Posted on 12/01/2003 1:36:09 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush will propose a sweeping new vision of U.S. space leadership that will call for use of the Moon for technology development and partnerships between NASA and the Defense Department to make maximum use of existing or planned U.S. space systems, this column has learned from informed sources.
NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe will be tasked with leading the effort, aimed at presenting Vice President Dick Cheney and the president with a roadmap to what some are calling "renewed U.S. space dominance" during 2004.
Following a year-long review of U.S. space objectives, programs, and assets, the Bush administration was presented with a broad set of options during the summer's deliberations, a source indicated.
O'Keefe "worked to build a consensus" for renewed U.S. manned spaceflight beyond shuttle and station. The return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade became "by default" the least expensive and risky of the paths proposed for the U.S. space program.
Bush will call for renewed U.S. activities leading to leadership of space exploration "in the Earth-Moon system" that could include manned lunar landings, the employment of a series of commercially-available launch vehicles and upper stages, new robotic lunar probes that will include orbiting communications and navigation relay satellites, and the development of a "flexible" manned spacecraft that is likely to be a form of the proposed Orbital Space Plane, but no new advanced launchers, large Apollo-style space vehicles or reusable replacements for the shuttles. Creation of a manned lunar base would evolve from more limited landings, if at all.
Development of new, advanced space technologies that would reinvigorate the space program and industry has been more of a focus of the effort than the use of the Moon itself, the source said. Military use of space and military test beds were also key elements in gaining acceptance of the renewed space plan. Testing of the Prometheus atomic rocket would also be a part of the plan.
The existing space shuttle fleet will play a crucial role in the plan by use of its heavy lifting capabilities in an unmanned form. Use of the existing U.S. expendable Delta and Atlas fleet as well as the remaining three shuttles was mandated early on, the source indicated. Part of this exercise has also been a parallel effort to arrive at a retirement date for the shuttle. That had yet to be agreed upon, this column has been told.
NASA's budget will annually rise "no more" than seven percent, beginning in 2006, according to the source. This excludes the cost of the OSP and the shuttle's return to flight. Less than $250 million in new funding will be allocated in FY2005 for the space dominance implementation plan.
A series of options studied this summer that could free up agency funding for the manned initiative included NASA ending whole areas of existing unrelated work and transferring the programs to other federal agencies. The study included ending NASA-funded aeronautics research, and earth science programs. But it was not clear if these transfers would be attempted as part of a reorganization of the space agency that was set in motion by the Columbia accident as well as the Bush space vision exercise, or delayed until after the 2004 Presidential Election.
The idea was considered so controversial that many thought it would never go beyond the study phase.
O'Keefe's view of the idea was also not clear. But other elements of the reorganization are going ahead, including creation of a new "Code X" at NASA headquarters to administer the exploration package, and a streamlining of operational codes and responsibilities. Space Architect Gary Martin would be a part of but would not lead the new exploration office, whose head is expected to be a former admiral.
As this column goes to press, the source, not affiliated with the current U.S. space industry or agencies, indicated that eventual success in reaching a broad enough goal to gain political support within the administration was mostly the work of O'Keefe, and a small group of other Bush administration appointees and advisors. "Some were dubious that he (O'Keefe) could be a statesman, but look what has happened," the source said.
"For someone without a space background, he did good, keeping people's feet to the fire. He clearly wants (the new vision) this to happen." "But they are still tinkering with what's in there, and nobody knows at all." There was-and still is-significant opposition to the effort, the source said.
In the end, however, O'Keefe allegedly spent as much time gathering support within NASA itself as he did within the U.S. military, which continues to be skeptical about a new NASA-led manned program. "In a way he had to drag his own agency along to put up, or shut it. It was a close run thing, and still isn't a done deal" this column was told.
Once the Bush White House chooses a venue for the announcement, attention will shift to NASA for the crafting of the implementation plan and the chronology. Some of this has already been assembled, allegedly and quietly, by O'Keefe working with a handful of NASA planners. Other elements will depend on how much of the final proposed vision actually gets into form by the White House.
Support for any NASA-run manned space program was not uniform within the administration, the source complained. "But in the end he got most of them on board, and that's what counts." But when asked if the new space vision announcement is a certainty, the source joked. "In this White House, the only thing certain is they hate leaks."
Huh? Maybe I missed it, but I see nothing in there other than a bland acknowledgement that space travel should be more economical. But that doesn't stop him from proposing the shuttle architecture as the basis for a new lunar program?!?
There is nothing that I have found in this topic that suggests that Bush, NASA, or anyone else setting space policy "gets it." Maybe that's a good thing. While they are spinning their wheels spending billions on space boondoggles, some entrepreneur will figure out how to do it right.
And since this guy is talking about using the shuttle, it is obvious he hasn't given launch costs any serious thought. It's like a high school kid dreaming of getting a Ferrari on his sixteenth birthday.
Qualify that statement.
It's not that I think space exploration is a bad thing, I welcome it.
The problem is that space exploration can not happen on a continuous, sustainable basis until we address the problem of getting to orbit. We are planning a family driving vacation across the country on a scooter.
That would be a waste, and is not needed. The electromagnetic rail is perfect for the moon and uses no reaction mass.
By using off the shelf hardware and a system already in place, you don't run up the huge costs of designing and developing a totally new system. By getting to the Moon you get to the fuel. By mining the fuel you don't have to lift it to orbit. Slowly a transportation network is developed. In time you have fuel to sell.
Cavorite, Skylark of Space, mass cancellation. All the trees killed in honor of sci-fi have yet to bear fruit.
It would simplify everything if it were so. We should survey the potential resources, prove them up so to speak. It's anybody's guess how many survey-bots would be needed for the survey, more than one most likely. But each water-bot need not be expensive. For the cost of one Space Shuttle flight it should be possible to send a dozen water-bots, maybe all on one flight. And if they find significant water, no one would be happier than RightWhale.
Yes, and you can save a lot of money building a house by skipping the foundation.
Current expendables+shuttle amounts to a very poor foundation to build on. It is expensive, incapable, and likely to suddenly go away when you need it most. (Oops, there goes another shuttle up in smoke, hang on for two or three years while we get over our collective panic attack.)
For forty years we have been going into space without making getting to orbit any cheaper, more reliable or safer. You can't build castles in the air.
NASA and the space industry have come to the realization that they can't build the needed launcher, so they propose going ahead anyway.
Science fiction? WTH are you talking about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.