Since his speech at NASA Headquarters just over 18 months ago unveiling the Vision for Space Exploration, President Bush has been quiet in public about the VSE and NASA in general, causing some people to question his commitment to the effort. However, in an interview yesterday with reporters from several Texas newspapers, he did address space policy. The Houston Chronicle reports:
Despite nagging problems with the space shuttle program, President Bush said Monday that he remains optimistic that NASA can fully achieve his ambitious goals for human travel to the moon and Mars.
“I am confident NASA will be able to implement the vision I laid out and that is to use the moon as an exploratory base to go further into space,” Bush said in a wide-ranging interview with five Texas newspapers.
[…]
As NASA examined problems with launch debris and the space shuttle Discovery’s outer skin Monday, Bush said the space agency’s long-term prospects are excellent and will inspire the nation.
“I am confident that we will develop the engineering and the rocketry to do so, I am confident the astronauts are fired up about the program, but most importantly I am confident this will give the American people a reason to be engaged and rooting for NASA’s success.”
A Dallas Morning News article about the interview also brings up the fate of the shuttle program at the end:
Said NASA would have to decide whether to retire the shuttle before 2010. “That decision will be made by the experts at NASA,” he said, offering support for the space program.
That is bizarre space news this morning. Bush has chosen to express condifence in the part of his VSE speech that makes the least sense. Conceivably NASA will return to the moon, but even if it does, the moon won’t be a “base” from which to go further. That’s like calling Greenland a “base” to go to Antarctica.
Some people were hoping that the moon has buried slabs of good ice, but it probably doesn’t. Not that ice is all that close to rocket fuel.
So you’re joining the Mars Society?
Conceivably NASA will return to the moon, but even if it does, the moon won’t be a “base” from which to go further.
Greg, I never fail to be amused by your continual stating of your uninformed opinion on this subject as though it were a fact.
Not that ice is all that close to rocket fuel.
Really? You mean, other than the fact that it’s simply in a different energy state?
Since the VSE is, essentially, a plan to return to the moon, establish a base there, and use that base to develop and acquire expertise in living for extended periods of time on another planet (Mars), it seems to me Bush’s comments were right on target. Mars missions will be launched from Earth orbit, not from the lunar surface; your Greenland-Antarctica comparison is a non sequitur. Bush, and the rest of us, certainly have more reason to be confident of NASA than they do of private sector initiatives, which, with a single exception, exist as plans, promises, and paper. And that single exception has yet to demonstrate the ability to successfully put people in LEO and return them — without that they’re going nowhere. I’m all for private sector space initiatives, but I’m not going to hold my breath and I certainly don’t expect the private sector to do what needs to be done if it isn’t profitable.
Bush said “”I am confident NASA will be able to implement the vision I laid out”. Reminds me of when he said something like “I am confident Iraq will be quickly over with.”
Newsflash: Bush in Favor of Bathing, Greg Kuperberg Disagrees!
What he really said: “After September the 11th, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult, and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult — and we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America, and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.”
Reminds me of when he said something like “I am confident Iraq will be quickly over with.”
Noting that you’re dragging this way off topic now, how can it remind you of something he never said?
billg: You’re saying that the proposal to use the moon as an “exploratory base” is only a metaphor for gaining experience in human spaceflight. But that is not what Bush said. He said, “Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost.” So he means it literally. He supposes that NASA will make a permanent moon base, then they will build new spacecraft at the moon base to travel to other planets.
Conceivably humanity will do something like that one day in the unforseeable future. But making it NASA’s plan today is the stupidest part of the entire VSE speech. Nonetheless, it’s the part that Bush singles out for his confidence. A lot of people are reading things into the VSE speech that are completely different and more logical than what is really there.
Rand: Yes, the difference between block ice (which the moon doesn’t have) and rocket fuel is its chemical state. It’s a big difference! And, while you predictably brush away comments that you don’t like as lacking expertise, since when are you the big expert in this? You also brushed away Bruce Murray on this point, who is both a spaceflight manager and a planetary soil scientist, as the wrong expert. But you have never named the supposed true experts.
Isn’t this the most he has publicly talked about space since his VSE speech?
I’m trying to look at this from an average non space persons viewpoint. And from that angle it would appear is really isn’t in favor of it. At least whats been covered in the news.
Yes, the difference between block ice (which the moon doesn’t have) and rocket fuel is its chemical state. It’s a big difference!
Putting an exclamation mark on a statement doesn’t make it as big! a difference as you seem to think it does. Do reviewers of your submittals to mathematics journals find bangs persuasive?
And, while you predictably brush away comments that you don’t like as lacking expertise, since when are you the big expert in this?
I dunno, maybe since people have been actually paying me to study it (i.e., many years)? And it’s not a comment “I don’t like.” It’s a comment that’s an opinion, stated authoritatively as a fact, despite the fact that many who are experts disagree with it. Whether I “like” it or not has nothing to do with my criticism.
My claim (as an “expert”) is that the moon could be a useful stepping stone to Mars. Yours is that it absolutely isn’t. Your claim would seem to be much stronger, and needing defense, yet you have none.
You also brushed away Bruce Murray on this point, who is both a spaceflight manager and a planetary soil scientist, as the wrong expert. But you have never named the supposed true experts.
People who have actually studied it. Like mining experts.
I’m always amused by people who confuse “scientists” who do research (like Bruce Murray) with engineers, who are the people who actually figure out how to apply it.
> Bush, and the rest of us, certainly have more reason to be confident of NASA
> than they do of private sector initiatives, which, with a single exception,
> exist as plans, promises, and paper.
So, I guess all those communication satellites are a hoax?
So, where do National Aerospace Planes, VentureStars, X-34, X-38, and 2nd Generation RLVs exist — since you “certainly have reason to be confident” of NASA promises?
> And that single exception has yet to demonstrate the ability to
> successfully put people in LEO and return them — without that they’re
> going nowhere.
Alan Shephard’s Mercury flight didn’t demonstrate the ability to successfully put people in LEO and return them. So, I guess Mercury was going nowhere?
> I’m all for private sector space initiatives,
I guess that’s like “I support the troops.”
> but I’m not going to hold my breath and I certainly don’t expect
> the private sector to do what needs to be done if it isn’t profitable.
No one does, but there’s a third option you ignore. The private sector could do it in a manner that *is* profitable. What’s wrong with that?
This may be the first time that Bush has talked about the VSE or spaceflight in gerneral but I don’t think that would make that much differnce with the general public because up untill now they have not been focused on space. Perception is everything.
People who have actually studied it. Like mining experts.
Do these mining experts have names, and do they write papers that we are free to read? You’re dodging the question yet again here. You claim that the expertise exists, but you don’t actually reference it.
I’m always amused by people who confuse “scientists” who do research (like Bruce Murray) with engineers, who are the people who actually figure out how to apply it.
A so-called mining engineer who dismisses geologists is neither an engineer nor a scientist; he’s an incompetent. After all, if you want to apply science, you have to have some science to apply. For that matter Murray does have serious space engineering on his resume. This is not to say that Bruce Murray’s word is the word of God. But again, who are these mining experts and where are their papers?
I dunno, maybe since people have been actually paying me to study it (i.e., many years).
It is not my business what people pay you to study or whether they should. I see no public evidence of your research or expertise in space mining. You really seem to be saying that Rand Simberg is more the expert on space mining than Bruce Murray. Why should people believe this?
Rand: Also, your stated claim is that the moon “could be” a useful stepping stone to Mars. I already acknowledged that in the unforseeable future, it “could be”. But it is not what Bush said. He said that he is confident that NASA “will be able” to do it. Which is only consistent with making it NASA’s main mission.
You are trying to move illogical certitude from where it really lies, namely in Bush’s own explanation of his VSE, to prudent conservative criticism of his plan. (Conservative in the unreconstructed sense, not in the modern sense of radical American nationalism.)
Well, to me it seems certain that the place to gain experience with converting native materials into fuel would certainly be the Moon, and not Mars. Prove it can be done here on Earth, show you have a system in place to implement that process in a hostile environment on the Moon, and then implement it on Mars. Even though there are significant differences between the two, it’s a lot less than the difference between living here on Earth vs. Mars. In general, I see the Moon as the obvious first step to both exploration and exploitation of other planets.
Now, as to whether or not we should launch from the Moon to Mars, I think that’s a ways off. Once we have a well established base on the Moon, then, yes, perhaps. Until then, launch all missions from LEO and probably involve a space station. If not the one we have, another.
What I’d really like to see the Moon used for, and soon, is as an observatory. It’s the ultimate high ground and has excellent seeing conditions year around. Also you don’t have to worry about damping out vibrations from rotating reaction wheels or bouncing solar panels. I’m no geologist, but I’ll guarantee you the Moon has the materials to make glass.
In his “get back to work” address, half-tree called them “risktakers”. Congressmen took their Chaplain to the launch.
Smokey O’Keefe said “we get it” … well maybe the most important signal lately is that the politicians are getting it and acknowledging it – the fact that human spaceflight is risky business. Forget the four letter word “safe”.
No need for cargo, other than survival supplies, to and from the Columbus Canary Islands of Space, LEO, for the next human transport. Focus on crew safety / survival. Otherwise, why even have a human spaceflight program if the goal is not to keep the human alive. To strive for less means to robotize more.
Mr. (W)right is Wrong will of course play devils advocate …
Focus on a better human transport, and nothing else, to and from LEO, or let judgement day begin. Let the machines take over.
> Smokey O’Keefe said “we get it” … well maybe the most important signal lately
> is that the politicians are getting it and acknowledging it – the fact that
> human spaceflight is risky business.
If you think O’Keefe “got it,” then it’s not surprising you’re afraid of cargo vehicles having pilots. Acknowledging risk is not the same as hiding in the closet.
> Focus on crew safety / survival. Otherwise, why even have a human spaceflight
> program if the goal is not to keep the human alive. To strive for less means
> to robotize more.
Are you deliberately misquoting me? You’re the one who’s argued that cargo vehicles need to be robotized, not I.
If your only goal is to keep humans alive at all costs, then humans can never go anywhere, whether it’s Hubble, Mars, or the corner market.
> Mr. (W)right is Wrong
Interesting that the people who resort to namecalling are usually the same people who hide behind pseudonyms.
Toro means “bull,” doesn’t it?
A so-called mining engineer who dismisses geologists is neither an engineer nor a scientist;
A “so-called” mining engineer? Do you have a different name for mining engineers?
If you want to play dueling geologists, Jack Schmitt seems to think it’s a reasonable idea, and unlike your hero Bruce Murray, he’s actually been there.
And I’m not moving any bars. Unlike you, I’m claiming that it could be in the foreseeable future. You continue to claim with faux authority that it won’t, though you have no real arguments to back up your claim.
Oh, Greg, and if you insist on names of “so-called” mining engineers, go argue with Brad Blair.
My distinction between a so-called mining engineer and a real one is that a real mining engineer respects the judgment of geologists. I would hope that Brad Blair wouldn’t dismiss Bruce Murray &mdash or any other geologist &mbdash because he’s merely a scientist and not an engineer. Although since you are arguing by authority, I note that Brad Blair’s credentials consist of a recent master’s degree in engineering (from the Colorado School of Mines). As engineering credentials go, this is hardly equivalent to Bruce Murray’s 30-year career in spaceflight engineering and planetary geology. If Jack Schmitt flew on Apollo 17, that also doesn’t trump engineering experience. I’ve been to the Gulf of Mexico, but that doesn’t make me an oil rig engineer.
But I personally don’t like to argue by authority; I prefer to see what people actually have to say. I find this sentence in the abstract of a paper by Duke, Blair, and Diaz:
That about sums it up. Blair has devoted his early career to making lunar ISRU look useful, but in the case of lunar propellant, it’s a tall order. They say that it depends on the available technology &mdash which is exactly my distinction between the forseeable and the unforseeable future. They say that it also depends on the quality of lunar ice &mdash which, according to Arecibo results, is as crappy as any ISRU researcher could imagine. That is the point that Bruce Murray and a lot of other people are reiterating.
So there you have it. The research literature yields no particular evidence that lunar propellant production is realistic. Nonetheless Bush is confident that NASA will pull it off. Faith-based government.
The analysis shows that, with current understanding of the available technology for propellant production, transportation systems, and the market for launch of vehicles between LEO-GEO, it is difficult to demonstrate that a viable commercial opportunity exists to serve that market with lunar propellant.
Which is a statement I’d agree with,and has zero to do with using it to go to Mars. Perhaps you don’t understand orbital mechanics?
Just keep digging, Greg.
Reminds me of when he said something like “I am confident Iraq will be quickly over with.”
Noting that you’re dragging this way off topic now, how can it remind you of something he never said?
Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2005 02:20 PM
—
His administration stated something to that effect many times, and continues to do so.
I see no remotely complete argument from Brad Blair that lunar propellant production is realistic. All of it is in the category of “if you really, really wanted lunar propellant production to be useful, here is how you could try.” All of it depends on blithe assumptions about the quality of lunar ice and what tools there will be on the moon. The tools that will be available is anybody’s guess. The tangible bad news from Aricebo is that lunar ice sucks, where it exists at all. But there is an attitude in some VSE circles that only good news about lunar ice is worth discussing.
For that matter, Blair has staked his career on yes answers to the question of lunar ISRU. If people believe that lunar ISRU looks good, whether or not it actually does, that helps his career. So his position on this is not neutral. I am not saying that he is dishonest; he seems honest enough. The point is that his interest is in discussing how lunar ISRU could be useful, not whether it is useful.
His administration stated something to that effect many times, and continues to do so.
Funny, I’ve heard him say that this war will last for decades. Continue on in your (off-topic) delusions, though.
“Funny, I’ve heard him say that this war will last for decades. Continue on in your (off-topic) delusions, though.”
The “global war on terror”, yes, he said would last for a long time. That has been clear from early on. The Iraqi situation (especially the Iraqi insurgency) is a different matter that the administration has repeated many times would not last long or would end soon. Surely you remember the symbolism from Bush’s Aircraft Carrier speech with the sign “Mission Accomplished”. I also remember Cheney commenting a few months ago that the Iraqi insurgency is in its last breath. Continue in your (off-topic) rewriting of the Bush Administration’s stance, though.
Bob, ALL aircraft carriers display the Mission Accomplished banner at the end of their missions.