From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 04:08 PM 1/15/04, Bryon Daly wrote:When I first read Bush's proposal, one of the first things that struck me was that it seems to be far too little new money, and far too little time,
It took only 8 years from JFK's speech until Apollo 11, and JFK's speech happened less than four years after the very first ever object was launched into Earth orbit.
Yes, but I believe that to have been a "crash" program, with lots of money and resources brought to bear on it, with the singular goal in mind. (Am I wrong on that?) I've often heard use of "an Apollo-type program" to describe an intense, high-focus program to achieve some goal. Can reappropriating just 1/7 or so of NASA's budget allow for this sort of intense program? From some of the analysis I've seen, it looks as if NASA will still be spending part of its energies and a fair bit of its budget on the shuttle and space station, plus probably still trying to maintain at least some portion of its unmanned robotic exploration efforts.
One big oopsie for me: Rereading Bush's speech, I realize his target for a return to the moon is 2015-2020. I had misremembered his testing date for the CEV (2008) as the targeted moon landing date, so it's a far more reasonable 11-16 year timeframe that the short 4-6 year time frame I was thinking.
Even so, though, is that enough time (and is the budget sufficient) to develop both a heavy lifting Saturn V replacement, the CEV, and the moon probes? How long did the shuttle take to launch, from day 1 until its first true first space mission? I'm afraid our big project track record since the Apollo days isn't so encouraging. (ie: F-22)
All that said, I do really like the idea of a return to manned exploration of space, a Moon base and Mars landings. I was pretty disappointed the last time I remember a president (was it Bush?) sorta mentioned a manned Mars mission, there seemed to be a resounding No! from some of the science community. So really, my concern here is in how realistic the proposal is. I'd prefer a realistic appraisal up front of the time and costs involved over one that earns a reputation as behind schedule and over budget. (Not to say that I think that will be the case, but Easterbrook's numbers cause me some concern. Particularly the "Saturn V cost $40b in today's dollars" Can we do it plus the CEV today for under $12b when Boeing spends $7.5b designing a new airliner?)
Easterbrook was a bit snarky with some of the stuff you quote below, which I won't defend, but I'll add some comments.
The name doesn't even make sense.
Who cares?
I think "Manned Exploration Vehicle" would make more sense, but Easterbrook's just nitpicking here.
Will the task of the vehicle be to explore the crew?
No. Its task will be to >>>>> LAND HUMAN BEINGS ON MARS <<<<<.
_That's_ what's inspiring about it.
I agree.
So far all money numbers announced for the Bush plan seem complete nonsense, if not outright dishonesty. We shouldn't expect George W. Bush himself to know that $12 billion is not enough to develop a spaceship. We should expect the people around Bush, and at the top of NASA, to know this. And apparently they are either astonishingly ill-informed and naïve, or are handing out phony numbers for political purposes, to get the foot in the door for far larger sums later.
Obviously it is only a start. The converse of "No bucks = No Buck Rogers" is also true. Open your mind, man. And your heart.
What would the converse of "No bucks = No Buck Rogers" be?
-bryon
_________________________________________________________________
High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
