV is in serious danger here of being another "everything to everyone" craft, but they might go for a "large Apollo" design. I'll wait and see until I've heard any design requirements. In 2015, we reenact Apollo 11 -- 46 years later. Now I have no problem going back to the Moon. I think the critics who say, "been there, done that," need to get a clue. However, I have heard no goals for this return, aside from a generic idea that there's stuff there we might want at some point. I would love to see humans return to the Moon; I think it's terrible that we've abandoned it for so long. But the worst return I can imagine is another "flags and footprints" program that brings back a couple hundred pounds of rocks. If we're going to the Moon, we need to do something there. It's a wonderful resource I could rant on for pages, but I'll cut off here with one last comment. Last time, we were on the moon eight years after sending up our first astronaut, twelve years after Sputnik proved that spaceflight was even possible.
- Send humans to Mars (unspecified date, seen in documentation as sometime between 2020 and 2030). Cool. You just made a bunch of people really happy. The Mars Society will be annoyed at the timeframe, but most people will think it nifty that we're going to Mars. But gosh, isn't that a long way off? I really want to see us go to Mars, but I don't see much of a plan here. And what was up with that "advance guard" statement? Makes me visualize Mars rovers with AK-47s. Not everything is a war, you know.
- Send humans to the moons of Jupiter (this was in the backup documentation for the speech, only said as, "and beyond" in the speech, but I'll include it here for sake of completeness). I'm a huge sci-fi fan; I loved 2001. Humans to the Jovian system is a really bad idea in the foreseeable future. The radiation environment near Jupiter is the worst of anywhere in the Solar System. We have lots to learn about radiation, shielding, propulsion, and power generation before we even think about this one. Sad as I am to say this, I won't see this one in my lifetime. (But I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong!)
- Give NASA a budget increase of 5% per year for 5 years, totalling $1 billion. Now onto the money. This is a nice pay increase; NASA will be happy to have it. It'll do marginally better than maintain the status quo, but it won't get us back to the Moon. That's the reason for the next item.
- Reallocate $11 billion of NASA's existing budget over the next 5 years to these goals. This is the thing that scares me the most. The idea is that most of this would come out of current manned projects (ie Shuttle and ISS). That won't be quite enough to cover it. The word is that a significant number of other projects within NASA would be slashed to make up the difference. The only things that would be safe from these cuts would be missions to the Moon, Mars, and JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) because Bush committed us to Project Prometheus last year.
These monetary changes are the only things that have accomplishment dates within the next presidential term. Everything else is on a longer timeline. Therefore, anything that fails gets blamed on the next guy. It's a brilliant strategy if you don't care what you screw up along the way -- oh, wait. This is an election year stunt, pure and simple. Unfortunately, the reasons why it's a blatant stunt are longer than the attention span of the average American.
I desperately want a coherent plan for America's space program. Yet another commission has been charged with this task. In the meantime, you could fill shelf after shelf with previous commission findings that all say nearly the same thing. I also found it most interesting that Bush explicitly said that NASA would get $86 billion over the next five years. Hmm, didn't we just spend $87 billion in Iraq? I, for one, would much rather see that kind of money go into the expansion of an industry that would create new jobs and open new resources that enrich our lives and inspire our children than going into an effort that gets our soldiers killed. But then, I'm biased.
If you actually read this far, I owe you a cookie or something. Please leave a comment.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Macbeth
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Yay cookie!
Date: 2004-01-14 10:15 pm (UTC)Re: Yay cookie!
Date: 2004-01-15 06:10 am (UTC)Thank you
Date: 2004-01-15 09:01 am (UTC)I am also depressed by it. I really wanted to believe someone in the government was finally realizing that we need to put more attention on this aspect of governement and scientific development, but it is obvious that is what we are intended to think, but follow through will be fairly normal.
Re: Thank you
Date: 2004-01-15 04:18 pm (UTC)Even most of the educated commentary I've seen this week falls in one of two categories. Either it's someone who stands behind the President because it's the thing to do, or they sit there fighting off the critics who want to add another drop in the bucket of social programs. Only the occasional footnote addresses the plan itself within the context of space travel.
Re: Thank you
Date: 2004-01-15 10:48 pm (UTC)Good rant, need more details
Date: 2004-01-15 12:32 pm (UTC)which of course isn't true, but really, a good reason would be nice. The american people just don't have the will to see it done if all we get from it is some snazy pictures and the more etheric benefits of "inspiring children" and "developing new technologies."
I know that the costs involved would pretty much elliminate any return, but I wonder if it would be easier to sell to people if we said we were going to the moon/mars/asteroids to mine them for valuable minerals... At least then all the talking heads could try to justify the upfront costs with some return...
Re: Good rant, need more details
Date: 2004-01-15 05:18 pm (UTC)While "inspiring children" sounds like BS, before long, it's going to be a serious problem. The aerospace industry is aging. Plenty of baby boomers and the generation after went into aerospace because of Sputnik and Apollo, but they're getting old and looking to retire soon. There are not enough young engineers to replace them. If we don't do anything to inspire the kids who are in school now, there won't be enough engineers to fill those jobs. If the industry fails because of that, it will be a tragedy, IMHO.
exactly
Date: 2004-01-16 05:06 pm (UTC)It sure does seem like "I'll make some impressive sounding noises" but not really do anything. ;(
I think the best bet for space might be for the .gov to let private enterprise go if they want to. They have sure been giving the X-prize people a lot of static about even making a commercial vehicle.
Oh well, time to re-read the man who sold the moon. ;)
kevin
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 07:33 pm (UTC)Great Post
Date: 2004-04-08 12:54 pm (UTC)