The Vision for Space Exploration often, and erroneously, gets distilled down to a “manned mission to Mars” in the media. In the political arena, it’s often also used in passing as a rhetorical tool against the administration—something that is not taken seriously. A couple of recent examples:
- Foreign Policy magazine, in a blog posting, reviews some potential candidates to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, including LSU president and former NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe. In an argument why O’Keefe (who, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, is quite happy at LSU) shouldn’t be defense secretary, James Forsyth argues: “Does the Pentagon need another boss who is in love with management speak? Also, would invite cracks that victory in Iraq is as likely as his putative manned mission to the [sic] Mars.”
- Margaret Carlson, a columnist for Bloomberg News, brings the topic up at an end of a column about the president’s low poll ratings. “He [Bush] might try resurrecting his lofty goal of a manned mission to Mars from his halcyon days in 2004. He’d be welcome there. Or, perhaps a more modest program to bring the commander-in-chief back down to earth. That’s the voyage that would pay dividends, and it’s about all NASA can still afford.”
Two years in, and the Vision still has (or has once again) credibility problems in some elements of the media.
Maybe in more than just “some” elements.
Carlson is a far left Bush hater and therefore not someone whose opinions ought to be taken seriously.
From my reading of the media, VSE, if it ever gets mentioned at all, is understood as synonymous with RTTM and is described with the two phrases “Apollo on steroids” and “will cost $104 billion” This may not be such bad news, $104 billion is loose change nowadays in a $2,700 billion budget and steroids are becoming fashionable.
As to O’Keefe replacing Rumsfeld (just the thought is a nightmare); the only positive outcome of this would be to invite the enemy to one of his presentation so he could talk them to death!
VSE has the support of Congress. As Griffin pointed out, “it’s the law of the land.” In short, it doesn’t matter what Margaret Carlson and any other op-ed writer thinks.
The REAL worry is whether the *White House* still supports the VSE. When was the last time Bush mentioned it???
you cannot exactly blame media for all this. Its not like the reasoning behind VSE is very well articulated by its creators. What is the ultimate reason of doing it in the first place ? Science ? Hard to believe as scientific community is crying foul. Colonization ? Dont think so, as two men on the moon dont make a colony. Fostering technical innovation and inspiration ? Again, 60ies approach .. doing the same old same old, again hard to justify. Help growing space industries in general ? Current approach does not do that, apart from retaining jobs in certain big companies.
“cIclops”: the oversimplification of the VSE as a “manned mission to Mars” is fairly common, at least as much, if not more, than the “Apollo on steroids” line (which only entered the lexicon last September when Griffin unveiled the ESAS results.) As a particularly egregious example of this, Rolling Stone had a very lengthy article about the exploration vision, and made very little mention of the Moon, focusing instead almost exclusively on Mars. (I wrote a somewhat less lengthy response last month, point out that and other flaws in the article.)
And as for steroids, they’re on the outs these days – in baseball and perhaps the VSE as well.
I am new to this blog and have been relatively inactive as a space-watcher. What I write below may have some serious gaps-of-fact.
Why does VSE get No Respect?
After the Columbia disaster and the quick Rogers Commission NASA got a major budget reorg. Certain projects were defunded (although some funding was restored) and all sorts of big-future projects were scrapped (Shuttle replacement). Then NASA started on this big vehicle that could help us go to the moon and build a base there.
It all “happened” so quickly.
When Bush announced a Mars mission via a moonbase it seemed quite odd given his relative disinterest in science and/or Big Science. Among other things I wondered how many people would need to be supported on the moon to launch from there to Mars.
I think NASA is helping the DOD on the path to a creating real Space Command as new branch of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force & Space Command).
I think Mars is there as a sort of place holder (red herring?). It could happen but don’t expect too much budget to go to that portion of the scheme.
This is mostly about America retaining control of space as well as remaining the dominant military power on earth. I expect a base on the moon and it may do some science but it will do military stuff.
A few days ago there was skeptical mention here on this blog of a space race with China. That we are now racing China is certainly true. In Nov 2000 they launched a geostationary Navsat and in January 2001 a test of an anti-satellite system was reported. Plenty of stuff to worry about.
A couple milestones:
January 11, 2001 the Rumsfeld Comission report on space was published (COMMISSION TO ASSESS
UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION). It included 5 mentions of “Pearl Harbor” or “Space Pearl Harbor”.
Rumsfeld (and Cheney) were also co-founders of the PNAC and its plan for Rebuilding America’s Defenses published in September 2000. That plan, which many consider the blueprint for the last 5 years (dealing with Iraq and Iran as well as countering the rise China), pondered the difficulty of implementing such major change. Here is a direct quote:
“Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.”
So…
September 11, 2001 was the Pearl Harbor event for the PNAC RAD plan and February 1, 2003 was the Pearl Harbor event that helps instigate a NASA reorg and start the development base transport technologies needed for a Space Command.
The REAL worry is whether the *White House* still supports the VSE. When was the last time Bush mentioned it???
I don’t care if Bush never mentions it again, as long as the budget increases keep coming. That’s the only measure of “support” that really matters.
“I don’t care if Bush never mentions it again, as long as the budget increases keep coming. That’s the only measure of “support” that really matters.”
Exactly wrong. In both military and NASA matters of the past that money only gets spent wisely when there is strong support for an objective and open scrutiny in meeting it. Money without broad-based support for and public scrutiny of how it is spent becomes pork for the taking.
Jeff, thanks for the link to your Space review article which sums up the Stoned article fittingly with its title. What a waste of 6000 words, if only they were written by someone who had a clue. One upside is that most of the readership will have forgotten all they read before they even finish the article, if they ever get that far.
As for the VSE, it’s time for Griffin to report on the VSE status.
I don’t see the VSE getting any respect anywhere. Two years in and there is no real plan what to do on the surface of the Moon. The launch system is a mess and should have never come before surface planning.
We now have a second oppertunity for public input, but what happened to all the input I gave in the last round? I guess it was thrown away with the lunar road map process.
All the new money is going to sustaining the station and the shuttle and building a launch system that is only really suited for the Space station.
The “oversimplification” of the VSE as a manned mission to Mars comes straight from the White House itself and is central to the VSE’s credibility problems. Actually it’s the White House, not the VSE, that has credibility problems. The VSE is just a particularly convenient example of White House spin and misdirection.
From the beginning, the theme of the VSE was that NASA was going to do all of these other things, but that it was “really about” going to Mars and beyond. Here is how Frank Sietzen and Keith Cowing reported it in January 2004:
Then the vice president spoke up: “Then this is really about going to these other destinations, isn’t it?” he asked. All agreed.
There you have the political conceit of the VSE: That what NASA actually does and what it’s “really about” can be completely different. Jefferson could equally well have rowed boats up and down the Potomac, and declared that it was “really about” sailing to China.
Of course it leads to credibility problems. And not just credibility problems, but institutional failure.
It just makes me cringe to have to sit and watch the whole VSE ESAS charade continue. It’s no wonder some of the NASA engineers are starting to revolt – internally.
The whole thing is just revolting. Great nations should do better.
In short – a major part of the NASA budget should really be reported as part of the DOD.