My vision is for NASA to continue orbital work with an immediate initiative for a faster, less complicated, less expensive, quicker turn around method to get there. Once established, while continuing to work on science, I want a deliberate effort focused on exploring the solar system and going back to the moon first with Mars close behind. And (selfishly), I want this accomplished in my lifetime.
George A P.S. I want to go (orbit, moon, Mars, I don't care) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 1:50 PM Subject: Where will NASA go next? > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-02-06-nasa-cover_x.htm > > Columbia's disintegration over Texas didn't curb America's appetite for > launching people into space. Public opinion polls and soaring rhetoric from > the White House and Congress make that clear. > > But to what end? Should the next generation of space travel be driven by > awe-inspiring goals such as colonizing the moon, landing on Mars or even > traveling beyond the solar system? Or should NASA's ambitions be more > modest: Find a safer way into space, stay in Earth's orbit and keep doing > experiments that amount to updated versions of John Glenn's journey 41 years > ago? (Related item: Photos of new shuttle designs) > > Those questions will be the backdrop next week, as Congress begins hearings > on the shuttle disaster. As much as anything, the hearings will focus on > what the future of American space travel might look like. > > For now, budget deficits, the threat of terrorism, a possible war with Iraq > and a balky economy are huge barriers to any massive new spending on the > space program. > > NASA's immediate future is tied to the shuttle - an aging equipment hauler > whose reliability again is in question - and to the International Space > Station. Before it was scaled back amid cost overruns, the $100 billion > station was to have had a launch facility for trips to the moon and Mars. > > There are many proposals, but no definite plan for a second-generation > shuttle, or "space plane," that would be launched either by rockets on the > ground or from atop a moving jet. The most ambitious space dreamers are > pushing for a manned flight to Mars. But that likely would require an > entirely different kind of spacecraft. There's been no action yet on plans > to develop nuclear propulsion or other advanced power systems that would be > needed to make the 280-million-mile round-trip feasible. > > That's partly why its harshest critics see NASA as a moribund program that > is underfunded and sorely in need of direction. These space analysts say > that after operating two decades without a clear goal that excites > Americans, NASA for the most part has slipped from the public consciousness. > > The critics, along with many members of Congress, want NASA to define an > ambitious vision for itself, much as President Kennedy did in 1961 by > calling on the United States to put a man on the moon by decade's end. > > If NASA simply continues with its current approach, "it probably, in 25 > years, will be the death of human space flight," says Howard McCurdy, an > American University professor of public affairs. > > "The people who go to work for NASA want to go somewhere" besides the > station, says John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George > Washington University. "They look back at the journeys of Apollo with > nostalgia and hope for the day when the country allows NASA once again to go > somewhere." > > At Tuesday's memorial service in Houston for the Columbia astronauts, > President Bush aimed high. "This cause of exploration and discovery is not > an option we choose," he said. "It is a desire written in the human heart." > > Bush wasn't the first president to take a cue from Kennedy. > > In 1989, 20 years after NASA and Neil Armstrong beat Kennedy's deadline to > the moon, the first President Bush called for a mission to Mars. It created > barely a ripple of debate, especially after NASA offered a mind-boggling > cost estimate for a Mars program: $500 billion, equal to about a quarter of > the U.S. government's current budget. > > Kennedy's challenge was all about proving America superior to the Soviet > Union, and to meet it NASA's budget grew to more than 4% of federal spending > during the mid-1960s. It's less than 1% today, about $15 billion. > > The new debate in Congress over NASA's future will focus largely on whether > to provide money for another shuttle (Endeavour, the newest one, cost $2.1 > billion in 1991), or to step up development of a next-generation spacecraft > that could cost billions more. > > Last year, NASA scaled back a $4.8 billion program to come up with an > alternative to the shuttle after a government audit called the effort > wasteful, in part because NASA hadn't decided what it wanted its next > spacecraft to do. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, who was appointed by Bush > in 2001 and told to address the space station's rising costs, directed $2.1 > billion of the money toward the station and to maintenance aimed at > extending the shuttle fleet's lifetime to 2020. > > NASA officials generally can count on strong political backing on Capitol > Hill, particularly among lawmakers from the states where the space agency > has flight centers. But NASA's lack of a grand plan, and lawmakers' > frustration with the rising cost of the station, has led to some grumbling. > > Some members of Congress who grew up during NASA's glory days of the 1960s > say that challenging the space agency's spending can seem almost > unpatriotic. But the reality is this: NASA is part of the same funding bill > as the Veteran's Administration. When the agencies compete for dwindling > funds, veterans are likely to win because they typically have more political > clout than NASA. > > So while many in Congress talk about supporting grand space exploration > plans, for now they just want something cheaper and safer than the shuttle, > whose missions cost about $400 million each. > > "We need to decide what we're going to recommend to take care of" now, says > Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, a top Democrat on the House space panel. "It > will be hard to keep people focused on that because it's not as sexy." > > Shuttle seen as limited > > Hours after Columbia's demise, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, > suggested that NASA should be aiming to go to Mars. "My vision is to push > the envelope on the human exploration of space," he said. > > But DeLay, whose district near Houston is home to many astronauts and > Johnson Space Center workers, also is pushing for more money to improve the > shuttle. To some space analysts, that's a contradiction. The shuttle, built > on 1970s technology and now with catastrophic failures in about 2% of its > flights, has a limited future because it's tied to Earth's orbit. > > The three remaining shuttles will continue to be funded, and after > Columbia's disaster more money is likely to be poured into making them safe. > But the real future of space exploration, analysts say, is not the shuttle. > A vehicle that initially was supposed to fly twice a month, pay its way with > commercial cargo and produce a diet of exciting missions instead flies only > five or six times a year. Its astronauts lug construction material to the > space station and conduct a range of experiments. > > In the early 1980s shuttles deployed satellites, but operators of > billion-dollar satellites turned elsewhere for launch systems after > Challenger and its crew of seven were lost in 1986. > > Shuttle crews have made valuable repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope and > briefly have captured the nation's attention with space walks, but most > missions these days are deliveries to the space station. Since the first few > shuttle flights in the early 1980s, America hasn't held its breath over the > shuttle's missions the way it did over Apollo's quest for the moon. > > "The one positive thing that will come out of this accident, I hope, is > accelerating the technology development to build a replacement for the > shuttle," Logsdon says. > > Closely tied to the shuttle's future is the space station. The shuttle is > the only vehicle that can ferry large pieces needed to finish building the > station. If the shuttle is idle for a long time because of the Columbia > probe, work will stop, the station's three astronauts could have to return > to Earth and the station could be left uninhabited. > > NASA says that finishing the station by 2006 - albeit several years late and > billions of dollars over budget - is key to any future plans for manned > flights beyond the moon. A high priority of the station's research is to > study the impact on the body of long spells in space. (If existing rockets > could be made with enough fuel to get astronauts to Mars and back, the trip > would take at least six months each way, experts say.) > > In its present configuration, a 150-ton complex the size of a three-bedroom > house without a launching platform, the space station's usefulness to moon > or Mars exploration is uncertain. > > Many scientists say most of the station's research - and the shuttle's - > could be done with robots on unmanned craft. The station, first manned in > 2000, was built to last 20 years. U.S. officials assume it will be used > longer. > > But even in its grandest incarnation, the station would stay in Earth's > orbit, and would be only a steppingstone to interplanetary travel. > > "In that sense it's no more exciting to build than the interstate highway > system or a gas station," McCurdy says. "The exciting thing was getting to > Yellowstone National Park. That was the exciting part of the vision." > > The next generation > > For years, NASA officials have examined ways to replace the shuttle with a > smaller craft that would be cheaper to operate and could fly far more often. > But like the shuttle, none of the next-generation vehicles would be able to > take crews to the moon or beyond. > > In recent years, NASA has examined several potential replacements that were > touted as sleeker, lighter, safer and more advanced than the shuttle. The > proposals included a model by Northrup Grumman that could be launched by > booster rockets, or take off from atop a jet. It then would climb to a high > altitude and fire rockets that would carry it into orbit. Another plan, by > Lockheed Martin, would launch a winged craft from a "wedding cake" stack of > reusable rockets, with the craft firing its own rockets for a final boost > into orbit. > > Last year, O'Keefe said those proposals and several others did not represent > enough of a technological leap from the current shuttle. He then began to > focus on a concept by NASA engineers for a relatively small, five-passenger > space plane that would blast into space atop a Delta 4 or Titan 5 rocket, > then return to Earth as a glider, much like the shuttle. > > NASA officials said the plane would have two advantages over larger craft: > it could be parked at the space station as an escape vehicle and therefore > allow more people to work there; and it would cost "only" $1 billion a > plane. > > It's unclear whether the Columbia disaster will turn NASA's attention back > to a larger craft; the agency hasn't committed to any model. > > Aiming for Mars > > Those who want NASA to reach farther into space say the public long ago lost > interest in the types of missions space planes could do. > > Scientists, activists and lawmakers who support a Mars mission say America > should think of space as a frontier, not a program. They say the president > should set an aggressive agenda, and they want NASA to hand off space > exploration, at least between here and the moon, to the private sector so > that entrepreneurs and scientists could revitalize space technology and > lower the exploration costs. > > "The overriding goal of humans going into space is to settle space," says > Rick Tumlinson, founder of the Space Frontier Foundation. "It is our destiny > ... to expand beyond the Earth." > > It's not just dreamers who challenge NASA's assumptions, who chafe at a > system dominated by big contractors, big bureaucracy, congressional pique > and year-to-year budget squeezes. Others recall the computer and > telecommunications revolutions of the past 20 years and wonder why the same > hasn't happened to space travel. > > A great venture such as sending humans to Mars has to fit a political niche, > like the Apollo moon shots fit the goal of beating the Soviets, says Louis > Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society. He believes the > Columbia tragedy might create momentum for manned exploration. > > "They are our emissaries in exploration," he says. "We have this innate > desire to believe that astronauts are explorers," not lab technicians. > > "I'm a space buff, and I want to be part of a humans-to-Mars mission more > than anything, (but) I've got to believe we don't have that political niche > right now." > > > > xponent > In Aeresychonous Orbit Maru > rob > ________________________________ > You are a fluke of the universe. > You have no right to be here. > And whether you can hear it or not, > the universe is laughing behind your back. > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
