During a brief joint press availability featuring President Bush and Colombian president Álvaro Uribe Vélez a reporter asked Bush if he felt that the shuttle’s return to flight was premature. His extended response:
First of all, I had the honor of speaking to the — the folks of — that are on that mission. And it was a great experience to be talking to bold explorers. And, secondly, like a lot of Americans, I was amazed at the procedures that took place to repair the craft. It’s pretty remarkable. I believe that — I believe that the mission is important, and I know that the mission directors will make the right decision about how to proceed.
Ours is a country that values the safety of our citizens, particularly those we ask to take risk in space. And there will be a lot of deliberation, a lot of thought that goes into the decision as to whether or not those brave souls can — should return on that vehicle. And I know that NASA has been very closely in touch with the White House. Andy Card has been in touch with the Administrator on a regular basis. But I’ve got the confidence — all the confidence that they will make the right decision.
Let me also say that it is important for our fellow citizens to understand that we’re going to take the NASA mission beyond the current mission, that we’ll be using — we want — the plan right now is to phase out the shuttle by 2010, and then begin to put a strategy in place that will use the moon as a launching spot for further exploration.
I know the — at least the people I’ve talked to inside NASA are excited about the mission, the reinvigoration of the vision of exploration. And I appreciate the Administrator working on getting that strategy in place, so that when the decision is made to finally get rid of this phase of exploration, we’ll be ready to take on the new phase. And that’s important for the American people to understand, that, one, exploration is important; two, there will be some good coming out of exploration; and, three, that we’ve got a new vision embraced by NASA and its pioneers.
There’s not anything necessarily new in those comments, which summarize what he has said in recent days either in his comments to the shuttle crew or in his interview Monday with Texas newspaper reporters. (I’m sure some will note that he again emphasized the idea of developing a lunar base as “a launching spot for further exploration”; the question, of course, if that is a literal or figurative launching spot.) At this point, it doesn’t seem that asking the President more questions will reveal that many more insights about his space policy philosophy.
I think the Presidents “space policy philosophy” has already been clearly defined, he believes in space exploration period. I don’t think it has to go much deeper than that. I don’t believe anyone expected JFK to flesh out the plans to “land a man on the moon” but only to point NASA in that direction and say go do it. That is what Bush has done, he has said here is what we should do now you guys (NASA) go do it. Of course, like Kennedy, he had the advise and counsel of experts before making the decision on what the direction should be. But now some seem to expect Bush to BE the expert on space policy and to give all the answers.
I definitely agree with Cecil on that one. Unless Bush became an expert in orbital mechanics all of a sudden I don’t think anyone will take his “the moon as a launching spot” comment as anything more than a metaphor. Although I’m sure there will be some who will attempt to do so, IMHO they’re just trying to pick a fight.
What I thought was interesting is that Bush is thinking of a time when someone will “finally get rid of this phase of exploration” — I couldn’t agree more.
No guys, it’s not a metaphor. Bush means it literally, just like he meant “spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon” literally. (I have to wonder how Michael Mealing would interpret “spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon” as a metaphor.) This time, he said “will use”, not “could be useful”, as Rand suggested. If it pans out, Brad Blair will be a public hero for sure.
I will concede one point, though. Bush has reduced the VSE to just two goals: First we get rid of the space station, then we build Bush Space Center on the moon. The O’Keefe report was a grab bag; this version of the VSE is not.
Kuperberg: “No guys, it’s not a metaphor. Bush means it literally, just like he meant “spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon” literally. (I have to wonder how Michael Mealing would interpret “spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon” as a metaphor.) This time, he said “will use”, not “could be useful”, as Rand suggested.,”
Of course you halt your quote of Bushs’ speech at a opportune point. You would not want to quote him fully as that doesn’t suit your purpose. The full quote is:
“Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon COULD escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost.”
Key word there, the word you left out, is “COULD”. The “could” you said he didn’t use is there, the “will use” you claim he said is not.
Now I will quote myself from earlier this morning:
“You make intellectually dishonest assessments and declarations about everything you disagree with and then just expect everyone to take those as fact.”
Maybe I was wrong, instead of “intellectually dishonest assessments” maybe you just lie?
No, Cecil, when I said “will use”, I also said “this time”. The passage from which I took “will use” is right at the top of this web page.
You shouldn’t accuse other people of lying just because you didn’t read it carefully.
It really doesn’t matter what Bush’s actuall intentions are about the Moon because, nothing will really be decided about the return to the Moon until after his term is over expect purhapse the form of transportation. Which I personally think should be decided after we have a firm plan on what exactly we are going to do on the Moon, not before.
Kuperberg: “No, Cecil, when I said “will use”, I also said “this time”. The passage from which I took “will use” is right at the top of this web page.
You shouldn’t accuse other people of lying just because you didn’t read it carefully.”
So you take one phrase the president used yesterday, combine it with one he used over 18 months ago and come up with some made up conclusion?
Yeah, I would call that a lie.
I may be revealing my ignorance here, but, as a long-term goal, what is so unrealistic about launching Mars missions from Earth’s moon (or, better, from lunar orbit)? Isn’t oxygen — rocket oxidizer, breathing, drinking water, shielding water — the heaviest part of any Mars mission? Isn’t oxygen readily available on Earth’s moon even if there isn’t any ice? In a strategy for the long-term, fter the first few proof-of-concept missions, does it make _any_ sense to lift all of that mass from Earth?
— Donald
I would consider refueling in lunar orbit or L1 with fuel from the moon close enough to make the President truthful in his statement. Most of the mass of the vehicle is fuel and Lunar ‘provisioning’ may make good sense by that point.
Donald: It’s one of those things that are theoretically possible but that haven’t actually been invented yet. It’s not so easy make rocket-grade LOX to scale on Earth just by compressing air. Doing the same thing on the moon would be vastly more difficult, even if it had air (which of course it doesn’t) or block ice (which it probably doesn’t). So you are reduced to making rocket-grade LOX from rocks. Doing that to scale is already very expensive on Earth; doing it on the moon is sheer speculation. (But hey, speculation is perfectly respectable at academic institutions. Such as UC Davis and the Colorado School of Mines.)
So the question is whether Bush is “confident” that NASA will achieve things are not known to be realistic. Some people say that because Bush doesn’t know orbital mechanics, he doesn’t literally mean his claims about assembling and provisioning spacecraft on the moon and using it as a launching spot. But I think that it’s the opposite, that because he doesn’t know orbital mechanics, he does mean them literally.
Another discussion question: Which will come first, that NASA will assemble and provision spacecraft on the moon, or that America will bring stability and unity to a free Iraq? After all, both are long-term goals from a visionary President.
Greg: “Doing that to scale is already very expensive on Earth; doing it on the moon is sheer speculation.”
I have no expertise in this area. However, I would note that the price tag for delivering oxygen from Earth’s surface to orbit and storing it there for a Mars mission might pay for a lot of “sheer speculation.”
— Donald
“It’s one of those things that are theoretically possible but that haven’t actually been invented yet.”
Kinda like all the technology that didn’t exist when JFK said lets go to the Moon the first time?
I lived near an aluminum reduction plant once. They liberated a lot of oxygen and produced a valuable aerospace commodity. Al makes up about 9% of the Earth’s crust. I’d imagine the Moon would be similar. Hydroelectric power, on the other hand, is probably out of the question there.
It needs a golf course.
Now there’s a topic worthy of a Friday afternoon! I’ll bet even I could hit a straight drive there. Another benefit to going back to the Moon is the astronaut’s innate drive to play golf will guarantee some significant improvements in space suit technology.
I’m actually thinking it’s going to be the lunatics rego-boarding the craters that are going to be driving the advances in spacesuit technology. It’ll only take a few dead Tony Hawks and those guys are going to be paying for some serious spacesuit upgrades.
I can see where the golfers would have certain areas in spacesuit design that they’d like to see improved. Maybe together we can all pitch in and help.
> I lived near an aluminum reduction plant once. They liberated a lot of oxygen […]
Huh? The conventional electrolytic process for producing aluminum does not liberate oxygen. It liberates carbon monoxide and dioxide. The positive electrode is made of carbon, which is slowly consumed. The chemical energy of this reaction substitutes for more expensive electrical energy by reducing the required electrical potential.
“Which will come first, that NASA will assemble and provision spacecraft on the moon, or that America will bring stability and unity to a free Iraq? After all, both are long-term goals from a visionary President.”
Actually, I’m still waiting for an exit strategy for Roosevelt’s War on Poverty.
Actually, Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty. Johnson had some key things in common with the president that we have now.
These dramatic promises, including the VSE, remind me of the wise and famous quote from Louis Gerstner when he became CEO at IBM in 1993: “The last thing that this company needs is a vision.”
Ok, Paul, granted I should have remembered that, but that’s not the only process for aluminum reduction (hey, whose side are you on?).
Anyway, I suppose the point is oxygen can be produced, it does, however, require some significant energy production. On the up side, there are no cloudy days on the Moon. You can use solar power to heat the pots, but still need some electricity to separate the Al and 02. One nice thing about Al, though. It can be used as both structure and fuel for a rocket.
Ed Minchau wrote: “Actually, I’m still waiting for an exit strategy for Roosevelt’s War on Poverty.”
Heh, that reminds me, when are we ever going to bring home the troops from Germany and Japan?