Bush Space Policy Responses

NASA Watch

Comments on President Bush's new space policy? Send them to nasawatch@reston.com

"As a NASA/KSC person, all I can say about this is "Woo-freaking-hoo!" Now we have to hope it doesn't tank like SEI (under Pres. Bush (41)) did.

You ought to get peoples' takes on this one with a comments page!"

Your comments thus far:

With all due respect to space advocates who view the new space policy as a positive thing, I am a space advocate who sees it in an entirely different light.ÊI look at the same policy and see a shutdown of U.S. human spaceflight in 2010.ÊBeyond that, there is an incredibly unchallenging timeline for retuning to the Moon.ÊThis Òbold visionÓ is no more than political double speak.

Manned missions to space are financially irresponsible and totally unrequired at the present time. We can gain all the same benefits and more with robotic missions at one tenth of the price. The benefits from the robotic technology development to humans are much greater and immediate than technology advancements due to manned missions. Additionally, the cost savings from these robotic missions can be applied to improve life for earthbound humans. For 40 years, NASA has been sending humans to space claiming we are benefiting from what experiments they perform, when they have been performing the same damn experiments over and over. We are gaining nothing from the ISS and will not gain anything immediate from manned missions either. Let us go to space to build outposts and such but do it all with robots. Only then we should consider sending humans into space. Imagine the technology gained by such ambitions and how that technology is directly applicable to improving life, right here on earth. For a tenth of the cost we get one hundred fold or more in return. Don't be fooled by the politics and the romance of seeing a person prancing around on the Moon or Mars. Be practical in your space ambitions. Our planet can not afford to sustain manned space missions for little or no return in the investment. Thank you for your attention.

I applaud Pres. Bush's attempt to provide NASA some direction. However, after observing NASA's attempt to respond in the last few weeks, I am not encouraged by what I see. Sean O'Keefe seems to be good for NASA from a political viewpoint but his background is military and his Godfather Dick Cheney is also defense oriented. In turn Generals and Admirals have been brought in to run NASA and the Exploration Initiative. While these people have leadership experience, they are severely lacking in space program background. Going to the Moon and Mars is not the same as building or flying airplanes. Should I conclude that the real objective of going back to the moon is military related. If not, I wish for the best but worry about the ability of these people to get us there.

It is amazing that NASA was set up as a "civilian" agency in 1958, under the rubric of Ike's admonition about the "military/industrial" complex. The Space Science Board and those involved, such as John Foster Dulles, called for a civilian agency to assure a focus on space as a place for scientific, peaceable exploration. Post 9/11 and in the thros of the paradigm shift initiating war, NASA and its contractors are being taken over by retired military. Military Shuttle pilots are ok, it is in the bowls of the Program that I am concerned.

The espirit d'corps of ring knockers with their readiness reviews defies the culture NASA blossomed from. NASA was a place to dream not scheme. Swagger stick prodding does not bring focus and just does not work in an R&D world. As this course has been laid and reinforced with more military retiring into NASA's coffers, there appears to be a future where the avaracious little beasts will consume themselves, and nothing will get done.

NASA will never change, because the military mindset cannot change. We are in need of a revolution not evolution, and our tedious marching in cadance is stiffling what we all do best in this space buisness, think outside the box, or in quantum think, see no box at all. Somehow this Administration must stand tall, and get the message. NASA is a civilian agency involved in great risky business. Congress passed Public Law 85-804, Indemnification for Ultrahazardous Activity, relating to the nuclear industry and the Space Shuttle. Our melt down is not in flight assets, nor in infrastructure, it is in a rusting workforce. It is better to wear out than rust out, and the stagnant inertia housed in military leadership seems to portend a fate where we are so safe and so perfect in quality that we will never launch. We will always be ready, but we will never launch.

If we have the guts to be proactive in war, we should be equally resolved to take on this ultrahazardous activity, and go up hill. If it takes bringing the bold, the brave, and even the brash to push the button, so be it. I am not advocating recklessness, but relentless pursuit of our dream, where the risks we perceive define our duty, a duty which must include going back to doing what we do so well. Those of us in this business know what that is, Let's Roll!

Editor, NASA Watch:

As a long time space enthusiast and amateur astronomer, I welcome any new initiative that pushes mankind further into space. However, as a non-American (a Canadian) I would like to offer a different point of view. The exploration and exploitation of space cannot and should not be the work of one country, but rather the work of all countries that can and wish to contribute. Rather than having the US run a program and inviting a few tag-along countries, I suggest an international consortium modelled on INTELSAT (see http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/intelsat.html for a brief description of how INTELSAT operates). Governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations, and private businesses could contribute funds and expertise to long-term space exploration and exploitation of space resources, and expect financial returns in proportion to their investment. In this scheme, the US could keep those space programs that it considers to be in its own vital militiary, security or economic interests (and pay for them itself) and work through the consortium to accomplish the longer term more expensive manned and unmanned exploration programs. I know that Americans don't like to be involved in any international program that it doesn't completely control and bend to its own benefit, but perhaps now you have a chance to change that.

Comments on President Bush's new Moon-Mars Initiative:

As a member of the science community, science-driven programs such as Discovery and Explorer are especially important to me. However, I feel that some missions can be equally justified on the merits of pure Exploration. Therefore, I applaud NASA's new focus on Exploration as a major theme in its planning for the next few decades. I think the upcoming manned missions to the Moon and Mars will generate a groundswell of public excitement. However, the manned program needs an engaging spokesman such as Steve Squyres of the Mars Rovers team to communicate effectively. Most of NASA's spokesmen for their manned program are boring or worse, and that sadly includes Administrator O'Keefe who is addicted to talking like an insurance actuarial statistician.

There are some interesting aspects of the upcoming missions to the Moon that the media have overlooked so far. First, somewhere in America today there lives the First Woman on the Moon. Her first footsteps will capture immense headlines.

Second, there has been no word from NASA as to HOW they will again land a crew on the Moon. Will they use the tried-and-true method of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, with a separate Lunar Lander? Or will they utilize a Direct Approach, landing the entire CEV on the Moon? I would appreciate a public debate on the merits of each approach.

Third, where on the Moon will these landings occur? It appears that the polar areas have gotten a lot of media attention because of the possibilty of water ice in those locations. However, there are other sites on the Moon that are just as important to science and exploration as the polar zones. It would be instructive to dig out the old list of landing sites, from the Apollo program, that were considered for the cancelled Apollo 18, 19 and 20 missions. In addition, there was extensive planning for extensive field trips on the Moon as part of the cancelled Apollo Applications Program. It would be fun to dust those off and re-examine those plans as we prepare for our return to the Moon.

Concering a manned voyage to Mars, can a fly-by of Venus be utilized to open up an early-return window after the crew departs from Mars? Throwing in a Venus fly-by would also generate great PR since we would be visiting 2 planets with one mission, even though no landing on Venus would be recommended.

Also, will the CEV capsule utilize the splashdown mode or will it be designed for touchdown on dry land?

Lastly, I hope that the name "Constellation" doesn't apply directly to the new Crew Exploration Vehicle. It won't be so bad as the overall name of the entire program of manned deep space endeavors. However, I strongly urge NASA to pick a snappy, inspirational name such as APOLLO for the CEV itself. Perhaps it is now politically incorrrect to pick such pagan names as Gemini and Apollo, but I hope that O'Keefe, et al, can be brave enough to pick such a name. Nothing longer than 3 syllables, please. Also, no more PC names such as "Spirit" and "Opportunity." If NASA is to be bold and inspirational, then lets choose a name that reflects those qualities.

The sooner we get President Bush's Exploration Initiative going, the sooner we will get humans to Mars and learn what the planet is all about! I look at the 3+ weeks that it has taken the rovers to drill a little dust off a rock and proclaim it as volcanic. Then I imagine Harrison Schmidt landing, taking his hammer to the rock, and proclaiming the same thing...in about 5 minutes!

The Rovers are a prime example of why robots are NOT the way to explore space.

A member of NASA's Gen X: joined after Apollo and will leave before Mars.

Keith,

With Carleton S. Fiorina as a member of the Presidents Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond I can only say... Good Luck.

In my opinion what she did to Hewlett Packard, was and still is extremely negligent. Lets hope she does better in space.

A still mad HP Stock Holder

As a student who has dreamed of spaceflight for years, I'm in tears over the decision to abandon the Hubble to a slow death before its time. Astronauts and manned missions are flashy and exciting, but it's the beauty of the images that Hubble returns that ignites a true and long-lasting love affair with the stars.

Without the Hubble images of M16 and M27 to remind me why I'm putting myself through the difficulty of studying astrophysics, I would not have made it to graduation.

- A heartbroken dreamer

Several people have said, God bless President Bush, this makes no sense to me, from my observations, Bush is God! As far a money to pay to pay for the space missions, the President has a blank check! Now really! Space. Any business man worth his or her salt knows, to take are business to lower income countries like India and China (Heck China is going that way anyways). As far as the ISS, the Russians are handleing things just fine ( Why fix something that's not broke). I'm all for this space stuff, always have been! This thing with President Bush, moon, mars, is nothing but politics. The only reason this space stuff came up again is because of the Chinese. Going to space is a real good idea, but it always seems to be for all the wrong reasons. I find it funny when presidents throw something out there past their term, I mean it's every new presidents job to undue eveything the former president has done. I've enjoyed reading other peoples opinions here, and I agree with about 90% of them! Everyone, have a nice day!

Keith,

Here's something to probe into... Why is it that seemingly ALL those writing on the Bush space policy act like there's this huge gap in space station access? As I recall, the plan is to test the Constellation s/c unmanned NLT FY08. Shuttle scuttle scheduled for circa FY10. Constellation ready to support beyond-LEO flights circa FY14. Is EVERYONE believing that it's going to take six years (about the duration of Mercury PLUS Gemini!) before a crew rides a Constellation?? I think you should dig into what the real deal is about this supposed gap.

After nearly three weeks, it is time for this commentator to pronounce judgment on Bush's space plan. After careful consideration, I would give Bush an A for convergence, a C - for financing, and a B+ for consideration.

At the same time, the space community and the larger non space community have also chimed in, with varying degrees of success with regards to destinations, critique, real space awareness, costs, benefits, and whether or not their favorite candidate for high political office favors or opposes the Bush plan for NASA, and how. Mostly they hate space because Bush proposed it, not because they inherently have any cogent, informed thought about space development and policy, the idea of a Spacefaring Civilization away from Earth. They don't, and never have. Some Presidential material, that!

Democrats as a whole apart from Presidential candidates largely decry NASA and Bush's plan, arguing the usual stale arguments about more social welfare spending being needed by their constituents, when the many trillions of dollars spent on social welfare spending could be in ending poverty, drug abuse, hopelessness, could be a bigger failure if we hadn't spend much less on space since the mid 1960's shall we say? Give you more billions for failed social welfare and educational systems that don't teach the most basic real fact about space development and settlement? Give more money for a failed system that does not emphasize individual property rights here on earth or out in space in any significant, effective way, promised much and delivered little? No more I say. I choose to invest in the future of man, in the future of freedom, and progress, for choice and rights, for space for everyone, here and now, and for generations yet to come, for the ages no less.

Waiting in space for everyone alike, rich and poor, is the future of the human race in generic as well as individual terms, because if the common man or woman is locked out of property rights in space, it should not be for lack of trying to get a grubstake on the High Frontier. Via any means necessary, and preferably by networked means if available, and cheap too.

With regards to space policy and programs, as well as an overarching goal via Presidential Mandate, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report Volume I and parts of II, The Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry, the World Space Congress, and the Columbia accident itself, and the struggle to build to completion the International Space Station Alpha, then use it to the fullest with some focus and real purpose, all still await address, and we will account for our actions or lack thereof in the next few years if we do not get involved now. Each of these incidents or reports indicate the need for consensus, convergence, goals, and sustained effort for years to accomplish anything substantive and frontier enabling in space, which is sorely overdue. Columbia's destruction and the deaths of its crew are confirmation of the failed policies of cutting NASA's budget to meet overtly political needs to use space for purely political ends, a practice which has proven not only bankrupt, but also harmful to true progress in astronautics and space development/settlement as well. No more using space for purely p0litical reasons; space is important in and of itself, and should be recognized as such by all informed, aware people in the spacefaring nations.

It is time to not only reevaluate what we have been doing, how we have been doing it, but also create new demand for space that is individual driven, by networked means, for as many personal ends as is possible to conceive, and we should start now. This would give hope, a reason for discipline, study, learning and scholarship, teamwork and cooperation, to the youth of the US and the spacefaring nations as a whole. People who create their own futures via networked means, and build a future in space a piece, a spacecraft, a market and an industrial process or two all at the same time, are the real future of man, not further wars for poorly defined reasons, liberal social welfare programs that accomplish nothing over decades of time, and corporate greed as witnessed in the last few years that are obviously bankrupt policies, and should be abolished.

In their place, space development and settlement can provide all the adventure, excitement, commercial activity, and room for expansion for thousands of year, once we are truly anchored in space and making goods for use in space, tapping energy, and getting the common man and woman involved in a fundamental way. This is a better use of money from public and private sources than the rat holes we have been pouring money down in the last one to three decades, with nothing to show for it but more of the same, a decrease in personal freedoms, economic sluggishness, and the ongoing frauds of liberal and conservative politics as we have known them, corporate American malfeasance and corruption, and lying manipulative politicians who cut NASA's budget to make themselves and their policies look good, at NASA's expense.

A state, or city or group of cities and municipalities, counties, or other cooperative economic investment association can raise sufficient capital to build, test, fly, and operate space craft to process raw materials and energy into marketable quantities of fuel, oxygen, water, metals, glasses, ceramics, radiation shielding, electrical power, and other commodities needed by orbital civilization. All of this and more lies waiting for us in space, if we will but seize the high ground and do what needs to be done to gain and empire in the Inner Solar System. Anything else is unnecessary intrigue, and a waste of time, money, and effort. Onto our destiny in Space.

I think unmanned space exploration makes much more sense than manned exploration.

First of all, it is of course very much cheaper (or less expensive). Further, it would stimulate development of robot technology which is likely to have many earth-bound applications.

The argument that we need humans on-site to really understand the remote environment doesn't make any sense to me at all. Humans would need instruments to assess what they are seeing. Being there would allow them to react more quickly, but so what? Let it take a few minutes or days before we react to something that we find. It would probably take a group of experts to decide on the best course of action anyway, and they would be here on earth, not up there on Mars.

Finally, the idea that the pride of the nation requires that we send Americans to other planets doesn't do it for me either. When we were competing with the Soviets this may have made sense, but today it is anachronistic (or simply silly).

NASA has issued a contract stop work order for at least 2 months on All NGLT contracts (including RS-84 kerosene engine) while the new Code T figures out how to implement Bush's CY 2004 Space Exploration Directive.

Hi Keith,

Thank you for posting committee hearing schedules and thereby helping us average citizens participate in the process. Today, my 10 year-old, home-schooled daughter & I attended in person (our first) NASA's hearing before the full Senate Commerce Committee (I'm military stationed in DC). Here are a few, short observations if I may:

1. While Administrator O'Keefe may not be the "Mark Anthony" type motivational speaker, he's strength is legislative affairs. His reputation of fiscal responsibility & demonstrated success the last 2 years in getting ISS under budgetary control plays well to both sides of the aisle.

2. With the exception of Senator Brownback, all other senator's statement & questions centered on either (1) saving indefinitely existing jobs tied to the Space Shuttle (2) money should be better spent on social programs (Senator Lautenberg particularly) or (3) poor-mouthing America's ability to finance such an endeavor (how long ago did they all approve a $800 billion drug plan for seniors?)

3. Senator Brownback was especially note-worthy (no, I'm a resident of TX and didn't think Senator Hutchinson had a particularly strong performance). Senator Brownback was the only one that spoke of the tremendous need to inspire the next generation. My 10 year-old may not have paid attention to everything said in the hearing, but she remembered his comments and restated them to her grandparents tonight on the phone.

4. 1 particularly terrible performance was Senator Wyden. He tried twice to steer the meeting away from NASA's future to the handling of passenger data from Northwest Airlines. For the record, the 15 disks received were of such a proprietary format that NASA could do nothing with it, and returned all disks. All disks were secured & handled as classified material.

In summary, the President's mandate is particularly brilliant. You sense committee democrats want to kill it before it gets off the ground (especially in this election year), but the budget increase request is so small that they can't. NASA will have to spirally develop, and future budget decisions will be based upon previously demonstrated success (the DoD model). Remember, no bucks....no Buck Rogers.

To nasawatch :

The only reason Bush suggestet a return to the moon and beyond to mars is because the Japanese and the Chinese anounced the would go to the moon and establish a base there.

It means nothing since we are broke anyway.

Hello Keith, I have been reading the responses that people have been posting up at your site. And I have been keeping with the discussion of Pres. Bush's space plans. I would like to propose a solution to the conundrum facing space development for the masses. I recommend that we make space exploration open source. By this I mean that we put together all the knowledge and let people pull together to make their own space program and run it. I came up with this idea after seeing the success of the Linux operating system in the market and how many people can work on a common goal.

My idea would be based on acquiring the knowledge that has been acquired by NASA and other agencies in working on space exploration. At the present we have more knowledge and technology than the early pioneers had at their disposal. They needed a lot of money to develop and build the vehicles to get into space and work there. I think it could be done with the resources that we have now. What do you think?

Dear Keith,

Bush's policy focuses on the moon and Mars. But there is a Third Way: near Earth asteroids.

According to the following on-line article, there are three good reasons to go to asteroids:

* Fear: an asteroid will collide with Earth someday (planetary protection)

* Greed: asteroids are resource-rich (in situ resource utilization, space commercialization)

* Curiosity: scientific study (curiosity-based research)

Like the moon and Mars, a combination of robotic and human explorers is suitable.

"Near Earth asteroids: the third option" by Jeff Foust http://www.thespacereview.com/article/90/1

Hi Keith,

The President's mandate is the right course of action for the following reasons:

1. Robotic exploration compliments human exploration; it doesn't replace it. There are missions best suited for robots, and then there's the point where only humans can geometrically expand the knowledge base. While the country is intrigued with Spirit & Opportunity (as they should be), it can't compare with putting a fellow American on another world and associated nation-wide inspiration it will bring.

2. There are just too many physiological challenges in going to Mars. Both Mir & ISS have taught us that the human body is THE weak link in such a trip. Evolutionary break-throughs in bio-technology are necessary, and they will happen. Realistically however, they won't be in the coming decade or next. I say "no" to spinning mankind around in low Earth orbit until such break-throughs materialize.

3. The moon is a near-by, technological proving-ground for vehicles (both space & ground), basing (at L1 and both on & below the lunar surface) & harvesting equipment. The lessons learned from a near-by proving ground will increase technology advancement. Our space industry (and associated secondary industries) will benefit tremendously, and help reinforce good 'ole American ingenuity.

4. The moon as a resource should be explored & cultivated. This means pursuing the energy potential of Helium-3 as well as investigating other resources you & I can only dream of today.

Yes, the shuttle should retire by 2010, and resources directed at getting mankind beyond low Earth orbit. People smarter than me should determine whether future vehicles are re-usable/expendable by optimizing performance & cost, not by what is sexy.

Where mutual benefit exists, other countries are welcome to join America in executing this nation's mandate. However, it is up to this country to lead, and the spirit of internationalism must not weaken our nation's vision or resolve.

A simple tax-payer

Neither Marshall or JSC have earned the right to take responsibility for the CEV. The major programs they've managed over the past 25 years have been massively over budget, not to mention grossly lacking in results. Their major accomplishment has been to create lots of jobs for locals and get a bunch of politicians re-elected. They'll win the CEV because of their political power, sucking most of the remaining money out of the other Centers, but they should, for a change, be held accountable for their past performance. Someone should demand accountability, otherwise we'll become a 3rd-rate space power.

Regarding Boeing's conceptual vehicle graphics: the company's artwork is probably better than their true engineering expertise these days. I did some consulting for NASA on the X-37 orbital vehicle and air launched test vehicle projects and it was disconcerting to see how much blatantly incompetent "view graph engineering" was coming from the contractor. I hope to be pleasantly surprised that the vehicles actually work and make it to a runway landing (if the program isn't totally canceled) but I have serious doubts. After all, this is the same company that played a significant role in Columbia's loss with misapplication of the "Crater" program for debris damage assessment. Will NASA keep blundering along and trust the taxpayer dollars and astronauts' lives to today's Boeing? Big mistake if they do.

Hi Keith,

I would just like to say, and from what I've read from your editorials, I agree with the new space policy being put forward by the US administration. As a space enthusiast, I would love to see this project finished. Most people are quick to say this is nothing more than an election process, however I believe it is more the work of Sean O'Keefe, and as such it will really depend on him whether or not this project is successful.

As for those who lament the cancellation of the Hubble Servicing Mission, saying it was the most successful science mission NASA has ever done. I think everyone will agree that the most sucessful mission, period, was the Apollo Moon Landings, which slightly eclipse the great pictures of distant galaxies. I will say that I would like to see Hubble continue to operate, however from an engineering standpoint, it is much more cost effective let it deorbit and replace it later. If this plan works like it should, I could almost see satelites being launched from the moon using lunar resources to build. I'd assume that would bring the cost down much farther than any new carbon composite miracle material could from earth. Instead of a multi billion dollar Hubble, we could have a couple thousand dollar hubble, not to mention just building one on the surface of the moon. Even if you use an exorbitant price to process the materials on the moon, none of the resources are owned by a nation or a company and would thus be very cheap to use, plus no property taxes.

Take a good look at what this plan is proposing and not just what it is cutting back and you'll see that this is the best technical option we have, which also currently has the backing of the White House and many congressmen (Rep and Dem) who are personally concerned with space.

We learn that being good leaders means knowing how to follow. Space Enthusiasts and scientific professionals might do more good by saying yes, we will follow this plan to the fullest.

I'm really disappointed; in so many ways. I've spent most of my space career waiting for an announcement like Mr. Bush Mentions Mars Part 2. But it's come from one of the worst presidents in history; a man who never visited JSC (even as governor of TX) until a national tragedy. A man with a track record of unfunded mandates, false statements, and false promises; but with a political machine that is finely tuned to use the mindless, lazy lemmings that form the media.

I'm even more disappointed in NASAwatch for being one of those lemmings. You seem to have become a mouthpiece for the administration. Once Goldin was gone, you seem to have become partly blind; and your affinity for Bush and the Republicans is so obvious, you really ought to be included in the soft money pot for the Republican party.

Boeing's new spacecraft concepts look like a giant leap backwards for mankind. I can't believe we'll be abandoning reusable space plane concepts to go back to capsules and throw-away rockets!

Hi Keith,

We learn that being good leaders means knowing how to follow. Space Enthusiasts and scientific professionals might do more good by saying yes, we will follow this plan to the fullest.

Boeing's new spacecraft concepts look like a giant leap backwards for mankind. I can't believe we'll be abandoning reusable space plane concepts to go back to capsules and throw-away rockets!

Keith,

Thanks for providing a forum for everyone. I would like to see you require that people sign their names, though. It's very very easy to snipe from under cover of anonymity, and it does a lot of harm.

I think we have Vice President Cheney to thank for the new NASA policy; I know from inside sources that, as his "homework" over the August 2001 recess, he took away a small reference library worth of reading on the topic of space. That was immediately followed by the events of 9/11 which put everything else on hold for quite some time. Columbia reminded us that we shouldn't have dropped the ball on developing a new vision for NASA.

If I were a member of this administration, reading the NASA Watch feedback column to see how our new proposal for NASA is being received by the community most likely to benefit from it, I would be very discouraged.

Instead of pointing to the administration and blaming them for uncompleted programs and eternally changing directives, try thinking of them as issuing policy in response to public interests and demands. One read-through of the postings below makes it clear that pro-space fans and professionals--the core constituency that they should be able to count on--is wildly divided in what it sees as the right path to take. As different factions take the lead, the administration policy veers to follow what seems to be the current "majority" opinion. If WE don't know what we want then how will they get it right?

I was recently reminded of Arthur Clarke's wonderful quote: "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible."

For those of you who don't even want to try, could you please stop acting like hold-down bolts and unhitch yourselves from the pro-space bandwagon? Some of us have places we want to go--soon!

Keith,

If NASA has any chance for success in carrying out President Bush's space plan, they must start to recognize that human space exploration beyond the confines of low earth will require a progressive culture of integrated perspectives, synergistic connections, and viewpoints not normally considered in conventional thinking. In other words, shifting their paradigm is a must.

Pres. Bush says he wants to involve other countries in this venture. I have some personal knowledge of the U.S.'s and particularly NASA's reaction to international involvement. I doubt that there is much sincerity behind this, except a hope for someone else to pay the bills. Any real commitment will involve really sharing decision-making, technology, opportunities for leadership, glory, flag-waving, chest-thumping claims of natural superiority - I really cannot imagine this happening.

However, if there is any reality to this, allow me to suggest some areas where other countries could get involved:

1. Share system design with China. As the country most actively pursuing related goals, a lot of benefit could be gained by sharing technology - for example, docking port design and systems (and CO2 scrubbers?). (Note that "sharing" is not the same as "dictating.") This could lead to more lifting power and delivery opportunities - perhaps even rescue mission possibilities, when they become necessary.

2. The ESA is already developing a new GPS system, based on current technology. It would probably be faster and cheaper to develop a fleet of lunar satellites for GPS and comms relays based on this technology than starting over.

3. Japan and Germany particularly have developed advanced maglev technology. This could well be the best technology for a lunar launch system. A track of relatively light rails, a sun shield to keep them cold, a sled to serve as a reusable launch platform, and solar cells and batteries for power. Electricity is a lot more readily available than rocket fuel on the moon. (It seems to me that this could also play a major role in a creating single (chemical) stage to orbit vehicle on Earth - and could be very economical if the technology was also used for commercial applications, such as launching earth-bound aircraft without using fossil fuels.)

4. Canada has lot of experience with robotic mining equipment. This would likely be very useful in establishing any permanent bases, and in exploiting extra-terrestrial resources anywhere to make missions feasible.

If the U.S. is serious about international involvement, they have to make significant opportunities and incentives available for participation. We'll see if it happens.

It is sad to see so many negative comments about president Bush's vision on space exploration.

Keep up the good work, don't give up telling these people to use real facts, not fictions (i.e. one trillion dollars for Mars trip, as used by senator Lieberman).

Dear Keith,

It's good to see that Bush's space policy aims to use lunar resources:

"Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air." Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html

It's similar to what the late Gerard K. O'Neill said about the space program:

"a great deal of cost can be saved, and the time scales for all space activities drastically shortened, by making the maximum use of resources which are already located at the top of Earth's gravity well" Alternative Plan for U.S. National Space Program http://www.ssi.org/alt-plan.html

There seems to be a steady shift towards in situ resource utilization using robotics: Zubrin's Mars Direct, Mars Reference Mission, etc.

Keith, et. al.:

I commented briefly earlier about Bush's new "plan", but the recent cancellation of the Hubble servicing mission, and your recent postings make me feel that I must follow up:

While I applaud any new attention and focus in the cause of space exploration, I have to question your seemingly uncritical eye for this proposal, and your constant heaping of scorn against all who would point out its flaws.

Yes, the new "plan" is better than the directionless morass we have been in for the past several years, but any truly critical eye would note that this is yet one more example of sweeping half-done projects into the garbage bin. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the X-projects, launcher plans and exploration initiatives left on the table. Now in addition to all of the ones from the past we add OSP, ISS (now a dead end) and the Hubble space telescope (to be abandoned in its prime). Further, this is yet another course change for an obviously rudderless agency. Constantly changing course and starting over from scratch wastes billions of dollars, and squanders positive public opinion.

Keith, we look to you for the critical eye. We trust you to point out when the emperor is wearing no clothes. I can't believe that you feel that this plan is perfect. I would appreciate greatly an editorial, critical review of the president's "plan". Please tell us what you really think about the specifics.

Some thoughts from a space enthusiast in the UK.

Before judging the Presidents proposals, some the commentators in this discussion would do well to do some basic research on what lays behind the plans. The policy was not conjured out of thin air but appears to be based on the LUNOX plan put forward by NASA in 1993. Basically automated construction of a lunar base and robotic mining of the lunar surface to produce oxygen for the return flight. Go look it up! - http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld051p.htm

As for the common criticism, that with the demise of the Shuttle, NASA would also loose its heavy lift capacity, NASA has studied a cargo only version of the Shuttle - 'Shuttle - C' going back to the 1980's. This system would be more than capable of launching a booster and command module complex to lunar orbit. Atlas or Delta launchers could launch astronauts to rendezvous with this ship in LEO if the Shuttle Launch system was still considered too risky.

Studies into Gemini and Apollo systems carried out by the USAF (MOL) and NASA (Apollo X) in the 1960/70s may also give some ideas as to the direction that the US space program is going.

FInal thoughts: Using a modular system gives much greater mission flexibility, with the possibility of a longer period of development by building on already flight tested hardware. Such a system could even be developed together with Russia and the ESA not only to save costs but also to benefit from their experience.

Surely Former astronaut trainee will head Bush-proposed moon-Mars commission should read Former trainee astronaut trainee will head Bush-proposed moon-Mars commission

The closest Pete got to space was the crew photo shot for STS-62A.

When will NASA's human space program finally get to finish a program before it gets scrapped for political reasons? The U.S. will complete the ISS in 2010, and then immediately abandon ship. (...major bummer!) The ISS could/should have been built years ago except for budgetary and political squabbling.

I worked at NASA JSC from 1994 until 2002. I arrived at the center starry eyed and looking forward to a career of supporting the space program. I left NASA in 2002 with a heart full of frustration after seeing one program after another get cancelled for political and budget reasons. I provided support for the X-38, and saw that program cancelled because the X-38 could not ferry crews to the ISS. In reality, there was onging work for making the X-38 a launch capable vehicle. Now some of the OSP/CEV designs closely resemble the X-38 lifting body. (....hmmm...) I was additionally frustrated by the decision to build ISS to "core complete" where it would offer little improvement over the Russian Mir space station. The ISS has been more newsworthy in it's role as a hotel for the rich and famous than it ever has been as a laboratory. The U.S. has vowed to complete the ISS, but our time to perform serious laboratory work will be extremely limited. Why did the U.S. government bother to spend billions of dollars on a space platform that will be abandoned no sooner than it is finished.

I have little confidence in the Bush administration's cost estimates for the return to the moon. The STS, Hubble, and ISS all cost substantially more to build than their original cost estimates. Inm addition, with the exception of the soon to be defunct Hubble, neither the STS or ISS have ever achieved their original design plan. Why can't the ISS be used as platform to assemble the space ship that would travel to the moon or Mars? Wouldn't that be a much more cost effective solution than building a permanent base on the serface of the moon? I would like to see NASA use the existing infrastructure to expand our horizons. Bush's space vision abandons everything that "works" today in favor of launching the Lunar/Mars program from thin air. My biggest fear is the day that the shuttle stops flying and the U.S. must stand down while finishing the CEV. (If the CEV is finished and launches astronauts on budget and on schedule, I'll buy dinner for all Americans at Long John Silvers!) ...just kidding! :>)

I would love to see NASA receive the proper political support and financial capital that it needs to fulfill Presindent Bush's vision. I truely believe that it is in America's best interest that the human and robotic space programs be integrated into complimentary roles. The astronauts on Mars should be able to use a 2020 version of todays crawler to explore the surface of the planet. There would be no lag time in communications, and the astronaut could simultaneously control more than one crawler to be able to cover much more territory in a short period of time. Once the robotic crawler has identified a target worthy of further investigation, the astronauts depart base camp on a Mars rover to take a closer look.. Thank you for letting me clear my head,

Dear Mr. Cowing,

I started on Shuttle as a co-op in 1980, before Columbia's first flight, and worked my way up to Flight Controller (Deorbit phase) before I left the program in 1998. I'm really sad to see the Shuttle go, but all things must have an end, and it's her time.

The Shuttle was a fine idea when expendable rockets were hideously expensive, but the cost of unmanned expendables long ago dropped to the point where they were cheaper than a Shuttle flight. It seems reasonable to assume that we can get the cost of man-rated vehicles down as well. Plus Shuttle's operational costs have never gotten down to where they should be.

Shuttle is and remains an ideal vehicle for constructing or servicing large satellites in low earth orbit. But satellites in general are getting smaller and cheaper, and they're lasting longer. Plus, with the end of the Cold War (and improved optics) there are fewer military satellites in low-earth orbit, and these were to have been a significant portion of Shuttle's customer base. All that leaves for Shuttle to service are Hubble and Space Station. The former is due to be replaced, and the latter will soon be finished. There's no need to keep Shuttle around much longer, I'm afraid.

For a long time NASA has languished waiting on its next major mission. But with Shuttle and Station to maintain, it could never get the budget authority to embark on such a mission without a major increase in funding. This it has not gotten under either Democratic or Republican administrations, and the American public seems unlikely to demand it. Retiring Shuttle now that it's no longer needed will give NASA the budget authority to pursue a major new project without much increase in budget.

The new manned vehicle seems a good choice for such a program: it can be developed in increments, first as a crew-escape vehicle for station, then as a round-trip vehicle on a man-rated version of an already-developed booster, and finally as the command module of a lunar flight. Since it won't have all the additional capabilities of Shuttle, it should be cheaper to operate. Once the development phase is through, that will, hopefully, free up revenue to start development of lunar transfer vehicles and lunar landers.

(I would hope we could stick to at least part of Von Braun's original plan and use Space Station as a waypoint for Lunar vehicles. It'd be awfully convenient to, say, fuel, supply, and do final systems checks on a lunar bus while it's docked to Station. But Station's orbital inclination may prevent that from happening.)

So I think the Bush plan is far from being audacious in a technical or fiscal sense: rather I see it as extremely prudent, conservative and well-thought-out. The audacity lies in actually promoting a new NASA program, which has not been seriously undertaken in about twenty years.

Will Bush's plan actually get us to the Moon, much less Mars? I can't say for certain: the way is long, difficult and dangerous, and besides, who can predict the future? But I think it does give us a better chance of doing so than any other plan that's been proposed since the Kennedy administration.

Good Morning -

After 35 years working for Aerospace Contractors (RCA,GE, CSC) at NOAA, NASA/Goddard, and NASA HQ I can only say; "What else is new?" The typical pennywise and pound foolish fiscal policies of each administration continue to confound me. The pathetic funding committment and outrageous expectations of Congress and NASA Managers still remains the same. Some things will never change.

Fortunate to have met Neil Armstrong after his return from the Apollo-11 mission it always reminds me of nobler and certainly more effective times. The taxpayer got plenty of bang for his buck. Even the stingiest legislator would have to conclude that the value of the Apollo Program went far beyond what was spent for it.

15 years on the various Hubble Programs leaves me truly disgusted that simple small-minded "politics" would propose to discard such a useful, scientific national asset for planning expediency and still allow billions to be wasted on Iraqi Arabs. The on-going international scientific, political and social return from Hubble is every bit as important as Apollo was in its day. To let Hubble waste away and de-orbit is a criminal act; considering the investment of our money, brains and time that made it all happen.

Maybe we should step back and try to get a grip on where we are and where we really want to go - as a Nation and not an empty, election year, gambit.

A flight controller who worked in the MOCR during the Apollo program said, "Countries that stop exploring become third world countries." There was more to this discussion but the quote is a good one.

I also wonder if spacecraft requirements may unintentionally be influenced by the name, i.e. the OSP (orbital spaceplane). They are considering a capsule type design but because of the name chosen, then the shape will have to be "a plane." Even if a blunt body Apollo type vehicle would best meet mission requirements.

Hopefully, the name CEV will not jeopardize a good design. I think names such as Apollo, Jupiter, Viking, (whatever name from ancient explorers, folklore gods, etc.) are great soundbites but yet engineers are not constrained to certain designs based on the name, i.e. OSP.

Some would argue that the money would be better spent on education. That by adding the $11 billion planned for this new initiative to the $600 billion US department of Education budget over the same time would solve all the problems with the educational system.

How about the story of Homer H. Hickam, Jr, a boy growing up in Coalwood West Virginia in the late 1950's. A company town where you joined your father and grandfather in the coal mines when you grew up. In 1957 Homer greeted the news of Spunik with awe and decided to build his own rocket. He spent weekends and evenings learning engineering, math and physics, his friends joined in, and in 1960 they and their rockets came in first place at a national science fair and won full scholarships. As a result of the space program the US gained 4 engineers and 2 bankers rather than six young boys destined to a life in the mines.

This story was repeated thousands of times throughout U.S. in the 1960's. Convincing children to pursue science, technology, and math, and setting the stage for the computer revolution of the 1970's.

The U.S. is dependant on the knowledge based economy and if we are to remain competitive, we need to have more and more students entering the fields of engineering, technology and science. What better way to contribute to the educational excellence of our nation than to support and contribute to a program that will inspire thousands of children to enter the fields that our modern economy requires. After all study after study shows that children learn most effectively when they are genuinely interested in the topic and want to know the subject for its own sake and not because the teacher tells them to.

Shouldn't our emphasis be on Mining minerals and such on the Moon to begin making a PROFIT from our Space program endeavors? Science could ride along as our expertise evolved. Make space a Commerce first and formost.

Let me explain what the administration just did.

They changed the name of the Orbital Space Plane to the Crew Exploration Vehicle. NASA finally admitted (sort of) that the new crew vehicle will cost at least $12B spread over several years. This number has been floating around the OSP program for months but no one wanted to advertise it because all indications were that Congress would refuse to fund something that amounted to another ISS expenditure. The renaming of OSP and stating that it is the start of manned Mars exploration is intended to save OSP.

To save OSP, the administration came up with a plan that did the following.

First, they gave up on the shuttle. Then despite earlier indications to the contrary they gave up the idea of any significant increase in NASA's budget. They essentially gave up on getting anything out of ISS beyond it serving as an astronaut hotel. They admitted that much of the Space Science budget, the Life and Microgravity Science budget, the Second Generation Launch technology budget, the Space Station budget, the Space Shuttle budget, and quite possibly other budgets such as Earth Science will have to be sacrificed to fund the new crew vehicle.

Saving OSP does not look like a good deal for the agency or the taxpayer. OSP, or if you prefer CEV, will be nothing but a can that contains people. It won't go anywhere on it own. Without large increase in the NASA budget, the CEV will never have a mission outside low earth orbit since NASA will not have launch vehicles or unmanned transfer vehicles capable of supporting any manned mission outside low earth orbit. On top of everything else, the cost of CEV will lead to cutbacks in robotic exploration missions.

The only conceivable reason the administration backs this plan is that the Houston crowd is terrified that the shuttle program could not be saved and they wanted a manned space vehicle to take its place. Otherwise, we might not have a reason for the Johnson Space Center - which despite its name change is still the Manned Space Center.

If you assume that shuttle was a lost cause then this plan gives Houston all it could hope for. Manned spaceflight is given priority within NASA. The ISS program will continue without any pressure on its Houston operators to do anything but support additional manned spaceflight which is a great example of circular logic.

Unfortunately, pleasing the Texas crowd will put virtually all other NASA programs in jeopardy. Considering ISS overruns and the fact that manned missions have provided virtually no useful returns in 30 years it is amazing that the administration is giving manned spaceflight priority within NASA - but of course politics always seems to trump accountability.

(I have little ulterior motive for this assessment of the situation. I am a life long Republican and this plan won't put me out of work since I work at one of the NASA centers that support manned spaceflight.)

Northrop Grumman Space Technologies has been posting articles about a new carbon-fiber tank curing system that requires no autoclave. This means that ultra-large tanks like those required for Sea Dragon will now be much cheaper to build and still be very lightweight and efficient. Truax claimed that his old Sea dragon concept would end up with a launch cost around $200 a pound. Maybe the American Sea Dragon will beat the Chinese Dragon back to the moon?

The US has no hope of ever landing another person on the moon, much less Mars. Some obvious reasons are: with their rapidly escalating national debt, they can't afford it; the average American isn't interested in science - more like in American Idol; the american politicians have become very risk adverse in the last twenty years; the technical elite (engineers, scientists) will lot lie idly by while he sacrifices all space science for a theatrical stunt; and (possibly most importantly) robotic capabilities are commencing a meteoric rise and will soon be able to research the moon and Mars far better and cheaper than any human.

Ottawa, Canada

If the expectation is that only those shuttle missions will be allowed that can seek safety of the ISS until a rescue is made, then our entire space program is gutted. The ISS is not forever. It is unreasonable to assume that every mission must have a safe harbor in space. The ISS itself could not have been built under those conditions. This is a good example of bureaucratic CYA extremism.

The CAIB is a board constituted to make "recommendations". It is not the safety czar. It does not authorize or disallow anything. While it would certainly behoove management to closely follow what the board recommends, management must assume the role of leadership not the hindmost. Management must decide the risks. That's why they make the big bucks and stand beside the project Chief Scientist on TV when a successful landing on Mars is accomplished. You want the glory? Then get your butt out front and lead.

Hubble is worth it. Oh, so worth it. I don't think we should force anyone to go that doesn't want to go. Sincerely. No repercussions. Volunteers only. But I think the volunteers will be easily found. To those who think the manned program cannot stand another disaster, I say this: there are no absolutes in flight safety. It cannot be economically feasible to have absolutes. Nothing will be accomplished under such a program.

I agree that the shuttle is fatally flawed in design. But it's too late now. We have to go with we got and a modicum of common sense for such an awe inspiring project as the Hubble. Nobody is asking for repeated missions outside of the board's recommendations. What we are asking for is a little bit of exceptional leadership.

Thank you once again for a forum which allows the ordinary "punter" (or John Doe as you Yanks would say) to voice an opinion.

I am a Brit, I am not a republican. I do not agree with George Bush on many issues, however on this issue I find myself in agreement.

NASA's budget is about 2% of the entire US GDP. The US is the largest economy in the world, it is a world leader in most areas. Its defence, agricultural and welfare budgets, to name but a few, outstrip the entire economies of some small nations.

A Spirit B2 Bomber cost around $2 billion dollars, the US has squadrons of the beasts. The war in Iraq has cost several tens of billions of $ (if not more) so far.

How in Gods name can anyone say that an extra $200 million a year will bankrupt the US, and is "unaffordable"???

The bang for buck from spaceflight is enormous, just look at the recent interest in Spirit (109 million web hits in the first day).

Many criticise the political policies of the US, with some justification. However, if there is one arena in which the US can truly claim the moral and intellectual high ground it is space exploration.

This is a golden opportunity for the US, hard decisions will be made, but the US must and should lead the manned effort in space. To say it cannot afford it is intellectual cowardice of the first order.

To all the Bush Plan cynics with a retirement plan:

How much of your income do you invest in your "high-risk" fund? I'm sure you, like me, take care of your immediate needs first -- house, food, kid's education, etc. But you have to set a little bit aside, or where would you be in 20 years?

The civilian space program is a high-risk investment in America's future, and is funded accordingly. I'd hate to think where we would be in 20 years without it. And now, we have an investment strategy.

Keith,

Great series of articles for UPI; I look forward to the book. I'd like to be optimistic about the new space policy; it seems like exactly the type of focus NASA has needed for decades. I remember the Apollo missions from childhood and would like humankind to return to the moon and venture outwards before I retire! Yet it's difficult to be optimistic given the ignorance and politics that are flying around in the media.

It's distressing to hear callers on C-SPAN saying that we should take the money that the government spends on NASA and do something "here on earth" with it. As if: a) NASA's paltry budget would make any difference elsewhere; or b) the money we spend on space does not provide value for us on earth in many, many ways (no need to elaborate; many have done so).

This is not President Bush-41's Space Exploration Initiative. The 1989 SEI was a request to NASA to go and make plans for Mars. When NASA came back with a $400B shopping list, SEI died and well it should have. The public simply will not stand for spending that kind of money on space. They do support a NASA budget of roughly the current size. Fast-forward 15 years: the new policy was developed with active input from NASA and actually makes tough choices: retire the shuttle to free up funds for the new vehicle. Scrap some planned ISS science, or have the partners take it up.

And, most painful, say good-bye to Hubble. Folks, remember that the CAIB stipulated some very stringent self-inspection and self-repair abilities that *must* be operation on Shuttle in order for the orbiter to operate in any non-ISS orbit. This means Hubble. The technology is proving difficult. SM-4 was the only non-ISS mission in the books. To the person who said, in effect, to just send a shuttle from ISS over to Hubble: Can't do. It's the physics. The difference in orbital inclinations between ISS and Hubble prevents any transfer between the two, without an enormous orbit correction burn.

I want to save Hubble as much as anyone. No single NASA mission of the last two decades has done more for astronomy, outreach and education. I suspect if NASA got a waiver from the CAIB for this mission alone, there would be volunteers lining up to go on it. But we are now a risk-averse society, thanks to 24x7 media coverage. Management would never allow it. At some point there has to be an analysis of ROI done, and Hubble SM-4 did not make the cut. I too will weep when the final gyro fails.

To those whose contributions on this page contain comments like "this is all to make more money for Halliburton" or "Bush just is doing this to finally kill off human spaceflight" or the ever-popular "Bush isn't the president! I hate him and everything he does!".... Well, besides recommending that perhaps you calm down a bit, here's a question for you: If President Clinton had proposed the exact same thing, how would you respond? I'll tell you how I'd react: I'd support him on this, just as I support President Bush now. If your position is similarly consistent (pro or con), then fine. If not, perhaps some soul-searching is in order. Most people reading this page likely *want* to see humans exploring space. Politics is the opposite of science. Instead of the usual political bashing, let's get on with the future!

Shuttle was going to have to end sometime. This plan hopefully replaces it with something that is more flexible for a wider variety of missions. Yes, it's less capable at LEO than Shuttle; how to replace Shuttle's heavy-lift will be an issue (but this was foreseen long ago, and now we have the EELV launchers). More significant will be the loss of Shuttle's down mass ability: without it, we cannot effectively bring large items back to earth from orbit. The station is designed to require the MPLM's; it will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. I'd love to keep Shuttle flying until CEV goes online, but the money is not there do it. Period.

Yes, this policy may fail just as so many have before. I suspect that if it does fail, there will be no "next" plan. So let's get it right!

Keith,

Are you aware of any efforts by the Administration to apply this re-alignment to other parts of the executive branch? I.e. if there is a desire for a strong commercial presence within the program, will Commerce or the FAA be doing anything to facilitate that?

It's about time we went back to the Moon, it always should have been thought of as a stepping stone. I find it hard to believe that we have to scrap the Hubble, it brings revenue to NASA. I have two reasons for not scrapping it.

We are sending Shuttles into space to work on the ISS. And we can't send it around to the Hubble while it's up there? we don't have the technology for that?

A space craft is going to have to be sent to Hubble to attach equipment, so it can be guided back to earth safely and not crash on Washington (pardon the pun). So where are we saving here? And where is the extra risk?

I will believe it when the new hardware is on the pad. My fear is under-capitalization, that the shuttle will be retired, the President's foray into Iraq and beyond will siphon all the needed $$$ and we will once again be an earthbound species.

Hubble: fix the bipod, use the shuttle and keep Hubble flying. Use the capability that has been proven.

Keith;

Thanks for taking your time with this story. Unfortunately, Americans become fixated on the numbers without being able to understand how they fit into the big picture. Thanks to Marcia Smith for explaining the paltry state of NASA funding at the June 12 hearing.

The increase requested by the President is about $200M per year over five years. Here are some everyday things' cost to put it into perspective:

The New York Yankees' 2003 payroll was $164M. The Powerball, Mega Millions, and Spanish lotteries, like El Gordo, *each* have total yearly payouts in excess of $1B. TV networks pay the NFL $2.2B per year. NASCAR gets $400M, the PGA gets $248M, and the NHL gets $120M. Any five NFL teams' annual payroll exceeds $200M.

Americans don't gripe about these things' cost. Why is that?

I asked Marcia Smith if perhaps lobbying for a checkoff box on our tax forms for NASA would be a good idea. She thought that it would be. "Chuck a Buck for NASA".

I'll bet that pundits raised the exact same gripes 40 years ago. In fact, they did. I remember it.

Yes, lets' spend the paltry .07% that NASA gets every year on "solving" unsolvable human problems. Better still, let's just give the money away on the street corner. Let China or India do these things. It's too expensive!

"If you build it, they will complain about the cost". Yes, complain on their computers and cell phones. Complain at the ATM machine, and at the gas station while using a debit card. Complain while watching satellite TV in the local bar. Complain in the car while the GPS navigation system tells them where to turn.

The seeds of the technology we enjoy today were planted 40 years ago. All that we are planting for our children is a society that values cheapness above everything else. A society that encourages the offshoring of our technological base, while encouraging our children to stake their financial hopes on lotteries and frivolous lawsuits.

If anything, we don't invest nearly enough in science and technology. Think about it. For your $1B, what has Powerball done to advance humanity? Keep playing those lotteries.

Wow! What a waste if you let the hubble telescope go to Bush's Grand plan to do any thing he can to destroy every thing that is American! The" precious resource" (the shuttle) is NOT Bush's to own it belongs to every person in the U.S.A! And it is not to be used for finishing the ISS for the obligations for the other 15 nations! Let's let the others do there part on the ISS. How many" Partners" are getting a "KICK BACKS" from Mr. Anti everything Bush! Please do all you can to block one person (Mr. Bush) from controlling NASA for his Whimsy! PLEASE Be sure this is in every news paper, and NOT in some small corner that no one will not see it letting the world know what is going on! Give the future of the Hubble in to the Peoples hands where the Tax money is coming from!

As you have noticed I did not Call Mr. Bush "President" I don't feel he is living up to the name!!

Signed one very upset Astronomer in Colorado

Bush's "Plan":

1) Kill Hubble (too bad, another program using proven hardware that WORKS!)

2) Kill the shuttle (great, another program using flight-proven hardware that - given one scintilla of intelligent risk management - ie, the shuttle is NOT an all-weather vehicle - also WORKS!)

3) Kill the ISS (yet another program using flight-proven hardware that A) WORKS and B) is a living, breathing international partnership).

4) Kill off everything that isn't HSF-related (Again, proven programs that work and have political and budgetary support).

5) Develop "Son of GE Apollo" and launch it (one hopes) on a HLV version of an EELV (Delta IV or Atlas V);

Brilliance, sheer brilliance.

Here's an idea - bring the troops home from the current analogue of SE Asia, circa-1965, and spend one-tenth of the taxpayers' money diverted to Halliburton and Burn & Loot to NASA, as it currently is, with someone with a scientific/operational background as NASA DIRECTOR, not "administrator" and do things right - manned and unmanned, scientific and operational research, aeronautics and astronautics.

I would like to thank the men and woman of NASA that sacrifice so much of their time and work slavishly knowing there is a good chance that their hard work will go unrecognized if the mission is a failure.

About Bush's comments: No matter how much I or anyone else is curious about our solar system and wants to find the truth to who we are as human beings, it's impossible to ignore the truths of the world we live in. In the United States schools and public services have been in as bad of shape as they are now.

Where do you think the minds behind the fantastic science we are unraveling now come from? Good schools make smart people, I think Americans are missing the point. If we are to further not only our knowledge of who we are and where we can go we must first deal with the mess on our own planet. Knowledge is not the same as Wisdom. Our technology and knowledge speed ahead while wisdom is abandoned for profits and glory.

Let us find a way to feed our children and teach our kids first, so that they may grow up and lead this nation and the world too. If we are whilling to explore distant planets and spend large amounts of money on planet exploration why can't we spend money on Human Exploration?

I want to go to Mars and understand the mysteries of this universe but does knowing everything about our Solar system gurantee we have clean drinking water? or nantions not whilling to goto nuculear war with eachother?

All knowledge and no wisdom does nothing for us in the long run. If we are to further our existence we must wake up!

I can't think of a better way to turn off the public on the new space plan than to abruptly stop Hubble telescope maintenance. Poor Hubble, born in controversy and now, likely to die in controversy. The problem with government agencies is that they swing to extremes in their solutions. I refuse to believe that the shuttle is so unsafe that it cannot be used to maintain the Hubble one last time. I agree that the Hubble has to stop sometime but surely better psychology could be used than what they have just surprised the public with. The Hubble is still producing scientific breakthroughs. The bonus is that the public is enraptured everytime we send the astronauts up to maintain it. I am not a professional astronomer nor do I have any connection with the space program but I can see a winner, and this project clearly deserves our support one last time. What was once declared bad science is now a shining example of the American civilization.

Kudos to president Bush for finally giving NASA a mission. It is going someplace, and that helps capture the mind and interest of taxpayers and the public at large.

I hate reading all this stuff from people in Florida who automatically think about job loss in 2010 when shuttle is retired. it indicates in fact one of the major problems at NASA...it is occupied by people who think the space program is about jobs instead of results-oriented missions. This is precisely how NASA is different than the Apollo days. In Apollo, the concern and focus was on getting to the moon and home again. Now, it is more about "how does this affect jobs". Bull!

I've always thought NASA needed to be gutted from top to bottom and re-started with fresh blood and fresh attitudes. Don't give me brain-drain excuses...NASA had no brains to drain when it really got its act together in the early and mid-60's and five years later they were on the moon.

President Bush realistically laid out a timetable that matches funding availability and squarely puts the pressure on NASA to perform by hitting milestone objectives over five years before any hope of getting bigger money. I'm sure that bothers a lot of folks inside NASA. Good. That will help show the rest of us who is really working and dedicated on results and who is just there to collect a check...their "entitled" check. Good riddance.

Now we get to see what NASA is made of.

Will it succeed, or will it be more Dan Goldin-type stuff? All hype and no results?

Yes, it's great. Promises instead of result - the politicians way of doing things.

Thank you for cancelling SM4 - a big "stop!" in astronomical researches. Is the ISS a priority, or just the aerospace industries prefer the ISS to Hubble because they make much more money?

"Safety" reasons? Do you know that there are a lot of US soldiers dying in Iraq daily? Are they "safe"? Is you president so concerned about their lifes? I'd prefer to risk my life for mankind progress in space instead of making Bush and Cheney richer than they are now.

The old NASA is dead long time ago. Welcome to the new one. The bureocrats' one. The pioneers are dead, it's lawyers time.

Unless Mr. Bush takes he money it takes to make his vision come true, I don't believe this will bring us closer to the moon or mars. And we're not talking about 1 billion dollars fresh money over five years, this is only a fraction of what is needed. Even 12 billion dollars total are simply not enough. This is the amount it costs to develop a new passenger airplane like the Airbus A 380, flying 10 kilometers, not million of miles, high.

Where do the other 11 billion come from? Answer: From successful science projects. HST was and is NASA's most successful science program. And the final shuttle mission to service this asset is now canceled, with new instruments already built and ready to fly and the onboard gyros slowly degrading. The reason is safety? Sorry, most of the past shuttle missons did not go the ISS, but were solo flights. Money is the point, and a degree of risk aversion that will never bring us out of low earth orbit. You are throwing things away. This reminds me of 1970/1971. Apollo hardware already built remained on earth to save a handful of dollars and finance the future, the shuttle at this time.

If a vision first destroys yours current achievements and is not backed with the nessecary money it is only a election year vision, nothing more. Sorry, I want to believe, but I can't after this speech and the decisions made afterwards.

If America wants to inspire students, President Bush just took step number one. This vision, (if moves forward) will inspire more students than any of the soon to be "Astronaut Educators". By the way, over 600 billion dollars are spent in education in a single year here in America. Those who complain about the extra "fiscal crumbs" given to NASA ...are basically algebraically challenged!

It seems Bush has set a very specific goal concerning the moon, and a very vague one concerning Mars. While this is definitely a step forward for space exploration, I can't help wonder how the huge media interest in a manned Mars mission didn't get across to the president. Even the BBC and CNN had great computer generated images of future human to Mars missions, aired immediately after Bush's speech, as well as the latest Spirit panoramas. The press was really expecting more Mars goals, and failed to predict the rather vague reference from Bush. The BBC even had a 'Should we send Humans to Mars' poll set up on their website. Why did the President fail to hear the call of Mars? We've been to the moon. Lets move on. I have to say I expected at least a Mars by 2020 goal, to bring new urgency to his fathers words back in 1989. And what is this Crew Exploration Vehicle? Does Bush really expect a craft that can both ferry astronauts to the space station, and to the moon? We cannot have a 'Jack of all Trades' space craft; The shuttle was designed from this logic, and the shuttle is an incredibly inefficient vehicle which got us into this mess. Forgive my pessimism on this issue, I guess my expectations were too high. I'm just disappointed the goal wasn't Mars. I can now only hope that in the future we will not be stuck on the surface of an inhospitable vacuum (the moon), in the same way as we have been stuck in low earth orbit. The moon is nothing less than a distraction, a detour, if you will, on our way to Mars. The Moon is dead, Long live Mars!

The goal is a worthy one for a great nation. It should inspire a new generation of American youth to pursue careers in science and engineering. If we don't begin to produce this cadre of professionals we will not be able to compete in a world economy were wages for piece work runs less than a dollar an hour. Only through RDT&E and the development of high tech consumer products, that will spin off of the advances that this program will produce, can we hope to sustain our economic place in the world - we must work smarter' not just harder'... (However, I feel that the role of manned space exploration will take a lesser role in the future than most are dreaming of. If teleoperated system technologies advance as much in the next 20 years as they have in the last 20 years manned' missions will be run by humans operating safely on earth.)

Hey folks,

I watched the President's speech yesterday with a mixture of "OK, less speech sir; more substance" and "Yowza!". I could go on for days about the points and counterpoints this speech brought out in me, but I will try to distill it down to my core beliefs:

- There is NO way that NASA *in its current form*, can pull this off. The bloated bureaucracies that make up the various NASA centers and their respective fiefdoms (KSC=assembly and launch; MSC=propulsion technology; and so forth) must be purged, bled, slash-and-burned, stripped-down-to-the-frame-and-rebuilt before they should be given another cent. The "not invented here" mindset must be excised. Open up to some of the ideas private industry has, and if they play out, reimburse their development costs plus 15%. Seems to me that is a better plan than just throwing megabucks at the problem. And knock off the 'ethnic sensitivity training' and ISO certifications that plague industry these days. Your job is to fly rockets. Period.

- No more 'what happens to the human body in space?' stuff. We have Skylab, 7 Salyuts, Mir, and ISS worth of data on that. That is how many years worth? We know what happens. Your bones lose calcium, your muscles atrophy. Where is the technology we will really need? Where's the closed-loop life support, the advanced propulsion engines, the aerobraking techniques?

- The point in the plan where we have no manned spaceflight capability for a while is a mistake. We made that error after Apollo. Keep the Shuttle going until CEV is built, tested, and operational. And why completely shut off the Shuttle after that time? Strip the airframes down and shoot 'em off as interim HLVs. Beats the hell out of three new lawn ornaments. The president likes to say "we can do this alone" in everything else; why not the space plan?

- Stop saying this is about technology spinoffs, or opening new scientific frontiers, or satisfying our questing spirit. While these are valid reasons to fly, the overriding reason is much simpler. This is about the U S of A, buddy!!

We want to show the world that we are the best.

We want to plant the Stars and Stripes in new soil and say "My country came here, and our beliefs, ideals, and know-how made this possible. And we intend to keep those beliefs and ideals as we build here." We want a little piece of the United States on other worlds. We want to look up at the moon with our kids and say, "You know, son, there is some AMERICA up there." And this is a GOOD thing.

As was one of the very rare unanimous consensus on theMcLaughlin Group, even rarer my agreeing with them, Bush's Space Policy is an election year stunt. This was conceived by Karl Rove to show that George W. Bush has vision and to give him his "Kennedy Moment". Furthermore, most of the media is, as usual, are lauding the president, without questioning anything. Again, he makes these wonderful proposals and fails to back it up with any money.

$12 Billion probably will not be enough to replace the Shuttle!

He intends to pass it on to the future where we will have too much of deficit to spend on these "Big Government Programs". Take off your Rose color glasses" because it's not going to happen by being "Cheaper,Better,Faster"! BTW, Haliburton, for some reason I don't know, already has contracts with NASA!

Please, don't be so biased by what you( and I) want. You've lost you're objectivity on this one.

Dear Keith,

Let me first say that your website is a breath of fresh air in a media and public devoid of facts about space exploration.

I find it amazing that so much of the general public thinks that this country spends a lot of money on space exploration, and that somehow we have to make a choice between space and domestic social programs. In the public's mind it's an either / or choice.

A simple Google search using the words "federal budget" quickly shows the truth. Total space spending is less than 1% of our federal budget. This is compared to about 23% for social security, 12% for Medicare, 7% for Medicaid, 16% for defense, and 6% for other entitlements. If we add up entitlements spending alone the U.S. is spending half of it's money on entitlement programs already!!!

Will somebody please explain how canceling the space program and spending that money on entitlements will make a significant difference to these domestic programs? Oh wow!!!, now we can spend 51% of federal money on social programs!!! That should put us over the edge and well on the way to solving Earth's problems. Give me a break!!

What frustrates me to no end is that NASA and other proponents of space exploration are not making these facts widely know to the general public. Why is this?

Signed,Frustrated Space Enthusiast.

I was 7 years old when President Kennedy said we were going to the moon - I was in high school when we landed - My children are in college - President Bush's "bold" plan will take us back to the moon when they are almost my age. 8 years to get there and 16 years to get back...hmmm

The real purpose of this grand announcement is to get the space shuttle and space station shut down as quickly and quietly as possible and ensure that we are bound to one planet forever......sad

Some of you offering opinions about this policy should READ YOUR HISTORY! (As if JFK's Apollo mandate wasn't a political ploy--sheesh!) Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people bemoaning NASA's lack of vision for 'going around in circles for 30 years.'

The space shuttle and space station were PART of the original grand vision (thank you Mr. Mueller, etc) for moving out into the solar system:

earth surface-to-orbit transportation: Shuttle (hence its original STS designation);
orbital assembly base: Space Station;
cislunar transport vehicle, adaptable to lunar landing (sound familiar?)):space tug;
lunar staging base: lunar orbit station;
support of lunar exploration and Mars test-bedding: lunar surface base;
deep-space propulsion:nuclear space tug built on NERVA research;
manned Mars landing and base buildup: utilizing all the above.

The shuttle and station we have today came about because good engineers were forced to stretch this strategy out over decades (to minimize annual funding) AND had to compromise on fundamental design rationales to keep the programs alive amidst horribly short-sighted meddling by numerous presidents and congresses. (Considering the environment in which they were created, our current shuttle and station are REMARKABLY capable. While they could still serve their roles as envisioned by the original strategy, it would likely cost too much to employ them that way today (given all their design compromises)--newer technologies will likely step in.)

And therein lies the heart of the freshness of the Bush proposal: while it borrows its technical core from the original late-sixties planning and reestablishes the same long-term vision, it was recrafted within the reality of a 1/2%-1% federal budget allocation for NASA (this is why the shuttle & station are to be phased out--to control total annual cost). In that sense, it probably has the best possible chance of surviving in the petty political landscape still thriving in Washington.

So let's get on with it!

I bet more money will be spent on breast augmentation this year than we spend on NASA. We need a heavy lift launch capability and I believe it is a national security interest that we keep it American. The Shuttle put 25 tonnes into LEO. Shuttle C would triple that, but a Saturn V was already 4 times that. We ought to look at Truax's Seadragon again. No KSC needed, just launch and land in the ocean, and use a nuke aircraft carrier to refuel with hydrogen and oxygen from the ocean. (That will keep the Navy occupied Sean!) The Seadragon would launch 22 shuttle loads at once, and you could have a fleet of 20 of them and launch them every hour or so. That would make for a hell of a base on the moon.

I agree with previous messages posted here that the Earth remote sensing and space science telescope missions are highly valuable and should continue. But they are now incongruent with the President's NASA Directives. I agree they should be moved (along with their funding!!) out of NASA to other agencies such as NOAA and NSF.

Perhaps now is finally the time to consolidate ALL civilian environmental Earth remote sensing data collection activities under one Agency. It would be conceivable and advantageous to adminstratively move all existing NASA Earth remote sensing activities (funding, facilities, archives, people, contracts) at GSFC, JPL and LaRC to NOAA/Dept. of Commerce.

Case-in-point, NOAA has desired for years to build a large, state-of-the-art operations building at GSFC and move their POES/GOES/DMSP activities out of Suitland and ocean archives out of Silver Spring. Adequate funding for NOAA NESDIS has been a serious problem for many years which is why this building has never been built.

In this scenario the Suitland NESDIS Control Center could finally move to GSFC and GSFC Earth remote sensing funding would fall under the auspices of the Secretary of Commerce and it would probably also be fiercely defended by Senator Mikulski who is passionate about keeping those jobs and keeping them in Maryland. The people would not have to move physically, just switch badges and still reside at GSFC. It is very common for NASA Centers to host other agencies.

This arrangement should benefit everyone concerned by bringing NASA's activities in line with the Jan 14 2004 Presidential Directive, consolidating all civilain Earth sciences activities, including several key Earth sensing programs, such as LANDSAT, under a much larger umbrella of DOC funding, enhancing long-term planning and data continuity, which are currently lacking in those programs.

In regards to President Bush's announcement yesterday, all I have to say is it's about time.

As a member of what I like to call the space shuttle generation, since I was born a year after Columbia's first flight, I've been waiting for a new direction. The ISS is nice and all, but having humans stuck in LEO for the past few years is like building a F-1 car and then only driving it around the block a few times a year. While the shuttle has had a direct impact on my goals in life, it needs finish it's original purpose of shuttling to and from a space station and then be retired.

Many of my peers in my aerospace engineering classes don't really care about the human side of the space program. Most of them want to work on aircraft and then out of the third or so that want to do spacecraft only about a third of that group wants to work on human spaceflight mission. Those that do care, are pissed that we aren't going directly to Mars, but they don't realize that a direct to Mars program as neat as it would be would be political suicide for the program. This new program has the correct incremental steps to work.

I forone amglad that NASA finally has been given a direction. If I can achieve my life time goal of becoming an astronaut (and I do me lifetime, I've wanted to do this since I was 3), I will now have the chance to go explore terrain that has never been seen up close with human eyes and the remote possibility to have set foot on three different celestial object, Earth, the Moon, and Mars.

The reason I want to go is for pure exploration, because when you find yourself in the wilderness, in the wilderness you can find yourself. This goes for me personally, for theUnited States, and for all of mankind. The greatest human accomplishments have occurred in the most remote places we've been.

We're human, we're curious, we need to look around the next corner, go beyond the next ridge, push the button labeled "do not push". Inquisitiveness is part of our very being, and to turn our backs on that will signal the beginning of the end.

And for those who believe this to be impossible, just remember the words of Wernher Von Braun, "Always use the word impossible with the greatest of caution".

In order to utilize funding in the best way, NASA must be willing to get rid of activities like the Earth Science Enterprise that take money away from the new focus.

EOSDIS is a huge failure and waste of money, give data management to the USGS who know how to do it.
Stop giving millions to Universities to do what industry does for thousands
Let NSF, NOAA and USGS manage and fund the science piece
Stop job program contracts out at GSFC and get the civil servants there re-focused on the new goals

I will be surprised if they can do this.

I support the initiative to move man outward. In the case of a major calamity, such as a large meteor strike or genetically engineered plague in the next few hundred years, those elements of mankind that are out exploring may be the only hope for continuance of our species. Perhaps my comment should be dismissed as science fiction but isn't that what this is all about in terms of a vision.

The key issue is, "Is NASA up to the job?". Are we going to be an agency which brings together the most qualified scientific minds or will it continue to be Dan Golden's experiment in social engineering. The events of the last two weeks tell us a great deal about NASA and its current culture. I am speaking of the leak experienced by the ISS. Consider the following:

1. The delay in informing the crew of the leak which does not seem consistent with a new culture at NASA.

2. The reported crew"s response to the management team's instruction to sit tight does not indicate a level of trust and respect between the crew and team nor does it indicate a well developed discipline.

3. The discovery that the on board oxygen candles are out of certification date and failing when added to the reported initial failure to trend atmosphere pressure in the vehicle would indicate a failure to have a fully operational systems engineering program.

4. NASA is advertising for a contractor to develop a plan to reinvent the NASA culture apparently without knowing what its culture should be.

If one looks at the above as independent events they may not impact mankind's trip outward. If you look at the events in the context of a pattern or from a systems engineering perspective there is a potential problem. The NASA culture of today is not the same as that which built the Saturn vehicle and in so doing launched mankind outward. A push outward will require bold men and women willing to take risk and a team of great technical minds who also have the vision and management skills to identify the real risks and either reduce them or place them in a context that the crews fully understand and find acceptable. There can be no more room for any but the truly best. We used the German team in Huntsville without regard to their politics because they were the best. We should use the Russians not because of politics or previous affiliation but because some of them are the best and provide a critical element of the engineering staff we need to move outward. We and the Russians have the same stake in this great pursuit--survival. I wish NASA the best in this great adventure but I am concerned about the need to swiftly return to the "old" NASA culture. This will not happen unless the Golden "element" that preached the need to dump the "old, white, males" who had taken the agency outward is purged and the most senior management actively solicits the advice of the grey beards and commits the new NASA to pursuit of the best regardless of age, sex, race. A new team is needed that does not recognize the word "can't" but is smart enough and with enough ego control to benefit from knowledge generated in the past.

As a former NASA employee, I am guardedly excited by President Bush s announcement. If what he outlined comes to pass, it will breathe needed new life into manned space exploration. Maybe I d go back to the mothership. But the fiscal and organizational politics will be major hurdles.

The plan cleverly faces the fundamental political reality that there will not be huge amounts of new money added to NASA s budget. Period. We may not like it, but fulminating about it will not change it. It hasn t for 30 years. Far better to figure out how to deal with it and stop wasting time on plans that assume otherwise or waiting around for the great golden day.

But, in light of this hard constraint, Bush s announcement has now given the Congress, NASA, NASA s contractors, and the space community an opportunity to choose. The good new is we didn t have this opportunity before. The bad new is we will have to choose. Here are the basic choices:

1) Continue on the current LEO centric plan, with the Station and the Shuttle, or a Shuttle replacement, as the key platforms.

2) Move out of LEO, letting go of the Shuttle and moving away from the Station, to go back to the Moon and beyond.

I choose 2. Why? I believe the LEO-centric strategy (#1) has failed and is going nowhere, in circles. Manned space is slowly dying of arteriosclerosis. The Shuttle has failed to provide safe, affordable, frequent, reliable access to space. The Space Station has become a white elephant, with the 2 people on board today primarily devoted to maintaining it. Skylab had 3 people. This is after 20 years. I do not think this strategy is fixable, certainly not using the Shuttle.

The leave LEO strategy the President has offered up will move us outwards, which is the goal, right? NASA s budget is around the average is was in Apollo days. We should be able to do great thing within that budget. In fact, we should be able to do greater things within that budget, given the technological advances of the last 30 years. We never intended to stay in LEO forever anyway. So, since that is not working, time to cut our losses. I m convinced that if we stay on the LEO strategy, the next time something bad happens to the Shuttle -- and it will -- manned spaceflight will be dead for years and years. Better to move out, accepting the admittedly high risks of doing something new, than have the whole thing slowly strangle for certain. We're risk takers, right?

The problem here is it will be hard to give up the Shuttle and gracefully ease away from the Station. Careers, organizations, contracts etc have all grown up around those platforms. They will resist letting go. There will be many arguments about how we need the Shuttle to keep the Station going, how the Station is the key to preparing for Mars, how we shouldn t give up after all the money we ve spent on LEO (the false sunk cost argument). But the real motivation will be to keep the existing LEO centric strategy going.

But, since there won t be enough money to do both, we will have to choose.

Change is hard. Get out the axe.

Perhaps Bush plans to minimize the cost of his space initiative by hiring 10 million cheap illegal immigrants to work on it.

I think the republicans just lost Florida in the upcomming election. Laying off over 10,000 employees here in Florida in 2010 doesnt make anybody I know feel very good. As for transitioning them to the new CEV project, very doubtful that program will absorb those people by 2010. This will probably leave a 5 or 6 year period (2010 to 2015) where we have unemployed Americans yet are paying Russians to fly to the space station.

Dear NasaWatch, et al

My reaction to the "SEI,JR" Bush's space initiative is that it is certainly better than nothing which is what we have right now! Also, despite the obvious election year gambit, (i.e. Bush looks good for thinking it, keeping it within a "reasonable" budget, but Congress gets to be the bad guys when the axe falls), there is an incredible opportunity for the space community to galvanize itself if it so chooses. What I mean is this. Bush is not going to be the one to decide what gets cut and how to distribute that $11 billion of reprogrammed funds. Nasa is. Who is going to tell Nasa how to do this. If we are smart, the entire space community, academics, professionals, amatuers. We could actually get our act together and quit fighting over "men vs. robots" and come up with some ideas to float around like Zubrin did after "SEI,Sr." Ideas that get the job done safely and more efficiently. Ideas like Shuttle-C. The computer industry doesn't fret over new opportunities, they just tell their engineers "come up with some ways to make this work", and they do.

The new intiative sounds great, but retiring the shuttle is a bad idea. It finally got to perform the job that it was designed for late in its lifespan - visiting and contructing space stations.

We have 23 years of experience with the system - Shuttle Version II should be a part of the new plan.

Redesign the External Tank so it can function as a common core, replace the SRBs with Liquid flyback boosters, use a redesigned/upgraded Shuttle for ISS construction/lifting Lunar or Martian vehicles into orbit that require human assembly, and finally produce Shuttle C or a similar cargo container for heavy lifting of bulk cargo. I never hear anyone mention that the fact that the Shuttle can bring large stuff back as well as the large stuff up.

ISS should fully completed, not just core complete, and design started for the spacedock facility it should eventually become.

Don't forget zero prebreathe spacesuits for astronaut orbital construction crews and Lunar/Martian explorers.

From someone@nasa.gov

In order to accomplish Bush's lofty goals, and worthier ones I have never seen in my lifetime, there will have to be a sea-change in NASA management's attitude and approach.

For the past decade, we NASA employees have been drowning in safety training. Sounds good, eh? Well, let's see, I'm an engineer, and in the few years my records show I've had: Office Ergonomics training, Ehtics training, EEO training, ladder safety training, fire extinguisher training, ITAR training, Time keeping training, hearing conservation training, CPR training, ISO audit training, contract evaluation training, etc etc. How these will help NASA reach the moon is beyond me.

To the present NASA management, technical research and innovation have taken a back seat to budget reports, training, safety meetings, and the latest quality scheme, called the "Ames Management System," just a re-hash of ISO 9000 with new document titles. Managers above division chief never meet with, ask questions of, or, to my knowledge, fully understand the work that is going on. Our center has been instructed not to hire new technician level employees. Our branch is expected to continue to operate facilities, perform facility maintenance and upgrades, and do the necessary and vital work without replacing those lost to attrition. Neither have the retirees been replaced by contract workers. "More with less" seems to be the unspoken mantra.

Now, "Full Cost Accounting" has a choke hold on managment. No one knows how to make it work, of it it can be made to work, but it's already been rammed down our throats. Not to say accountability is a bad thing, no, to the contrary, it was necessary. But full cost accounting has been subtley tranformed into "Full Cost Recovery" in which facility operations are expected to "pay their own way." Customers are now charged a rate that is literally 10 times the cost of facility testing as of two years ago, this rate set so as to reimburse the full cost of operating the facilities and also much of the center's overhead costs. Guess what? Fewer tests are being conducted, so after applying the higher charges the revenue stream is going down. Great plan, eh?

Well, as I said, after a sea-change in attitude, and only after the sea-change, NASA will be in good shape for launching the boldest initiative in 40 years. Let's hope management at Headquarters and the centers gets the message.

G'day Keith,

We live in interesting times. Before looking to the future lets look at the past significant "big project" announcements by former Presidents.

1961 Kennedy, Democrat, non-election year. Manned Lunar landing by 1970. First flight of hardware in 4 years. Mission accomplished in 8 years. Termination in 11 years. Two partial failures (Apollo 6 and 13) and one fatal ground accident (Apollo 1) in 17 flights.

1972 Nixon, Republican, election year. Space Shuttle. First flight in 9 years. Two fatal failures (STS-51L and 107) in 113 flights over 22 years so far.

1984, Reagan, Republican, election year. Space Station. First flight in 14 years. 6 years in operation. 38 flights (including international) so far, all successful.

1992, Bush Sr., Republican, election year. Manned Mars landing. Failed to proceed due to excessive cost estimate of $400B.

2004, Bush Jr., Republican, election year. Manned Lunar landing by 2020.

A common theme for the last three announcements were that they were all by Republican presidents in an election year. This is probably a mixture of timing and opportunity. A disturbing trend is the increasing time to first flight of hardware. If the current trend continues, first flight would be in 20 years in 2024! Bush Jr. is aiming for a return to Apollo style first flight time of 4 years. This will be NASA's first challenge.

Bush is planning the first manned flight of the crew exploration vehicle (CEV) by 2014. This is a bit disturbing, as it means the US will not have human access to Space (other than by the Russians) until after the Shuttle is retired in 2010 for four years (similar to when Apollo was retired in 1975 with a six year gap to when Shuttle becoming available). Apollo had their first manned flight in 7 years, Bush is planning on 10 years. I think that NASA should plan to have the first manned flight in 6 years (in 2010) so that the CEV is available, _before_ the Shuttle is retired. In any case, I think the Shuttle should not be retired until _after_ the CEV is operational.

Lunar landing is planned between 2015 to 2020, 11 to 16 years from project start. Considering NASA's recent experience with "big projects" I think this is reasonable. Six years to develop the CEV and with the money freed up from retiring the shuttle ($3.5B per year) the money could be used to develop the Lunar lander and launch vehicle with first landing in another 5 to 10 years. I think NASA should be able to have the hardware ready in 6 years with a landing in 2016 (another election year :-).

Not mentioned in the speach was the Launch vehicle. The most sensible solution is to replace the Orbiter of the Space Shuttle with just the three main engines and add a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen stage on top of the External Tank. The lander and CEV are added on top, the same as in Apollo. For the CEV, I personally would stear away from a large Apollo type capsule. The Soyuz/Shenzhou system with a small capsule (large enough for four people) and orbital module gives more internal volume for the same mass, or a smaller mass for the same volume.

I don't think launching Mars missions from the Moon is a good idea. It takes propellant to go into orbit and land on the Moon, which needs to be generated(Lunar oxygen or lunox)/carried(liquid Hydrogen) on top of the propellant needed to get to Mars. Just putting the Mars spacecraft in Lunar orbit is more efficient, but it will still take a significant amount of infrastructure and spacecraft to produce the lunox and get it to the orbiting Mars spacecraft. This is good if you want a $400B Mars mission which will have a predictable outcome of not proceeding. If you really want to get to Mars I think doing it from Earth orbit is more cost effective and faster than trying to do it from the Moon.

I think an important priority for NASA is to minimise the use of new technology. This was the philosophy for Apollo which I think worked extremely well. If NASA starts to dabble in new technolgies for this and new technogies for that, this will only increase the cost and delay the mission. For a Mars mission, the one technology it should develop is in-situ propellant production as it greatly reduces mission cost.

Steven S. Pietrobon
steven@sworld.com.au

The actual plan is less than it seems. In several key areas, it represents no change or an actual retreat on what NASA's doing:

a. Station completion is now scheduled for 2010. In other words, it is once again 6 years from completion, where it's been on and off for 15 years. This, in fairness, may be unavoidable, but it represents no real change of policy.

b. We're going to use station for less now because of reductions in materials research work, despite two decades of promises to justify the facility's construction. This work will be done by other countries instead.

It seems like a poor leveraging of a $100 billion investment. And it raises questions about how strong the commitment to a moon/Mars program will be once the program turns out to be more complicated, expensive, and less popular than it seemed when they approved it.

c. Shuttle is still being retired in 2010-11, but the replacement vehicle is delayed again. This leaves us with no independent access to space for at least three or four years. A ten-year development schedule for an Apollo-style vehicle seems long.

d. To pay for this initiative, they want to reallocate $11 billion for other programs, probably cutting most of it from environmental and space science budgets. This fits in well with the neo-con belief that the environmental efforts are a waste of money.

e. Moon/Mars. This is the new part of the program. I would guess that the 2015 moon flights would be moved back a couple of years due to program delays. Which would put it near 2019, the same date set by Bush the First 15 years ago. Although I think the elder Bush also talked about getting to Mars by then.

We'll have to see. I think there may be enough vested interests to prevent a large-scale restructuring that impacts on the environmental programs. If this occurs, then Congress could be hard pressed to come up with money to fund the Moon initiative.

Today President Bush has finally given NASA a new initiative and a broad goal, something past presidents have failed to or would be brave enough to do.

This is just what NASA needed, an agenda to base itself on. No one has ventured outside the Earth's orbit since Apollo 17 on December 1972, 30 years ago.

Since then we've been content to remain earthbound. No one ,until now, has taken the challenge to resume space exploration and to make dreams become reality again.

The effort will not be cheap but the benefits will be rewarding.

Let's hope we live up to the challenge put before us and never look back again.

Keith,

Great website. If you should post this, please do so anonymously.

It looks like an expendable booster with a capsule CEV system is the current planned workhorse for the post-Shuttle era. And there is some commentary about the loss of forward progress by not pursuing an RLV solutoin. Additionally, I have heard a lot of grumbling the past 18 months or so regarding OSP about what a big step "backwards" we would be taking by considering capsules and expendables to replace the Shuttle for the US space transportation system rather than RLVs. The argument is always that RLVs will provide cheaper and more ready access to space. But I question whether the physics and engineering really back this viewpoint. From any of the sources I have access to, it seems that the Saturn V had more capacity and was cheaper per pound to put payload into orbit than the Shuttle....the only reusable heavy lifter ever. The Shuttle would have been more efficient if each orbiter were flown 20 times a year...but they aren't and probably can't be.

Why are RLVs difficult? Ascent propulsion and re-entry thermal protection are the main challenges.

Thanks to the rocket equation we put ascent propulsion devices through their paces at near maximum performance to get out of the gravity well in a hurry...thereby maximizing payload to orbit. Powerful and efficient ascent engines are typically very complex. Running complex machinery at or near its redline typically calls for intense maintenance between operations....and this is what we have with the Shuttle. I doubt a comparable replacement would be much different.

As for thermal protection systems, consider that the reusable tiles and RCC on the Shuttle tend to be a maintenance challenge, they also can't provide the thermal protection you need for a re-entry from a hyperbolic or very high elliptical orbit. If you want to explore beyond LEO you either need to carry a lot of deceleration fuel around to minimize entry velocity or have a thermal protection system that can handle higher heats. Ablative materials are often the only way to go in the latter system. Unfortunately, ablaters are often not reusable.

I will grant you that capsules are ugly compared to the sleek delta wings of RLVs. I will grant you that tossing away expendable boosters consisting of precision crafted high technology is contrary to the recycling mentality of many (especially those of use who are mindful of recycling as a philosophy). While I would love to have a winged fly it, land it, fuel it, and fly it again RLV space vehicle as much as the next person our propulsion, power generation, and thermal material technologies just don't support that as the clear choice for access to space. I am therefore very wary of proclaiming that RLVs are a step forward without seeing how the propulsion and thermal protection issues are addressed in a manner that is more efficient than single use expendables and capsules designed with high precision manufacturing tolerances.

Just don't assume that RLVs are a step forward at this point because the 'R' stands for reusable.

Here is my two cent's worth before the President's actual speech and O'Keefe's clarifications.

The Shuttle needs to be permanently grounded for both safety and cost purposes. This plan puts an end-date to Shuttle operations. It also provides for the development of an alternative vehicle (OSP --> CEV).

This is a political move. Politics is about compromise. We may not get a permanent base on the Moon or a crewed Mars Mission. We will get a fleet of orbiters that can functionally replace the Shuttle. The crewed orbiter will also be capable of leaving LEO.

Not bad...not bad at all.

Dear NASA Watch--

It appears, like a little Deja Vu, what No. 43 will be announcing. Remember the SEI under No. 41? All the technocrats from the NASA Manned Spaceflight and Technology Centers, LANL, LLNL, et al were running over each other in the Halls of Washington, D. C., for their chance at the Pig Trough. Is Karl Rowe, a part of this Photo Opportunity?

I have strong doubts that something useful will come out of all this small media coverage. It is much ado, about nothing.

E Pluribus Unum

Thank you Nasawatch for the best up to the minute coverage of what's happening in space.

Everyone seems to be reading into this vision thing every pet peeve they have about the space program. If you like your robots you think it means more robots. If you like manned space you think it means more manned missions.

If you like Hubble you think it means Hubbles on the moon. If you like nukes in space, you think it means a two week transit time to Mars.

What I hope it means is that solar power sats get built on the moon and power starts to get beamed back to our planet, and eventually we abandon nukes and fossil fuel power plants here, and turn the earth back into a park. That would be a tangible profitable benefit that no anti-space kook could argue with!

I know what this all means it means, NASA's budget MIGHT increase by 5% for the next three years IF Bush gets elected again and Congress agrees. That means 1 billion more next year, one and a half more billion in year two, and two and a third more billions in year three. That is a total of 4.8 billion, or the equivalent of ten more shuttle flights over the next three years. Whoop de do! He can spend 100 billion on a war, and 87 billion in reconstruction of Iraq. This increase is a pittance!

Put simply, exploration is about extending our senses into the universe. Burgeoning technologies are about to let us to do this in some pretty spectacular and unexpected ways. I'd hate to think that 19th- and 20th-century notions of what constitutes "human exploration" would get in the way of implementing the tools of 21st- and 22nd-century exploration.

Keep up the good work Keith,

I would certainly like to see this country make a sustained effort to truly develop space. If the nay-sayers today were around in the 1800's, we would still be living east of the Mississippi with all that unkown territory out west unexplored. Those pioneers had no idea of the impact on this country of their efforts to settle the West, they just did it because it was the obvious thing to do. If they had waited until the there was some obvious return on investment to justify their exploration, it would never have happened and all that gold would still be buried in the hills of California and elsewhere.

Those who say the money to explore and develop space would be better spent here on Earth to improve the plight of the poor or to educate our children obviously have no clue of what is going on. This country spends 60% of it's annual budget on social security, medicare, welfare and other social programs which tranlates into $1,320 billion in 2002 alone (see page 76 of your 1040 instruction book). NASA's $15.5 billion-per-year budget would make no difference AT ALL if spent on these programs. If you think NASA wastes money, you ought to consider these behemoth programs. The state of Florida alone spends twice as much money on education than is spent on NASA's manned space programs. NASA currently gets about 0.7% of the budget, however, at the peak of the Apollo program it was 5%. If the US had sustained that spending rate on space ($110 billion per year in today's dollars), we would all be living on the Moon and Mars right now just as Heinlein had envisioned.

As for scrapping the Shuttle, I would like to point out that the Shuttle would have a 100% launch success rate if it weren't for two criminally negligent decisions by management to continue launching when they should have stood down and fixed the problems (SRB O-rings and ET foam shedding). With all of it's problems, the Shuttle is still a safe and reliable vehicle when compared to all other rockets, but it is getting old. I would prefer NASA not throw out 22 years of experience and knowledge on the Shuttle, but instead redesign the Shuttle from on a blank sheet, keeping only the basic mold line and interfaces to minimize impact to infrastructure where it makes sense. We have all that knowledge gained from 100+ missions and we know what we would like to do differently. But we choose to scrap it all and start from scratch with an unknown system that we know nothing about. A redesigned Shuttle could benefit from new electronics, fiber optics, composite structure (or aluminum-lithium alloy) in non-critical areas, electro-mechanical actuators instead of hydraulics, advance thermal protection system, monolithic SRB's, and a host of other improvements to streamline operations and improve reliability by eliminating scores of critical single failure points. The weight savings would be tremendous and could be used to make the crew cabin survivable in an accident during launch or reentry and still increase payload capacity. An unmanned cargo version (i.e., Shuttle-C) would give us the heavy lift capacity we need to go to the Moon. It may even be possible to take up a lunar payload in the redesigned Shuttle and rendezvous with a lunar tranfer vehicle and take the Shuttle to the Moon and back. This would give the astronauts a decent living space instead of being cramped in a tin can for weeks and would allow for the return of huge quantities of what ever it is that we need to bring back.

As for the rumored plans for the future, I have my reservations. The use of unmanned expendable launch vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V) as the foundation for the future of manned space flight sounds like the kind of bonehead decisions NASA has made in the past, sacrificing safety for cost and schedule in order to gain program approval.

President Bush and many others do not get it. The younger people of today who have taken on a great enthusiasm for the Martian robotic missions understand that you do not need astronauts planting flags in order to explore space. The cost of the hardware necessary to safely transport and sustain humans in space is simply not realistic given today's economic situation. The future, not just when it comes to space, but in every aspect of our lives, will involve separating what we do from the physical aspects of our bodies. When we build a robot that lands on Mars, it isn't just a couple of guys that were lucky enough to get picked for that mission, it's all of us, looking through that camera lens for the first time at a new world. Bush's plan will draw money away from such missions and leave us with a fraction of the science they could have provided. If he really wanted to make a JFK-like leap, he would announce that we are embarking a new era of exploration. We are leaving our fragile biological bodies behind and evolving into the new life we have created.

If the budget and plan were real I'd dance in the streets, but I can't help but be cycnical.

Bush gets to announce a grand plan, a budget increase for NASA, get some aero industry votes, ride the enthusiasm generated by "Spirit", and get a photo op.

Fast forward to a year from now, whether he's in office or not, he's not the bad guy when Congress debates fiscal responsibility and priority of more Earth-bound programs. Budget gets slashed, program lumbers along with a few studies, and dies an apathetic death. Bush gets to say, "I tried to enact my vision, but the partisan votes took it down", when after all he never really cared.

Think about it, Bush didn't even name a NASA administrator until nearly two years into office. He didn't care about space until Columbia got the nation's attention. And he didn't announce anything until the public is all hyped over "Spirit".

Like I said, if it were real, great, but I doubt it.

Who is advising Bush on this issue? Why now? Why manned missions? These questions are but the tip of the iceberg.

This is 100% political move that is nothing more than a huge distraction. I am not a "I hate Bush" nor a "I don't want NASA to be political" cynic. Whether it was Gore or Bush or even Roosevelt, it doesn't matter, this is re-election fireworks show. Distract the people with flashy pseudo science and give the finger to the Chinese. If this NASA Grand Plan had been on the plate 2 years ago the motives would have been a little more believable. But the President needs a new fake promise that will glitter on the voter cards, and "science" is a perfect choice because the voters don't know a thing about it! Hydrogen cars, great! But what's the catch? Oh...it's 20 years away. And yet Hybrid cars are out now, but the tax incentives goes to Hummer2 purchases.

Scientifically, What will manned missions accomplish? I'm sure the spin-offs will be great, but those are hardly a justification of cost. What can we get off of the moon or mars that a robot can't do? Why divert the majority of the space program's resources into one immense project. I am sitting in a NASA risk management training as I write this and I laugh at the meetings that this project would have to endure. The recent probe missions are proof that the more the better (not bigger the better) because failures occur around every corner. It seems that a lot more science and engineering knowledge would be gained through multiple small flights within the same time and budget constraints.

I wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid and I still want to go to Mars, but I won't be blown away into fairy tales by hot air. I would hope that other engineers and scientists in this industry would not sell out just to maintain their jobs or research. Did I miss something? Did Spirit find something already? Is there a secret science report that only the President can see?

Luckily there are checks & balances and the skeptics are abundant.

Regarding President Bush's proposal:

This is not 1961. To ensure the necessary funding for the new initiatives, the earthly benefits in the current, near and distant future simply MUST be articulated. I have spoken to the public on behalf of NASA about the ISS and described the biomedical research, water recycling, kidney stone prevention strategies, etc, and usually they had no idea and are glad that it is being done.

So -- do it right, then go NASA go !!!

I hope the timetables are accelerated along the way, propelled by discoveries (life old/new) on Mars. Its too bad that most of the Astronauts that went to the moon may not make it to see us finally return to the moon and will likely never get to see humans on another planet. I hope this is not just a DOD make work project to keep TX and Tom Delay happy. On the other hand, perhaps a not so bold, boring approach will pick up steam after the agency has been refocused hardware wise. I guess I am just happy that NASA will be allowed to pursue exploration at all at this point. It will not take on a higher priority until their is a strong imperative.......need to find that fossil!

As one who has been in the shuttle program for many years, I am more interested in the short term committments.

Complete ISS and retire shuttle by 2010.

Remember that our committment to 'ISS complete' was re-defined to 'ISS CORE complete'. Even that reduction still resulted in the schedule pressure so often mentioned in CAIB investigations. So, now we have a new deadline: 2010.

First we have to fly again and, something nobody's talking about, what if STS-114's ET still sheds foam? Not a catastrophic failure, just the 'normal' shedding that we ignored for years. What's Plan B, ground the fleet again and back to the drawing board at Michoud or write waivers? The 2010 deadline approaches!

Fortunately, my retirement approaches sooner.

Details, details, details. Have we become such dithering clerks? What country is this? Forget hardware, possible vested interests, political motivations, budgets and taxes. How many billions of dollars do we spend domestically on dog grooming, cat food, superfluous "education," cable television, comically oversized, gas-guzzling trucks, third and fourth homes (I guess that's "Location, Location, Location -- and Location"), and every other kind of self indulgence (Hey, I'm right in there with you; mine's cigars and golf . . . )? Are any grownups out there going to aver -- seriously -- that we can't afford this in terms of money, and not expect to be laughed at?

President Kennedy's exhortation of 40 years ago rings down to us -- will ring down to us -- in every generation: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon . . . AND DO THE OTHER THINGS, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE EASY, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE HARD . . . (capitalization my own) "

Ah, the martyric glory, the eminently human grandeur of that battle cry to embrace a national athleticism, to pursue a noble love of sweaty toil to achieve worthy things. What an assault against national inertia, against cowering bean-counting, against partisan whining, against a feeble love of an unseasoned diet of routine, ease, pleasure, and safety. But JFK's summons calls us to so much more. This is the United States of America, the shining city on a hill, the last best hope of Earth, the home of Franklin, Carver, and Edison, and the haven of Einstein, Teller, Fermi, and von Braun; WE CAN DO IT ALL: Our nation can feed, house, and educate the poor; we can advance the causes of freedom and equality; we can help defend and encourage freedom-loving peoples; AND we can send men and women to explore, colonize, and utilize the cosmos to enrich the whole human race. It all goes together.

Think big, my Countrymen -- posterity's prosperity and happiness are at stake. We need only five things: Intellect, will, courage, hope, and money. We have all these in abundance. Excelsior!

OK! Mars in 25 years! In the mean time you can chronicle the demise of NASA and the Democratic Party.

I am pissed at CNN's story on the Bush Initiative! They clearly are joining the band wagon of trumpeting the AGGREGATE cost directly alongside the yearly figures. An underinformed (read: normal) citizen would read their numbers to believe that NASA has some absurdly huge budget!

I am a supporter of anything that forces NASA to focus on pushing towards a goal, but the media is a "friend" we could do without!

I have three questions about Space Exploration Initiative, Jr. (SEI, Sr. was Bush I's 1989 wet squib, for the surprisingly large number of people who don't remember it.)

- Why the protracted timetable? We don't need four years to get ready to launch more robotic moon probes.

- How are we going to do this on $12 billion over the next 5 years?

- Of that $12 billion, only $1 billion is new money - the rest is coming from existing NASA programs that don't support SEI, Jr. Which programs?

Bush II's speechwriters ought to do a little research. Here's one blooper -

"Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost."

It's not economical to build Mars ships on the moon. Spacecraft are sophisticated things. Imagine the infrastructure you'd have to put in place to build a Mars ship on the moon. That's an old, old idea long ago discarded. But it ought to impress people who don't know any better.

This is an election year device designed to make Bush II look "bold" and a tactic for shutting down NASA programs.

So that is it.....

for the second time in our lives, a President Bush tries to commit humanity to the journey to Mars. First of all, i'd say that this is a great idea. Certainly, the way he said it is well below how John Kennedy committed his nation more than 40 years ago but it is nevertheless a great start, isn't it?

Well, maybe it isn't. At least he did not come up with the old "Battlestar Galactica" numbers and i hope that NASA has learned enough from the Space Exploration Initiative not to make this mistake again either, but i am quite sure that the Mars enthusiasts will follow Zubrins' way and start telling us that the moon is a detour and that we can learn enough on the International Space Station which already is in orbit.

I for myself have not seen men (or women) walking on the moon in my lifetime and i am certainly thrilled with the prospect of seeing them in the not too distant future on TV or broadband interet, or whatever we will be having by that time. On the other hand, i am sad. The shuttle first flew in the year i was born and a few years later made it to space and of course returned back home. I don't really remember when i started to follow each and every mission but i still remember where i was on that day almost 18 years ago and last February is still very much on my mind. On the happier side, i remember staying up late at night during the HST repair mission when it was shown worldwide thanks to CNN and of course watching "Americans return to space" live as well. However this will be it, i really have to plan for a trip to Florida next year to see one of them in person and i am starting to miss them already. Sure, time has shown us that the orbiters are inherent unsafe, but so is driving a car or flying. The president spoke about risk taking, although in my opinion, risk taking is no longer something that society in the western world encourages us to do. I think that nobody will object when i say that NASA has to work on safety but condemming the shuttle after 107 might not be the right way to do it. After all, we know the system - we know what's broken and we can figure out ways to fix it. We certainly would have to look through all the waivers NASA issued over the years and set some new rules but one thing needs to be accepted and understood by everyone, politicians and the general public: spaceflight can never be safe but the shuttle wasn't a commercial airliner. Everyone who boards it knows how much risk is envolved and that they might not make it back to earth alive but still they fly for all of us. I am not implying that we should let them fly with a faulty design but we have to accept that every now and then the farewell wave on the way to the Astovan might really be a farewell.

Sure, we should concentrate on something to replace the shuttle in the long run, since we have missed a number of opportunities along the way, like the X-30, -33, -38, or the DC-X but with what was proposed today we are stepping one step back, and we are doing it in the name of safety and exploration. However how they will be able to design a spacecraft suitable for LEO flights to ISS, going to the moon and supplying a lunar outpost as well as going to mars and maybe exploring the asteorides still eludes me and reminds me of another jack of all trades vehicle which will go to the museums in few years.

The bottom line in my opinion is that the shuttle will be missed and i hope i am not the only one thinking that NASA should have come up with something better than an Apollo like vehicle. On the other hand, airplane lives are very often extended even though they were bound for the museum already so in case there will be an administration change or some other obstacle in the way we might have another decade of shuttle flights ahead of us.

In the meantime, i'll stay tuned and patiently wait for this new proposal to gain some momentum and see where it will lead us.

My initial thought was: I love it. Still won't vote for the guy.

Now, seeing some of the Democratic reactions, I'm reconsidering that thought. Of course, I'm more of a third-party type anyway... and living in Texas, I might *still* decide to vote that way.

I _WANT_ the moon. But I've heard this before. As others have said, show me the money. Then, maybe, I'll start believing it.

And btw, even though I'm all for Human spaceflight, I do NOT want to see the robotics groups canned for this.

Moderate skepticism of this initiative is natural. But we should consider the difference between the temperament of GW Bush and his father. President Bush is a man of action, not words. This new space initiative, driven by Cheney and Bush in tandem, is rooted in their belief that big things can be achieved. This is an optimistic team, and persistant. Re-election will ensure that the funds are there, and the commitment is there. This is not a man easily dissuaded. By the next election in 2008 the program will be too far along to cancel. At a minimum like Apollo it will have to at least achieve its earliest stated goals or the public will be incensed.

Bush is working on a legacy. That's his goal. It's a personal thing, a big thing, something from his heart. And once he has made up his mind, it will happen.

Go, go, go. Go.

Dear Cynics:

I hope you don't mind a little sandblasting from planetary geologist but I must say you all strike me as a bit small minded and childish.

You all fall into these categories

The I don't like having my program canceled cynic. The problem is your program will die if NASA dies.

The I didn't vote for the president and hate him. Illogical to say the least. Lets face it if Al Gore was president we wouldn't be here having this discussion. Would you be happy then?

And finally the I don't like this being political: How in the world do you think we got into space in the first place happy thoughts?

Folks lets get behind the President instead of getting in his way like a road block.

Dear Mr. Cowing,

If you choose to mention any part of this email on your website, I request that my name NOT be mentioned; i.e. I would like to remain anonymous.

Before providing you with my comment to an UPI Article which you co-authored, "Bush to seek partners for space plan", I would like to first point out that I take a look at NASA Watch nearly everyday. I find NASA Watch to be a very good source of information about what is really happening in the Space Industry and am very impressed with your insites. I appreciate the NASA Watch website and your efforts to maintain it at the level you do.

As for myself, I have been involved in supporting the ISS Program in one way or another for approximately 15 years now. Please allow me to provide you with a different opinion regarding your comments in the reference article regarding the risk of bringing in the Russians as partners on future endeavors. I agree that the Russians had many problems meeting their early ISS schedule commitments. However, for the most part, I do not believe these delays caused as many problems on the U.S. side as was published; i.e. I do not agree with your statement that the Russian participation added "years to the station's schedule and costing additional billions". Certainly, some costs were incurred but it is my opinion that, for the most part, NASA was also having many development problems of their own and they were able use time afforded by the Russian delays to catch up on schedule delays they were having on their own side; i.e. if the Russian modules would have met schedule, the U.S. elements would have been in the delay and cost impact spotlight.

NASA's own problems have been coming to light more than enough the past couple of years so I do not want to dwell on the above point. Instead, I would simply like to point out that every partner in the ISS program has had to come to grips with budgets and schedules that were grossly underestimated in the original planning stages of the program. Every partner has had their own forms of management and development problems and continue to do so. However, NASA and their partners recognize these issues and are making efforts to correct them. I am optimistic that improvements in the management approach, although slow to be realized, are taking place.

Until the Columbia tragedy took place, I could not have said whether or not I personally think it was a good idea to bring the Russians into the partnership (I did not have sufficient insite to form an opinion one way or another). However, I can now tell you that I am VERY happy we brought them into the partnership; as they provide the only currently available transportation for crew and logistics supply to ISS. If the Russians were not part of the partnership, it is my opinion that, at a minimum, ISS would currently be unmanned. Leaving ISS unmanned for an extended duration could potentially result in risks that would lead to a decision to not reactivate it in the future; i.e. abandon it for good. Think about how many years of development and billions of dollars that would have been lost if we wouldn't have had Russia as partners in the ISS.

We'll save the discussion about whether or not ISS is being used wisely for another day (I would certainly like to see some improvement in utilization). The above commentary is based on the assumption that the ISS will be used in a manner that has already or will bring significant benefit to mankind.

Please feel free to print any or all of this commentary if you would like. Again, I simply ask to remain anonymous.

I look forward to any follow up comments you might have regarding this point.

Keith,

The leaked details of the new Moon/Mars program suggest that unrelated NASA projects would be zeroed out, including critically important and productive Earth observation, astronomy, and Origins programs. Certainly some projects would be worth sacrificing for this new effort, such as the shuttle and (NASA participation in) the station, aeronautics research, and other planetary exploration projects. But it would be a big mistake to end space-based telescopes, which have been some of the most successful and productive NASA projects.

I would propose that NASA be retooled as strictly a technology and space-services agency, dedicated to building a crewed space program including the Moon base and Mars missions. It would do applied research to support these efforts, but NASA would no longer fund science projects such as satellites and probes. Instead, the funding and organization of science research, including the science programs on the Moon and Mars, orbiting and Moon-based telescopes, etc., would be funded and run by the NSF, NOAA, and other agencies and entities. As appropriate, these agencies would contract with NASA (using their own funding, not NASAs) for Moon-base usage fees, ISS usage fees, etc.

This would allow a more targeted mission for NASA, which would reduce the management problems it has faced for decades, and hopefully improve its morale and effectiveness. In addition, financial accounting for science missions would be easier and more accurate, and they would no longer compete with the crewed space program for funds.

Missions like Cassini might be run almost entirely without NASA, with launch services from private companies, funding and organization through the NSF (which would now run JPL), and only communications support from the DSN. Science projects on the moon (say, an Origins telescope) or Mars (say, funding geologists and xenobiologists to visit) would be coordinated with NASA, but NASA would act like a contractor, providing support services and base access, and would not be the project leader.

Perhaps this is what Bush and O'Keefe have in mind, I don't know. Separating technology and exploration from science will only benefit both. However, sacrificing science for technology and exploration would be a mistake. Failure to maintain and fund very successful space science programs after restructuring would be limiting the US' space program to flag-planting, just as much a disaster now as it was during Apollo.

I've stated this before: If this initiative ultimately kills the aeronautical side of the house, for the sake of all these good folks at Dryden who'll lose their careers, I hope the powers that be take the first A out of NASA.

Keith & co.:

I am 100% supportive of a reinvigorated space program!

Let me voice an argument in favor of a robust visionary space program which I have not heard in the debate thus far. From my signature, you can see I am an aerospace engineer, working for the US Air Force. Most people who are around my age who are in science and engineering chose those careers because of the space program of the '60s. In the years since then, few of us have actually worked in the space program, and fewer still for NASA, but look what my generation of scientists and engineers has accomplished. Look at the technology which has allowed us to win our post-Vietnam conflicts with minimal casualties. Look at the information infrastructure and computer technology available to the average person. Look at transportation - safer, more reliable cars and aircraft which operate far more cleanly than their 1960s counterparts. The list goes on and on. Those things didn't just happen, but were created by a generation of engineers and scientists initially inspired by ! Apollo. Our society is where it is today - not only technologically, but also economically - because of them and their efforts.

That same kind of visionary program will inspire our children to enter technical fields. Again, most of them will probably not work in space exploration, but think about what they will create and do for our society and world during their lifetimes. A bold, visionary space program is an investment in our future as a technological society - not a short-term investment, but one which will bear fruit for half a century. Viewed in that light, can we afford NOT to have that type of program?

Dear Keith,

you have a beautiful web site! This is to ask you to use your resources to settle the single most important question: what is the minimal price of a manned Mars mission?

Sombody says 30 bn, sombody else says 1 tr. This is a factor of 30 uncertainity. ANY other debate on space policy is irrelevant until this is settled somehow. If it is 1 tr, then there will be no manned Mars in our liftime, no matter what. Do not waste time to discuss the issue further then. If it is 30 bn, or even 100 bn, then it is on the scale of the usual manned space budget. Stop to discuss the worthiness of 1 tr vs. the poor, then.

Obviously, costing a mission is a huge work. But I guess, somebody, more knowledgable than me, should be able to tell it within a factor of 3, instead of a factor of 30!

The 30 bn comes from Bob Zubrin. I am aware of the credibility problem here. Suppose, he is wrong. Then, why does not anybody is interested to say so publicly, for instance in your site, with good arguments about the problems with Mars Direct? At least, I can attach a name to the number 30 bn.

Some say, that the NASA Mars Design Reference Mission would cost 40-50 bn. I was unable to find this, or any, number in the text. They made some costing, but published the relative numbers only. Can you find this information? Even if the 40-50 bn is an urban legend, it would be difficult for me to imagine a 1 tr price tag attached to the DRM.

Finally, and most importantly, who is the source of the 1 tr number??? It was cited as "informal NASA estimate" in the BBC "Have your say" section, and the debate went on accordingly. It was cited by Sen Liberman without mentioning the source. He oppose it, if this is the price. It is for the DRM? Or the NASA's DRM shares the credibility problem of the Mars Society's Mars Direct? If so, why? Or, some people just do not like DRM and propose something more grandious? A what kind?

As soon as we have an order of magnitude answer, we shall start debating the value judgements of Moon, Mars, Erthly Matters. Not before.

Let's be vigilent

I speak here as a member of the Mars society, french chapter "association planete mars".

While one can only endorse and support an initiative that goes beyond low-earth orbit, I still happen to believe that only a real new challenge that goes beyond the moon to gain maximum support will make mankind any real progress. As Heinlein pointed out "reach low earth orbit, and you're half way to anywhere in the solar system". But I might add (somebody did before me for sure) "reach mars and you can go anywhere beyond".

Mars is precisely the remaining "half way " to achieve solar system exploration. The moon isn't. So while there might not be much to be done to change the course of things under this administration (an activist push for mars), let's remind everyone at every step of that new space exploration initiative (the term frightens me, but it's reminding me so much of his father's space fiasco) , that MARS IS THE GOAL. More than ever, Mars enthusiasts should rally, identify missing R&D goals in this plan, speak up and criticize in a wise way, possibly undertake private research (in-situ propellant production, artificial gravity) and publish. "Mars direct" obviously influenced Nasa in designing its "reference mission" 6-7 years ago, which proves that serious outside initiatives from the private sector, trusts and societies can be very much welcome.

Plus, that initiative does not render the "Mars direct" or "reference mission" obsolete. There will still be the need for a heavy-lift launch capability (1 to the moon, 2 or 3 + possible LEO Docking to mars), which is really the missing part of any serious plan beyond apollo, either on the moon or towards mars.

Europe, with its conservative mind (I feel more american than european on space, only a few people here understand the word "frontier" and the spirit it carries as americans do, in french "frontiere" means.....boundary ), has a plan called "Aurora" which sets very similar goals. It attracts very much support from the public, but I feared that it would remain a bunch of powerpoint presentations when serious money issues come to play. Without U.S. momentum and the feel to not let a "space gap" grow, Europe will not move. We do have however the capability to build a heavy lift launch vehicle with Ariane V (10 tons to GTO or to the moon in its current version, put 4 or 6 boosters instead of 2, and you already have a significant improvement in launch capability), so there is room for improvement and cooperation, particularly if the shuttle "stack" is dismantled rather than converted into an orbiter-free launch vehicle as it seems to be planned.

Should we all (U.S.+ Europe) be thankful to the Chinese to re-engage space competition ? The first manned chinese flight and the Columbia accident were for sure the two most contributing factors to such a change in spaceflight policy. Now I only hope that astronauts taken onboard will be scientists from various origins, rather than pilots. I don't want that space program to be a gift to military pilots or tip-toeing government employees only, like it was in the past. I want the right scientific mission to be defined, the right pork-barrel free hardware built to achieve this, and the right people sent up there, people with genuine field experience in science and engineering, not just military pilots with "mickey mouse degrees" or with no practice since they left college. It's easier to turn a scientist with a PhD + flight experience into a valid mission commander, than a military officer into a valid scientist. Automation made great improvement since apollo, and if in the military world UCAVs are the only combat aircraft type researched for the future, I don't see why on a 4 or 6 people spacecraft, the science community should sacrifice 2 seats to stick-shakers only. I want many other Harrisson Schmidts on the moon, not other Neil Armstrongs..

Till then,

ONTO MARS ! MARS OR BUST ! HA MARC ! Mars ou creve !

Wow, Soyuz and Ariane? That's going to do wonders for the balance of trade, and the loss of American manufacturing jobs. I suppose that's just too bad for the L-M and Boeing people, but apparently taxpayers' money is getter used going straight to Moscow and Toulouse, at least according to the Bush Administration.

Since I don't see the good folks at Arianespace or Energia donating their time, if you know what I mean...

I'd love to see a robust program of solar system exploration, manned and un-manned, as much as anyone, but this is warmed-over SEI, heated up by the needs of Campaign '04, and somebody's oedipal complex...

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but do you wonder why Nixon cancelled Apollo 18-20? Hint: It wasn't because of the Great Society, although that whole Guns & Butter challenge came into the mix.

Before the Bush Administration sets course to put a man on the Sea of Tranquillity, or the Mare Moscoviense, (much less Chryse or Utopia) they should try and return 100,000 men safely home from the alien world they sent them to last year - where we've already suffered 500 casualties.

And, come on, Crew Exploration Vehicle? Sounds like a vehicle for exploring the crew...one hopes it won't be nicknamed the "Probe"...

It should have been Cislunar Exploration Vehicle, or Orbital Exploration Vehicle, or Orbital Spacecraft, anything but Crew Exploration Vehicle...

The US does need to asess our national needs in Earth-orbital, cislunar, and translunar space, but it should be done with forethought, not as a campaign stunt that will blow over before the primaries - thankfully, after November, perhaps it can be...

Ad Astra Per Ardua

Keith,

Looks like everyone down here in Florida- after hearing about the "Bush in the Moon" Plan- has just about wet their pants.

But hold on.

This is the same president that promised to send billions to Africa to battle aids, and then requested less than 10% of that figure from Congress. It's the same guy that promised to help local governments in the war on terror- and has come up far, far short.

The Moon announcement is nothing more than a craven attempt to fatten up the electorate before the election- especially Florida. George needs folks to believe he has a vision, when, in truth, he can't even spell vesion.

Michael Spencer

ps: keep 'em coming, Keith... but out her in Reality Land we really don't care who got it first :-) we only care that it's on your sites...

Keith;

Great coverage so far of what was expected at Kitty Hawk on Dec. 17. The optimist loves it, but the curmudgeon wins out here. The Congress will never fund this program correctly. They haven't been funding NASA correctly for years.

"What price can you put on things that no one has ever done before?" I believe that Admiral Gehman spoke those truthful words June 12, at the final public hearing. Space is not a business for bean-counters. We've all seen what "better, faster, cheaper" gets done. "Space is just a question of money. How far can you go?" That paraphrase, from the world of auto racing, applies here as well. We either buck up and spend the money or we can all just sit here and gripe about how much money NASA wastes, while our generation harvests the fruits of five decades of space research, and plant nothing for our children to reap.

If it is forced to become an international program via the same sort of bilateral agreement-type instruments we are implementing ISS with, than it will be terribly difficult, expensive, and slow going.

Keith,

First of all, great job and many thanks for all the great work you do with NASAWATCH. It is nice to know that folks beyond the walls of my office care about the space program AND THE REASON for it...SCIENCE. Too many folks here at KSC are so in lust with the launch vehicle or the ISS components that they have forgotten WHY all this sexy stuff was developed in the first place. Too many folks outside of the gates of KSC don't know about all the great work being done by the Space Science community. Thanks for keeping things in balance.

I need to correct you on a comment you made in response to the article on retiring the shuttle. You contend that there is no need to continue to operate the shuttle after the ISS is complete as the ATV and HTV can handle the upmass.

While this is true, there IS a need to return the Minus Eighty degrees Laboratory Freezer for the ISS (MELFI) from the ISS periodically. There are three of these facility class racks that are scheduled to fly up to the ISS, get filled with samples and return to earth. These racks are far too large to fit in a Soyuz.

There is a definate need for the Shuttle after the ISS is complete unless a similarly capable vehicle is developed.

As far as the U.S. going back to the moon, I can report from my cubicle at KSC that most of my co-workers and I take a similar view. While we are excited at the prospect of doing something beyond earth orbit, the "Jerry Maguire" comes out in us..."Show me the money". When W can do that bit of slight of hand convincingly, I'll believe it.

Someone who cares at KSC

(Yes, management at KSC still plays "whack-a-mole" with folks who speak out against the party line)

I remember watching the first moon landing on TV while living in the UK during the 1960's. How excited we were! And now here I am living in Auckland, N.Z. the other side of the world and again, feeling the growing sense of exhiliration at the prospect of a future manned-mission to Mars.

One is never too old to space out! I just hope that I'm still alive to see it! Well done USA. Long live the spirit of enterprise!

Regarding support of ISS operations after retirement of the space shuttle, you stated the following:

"The plan calls for retiring the Shuttle once ISS is complete. At that point large things (such as those the Shuttle carries) will no longer need to be carried there. Europe's ATV and Jpaan's HTV will provide logistics support much as the MPLM does."

My question is, will the ATV and HTV be able to carry all of the items that will inevitably need replacement, such as Control Moment Gyros or Solar Arrays? It seems to me that the space shuttle, and its remote manipulator system, will be needed as long as the station remains operational.

Secondly, since you seem to be a big proponent of the Bush administration's new proposal, I'd like to ask how you feel about abandoning RLV concepts in favor of Apollo-style capsules and expendable launch vehicles. I'm concerned that the new plans will do nothing to make access to space more routine or affordable. I certainly would not have expected NASA's next generation spacecraft to be a capsule sitting on top of an expendable rocket, and to me that seems like a huge step backwards. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that Bush's proposal will be a Trogan Horse. It will allow him to pursue nuke power in space ( project Promethius) to support SDI while promoting the technology as the only way to get to Mars. We will never go back to the moon or put a man on Mars. Bush is a very pragmatic and religious man with more character traits of a Caeser than a philosopher. I should know, that's why I voted for him and the war cabinet he put together.

Scrapping or drastically reducing everything to follow this new plan is troubling. What will be left if the Bush plan never gets off the ground after slashing everything else? Early reports on the Bush program have sounded a little scattered. If Bush/Rove have cobbled together a plan to satisfy special interests rather than produce results, it could be an unmitigated disaster economically and for space exploration. Example: JPL's heroic unmanned program has been NASA's shining star, and should not be cut.

A narrowly focused, well defined, affordable program that does not require eliminating all other programs is what we need.

The President could make political hay, and provide a truly inspirational long term vision for the manned program by following the Mars Direct plan. By focusing on one goal, and the hardware needed to accomplish that one goal, the costs and schedules could be reined in, and results produced. These same designs could be reused for decades to rapidly and economically expand our presence on both Mars and the Moon. Nothing else really compares.

Keith,

I love your website. Keep it up! Like many space junkies, I am eagerly awaiting President Bush's anticipated announcement for a Return to the Moon and Beyond. I have complained since I was in high school (when the shuttle was new) that NASA lacked direction. I will start off by saying that even if Bush doesn't follow the exact course I would hope for, it is still a lot better than the aimless wondering in space we've done since Apollo's end.

I have heard many rumblings that the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) contractors were leaning toward an Apollo-type capsule, rather than a plane, anyway. I've always favored a capsule because they have a robust abort capability and because they lend themselves well to a lunar effort. I also favor retiring the shuttle as soon as feasible, and I've studied the NASA budget in depth and I find myself wondering why NASA is charged with a number of programs. Certainly, if NASA divests itself of programs that are related to neither aeronautics or space, a great deal of money could be saved for the manned program.

So it seems the United States will build a capsule that first services the International Space Station then goes to the moon. A modern day Apollo. Wonderful. Still, the plan has us retiring the shuttle before the "Crew Exploration Vehicle" is available and relies on Soyuz for crew transport and logistics and on Europe and Japan for logistics. That could be a real problem. Besides the Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles being terribly small, I thought I had heard Russia wasn't obligated to provide those vehicles past 2006. Clearly, they struggle to meet their present commitments. Europe's Automated Transfer Vehicle should help fill a lot of the gap left by shuttles. Still, the ATV hasn't been proven in flight, and if I understand correctly, there are only eight vehicles committed at this point. Yes, Russia has been left to sustain ISS alone for two years, but now ISS is down to a caretaker crew of two and its growth is halted. Maybe we should just hand it over to them and rename it "Mir 2." Certainly, Russia will never build "Mir 3" on its own. Heck, maybe we should save the Chinese the trouble of spying and overtly assist their manned space program in return for letting astronauts hitch a ride to ISS on Shenzhous.

The station's scientific promise has been oversold, and if we are re-focusing on the goal of sustaining humans in space, I am fine with that. Most of the science on the station ought to be directly related to its contribution to human space. Why not finish the space station as originally planned? In particular, I mean building an American habitation module. Learning how to keep astronauts alive for the long term on earth orbit is going to be key in any Mars effort, and the ISS can still be a wonderful proving ground in our preparations for Moon Bases and Mars Flights. And while we're building a new Crew Exploration Vehicle, why not build an unmanned cargo vehicle (similar in concept to Russia's Progress and Europe's ATV) as part of the vehicle family? Such a vehicle, launched by Delta 4 or Atlas 5, could supply the space station, and more advanced versions might be adapted to uses in the lunar and Mars projects. As for the lunar mission, the US does not have a Saturn 5 class booster anymore. Are we going to use Delta 4 and Atlas 5 to assemble a lunar vehicle in orbit? I favor resurrecting ideas for a shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle, as the shuttle launch system seems to me to be very robust. It seems to me that no long-term manned lunar or Mars mission could get off the ground by

From the word to proceed, I would:

Return the shuttle to flight as soon as safely possible and retire it only after an American ISS Crew Transport is operational.

Immediately divest NASA of all programs not truly related to "aeronautics" or "space." Consider a NASA Base Re-Alignment and Closure (BRAC), similar to military base closures of the 1990s.

Immediately resume work on the space station's American habitation module.

Concurrently, restructure OSP program to feature the following vehicles:

Crew Rescue Vehicle (operational by 2008)
Crew Transport Vehicle (operational by 2010)
ISS Supply Vehicle (derived from the CTV, operational by 2011... may not be needed if Europe ponies up enough ATVs)
Lunar Command Module (tested by 2012)
Lunar Excursion Module (tested by 2013 with an Apollo follow-on mission by late 2013)

Immediately begin the process of man-rating the Delta IV and / or Atlas V (I prefer Delta IV Heavy because it could launch CTV and a cargo module).

Immediately begin developing a shuttle-derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle for first flight by 2010

As the Crew Exploration Vehicle ("APOLLO New Generation") progresses, determine best course for lunar basing options

As the Bush Proposal seems to do, fold space nuclear propulsion and unmanned planetary exploration into long term plans for manned exploration.

Begin designing a follow-on to ISS, which would use the Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle to launch a large space station core module by 2015.

I listen to Tom DeLay talking about this and all the good things like jobs in Houston this will create. What is so ironic about this is that he and other Republican Representatives in the Houston area withheld Federal Funds for Houston Mass Transportation. He is willing to transport a few to the Moon and Mars and ignore the masses that need to get around the city of Houston.

Let's not forget one additional benefit for George W... by eliminating Earth Science research from NASA, he will put climate change policy even further on the back burner. Without global remote sensing data, his followers will be able to hide behind "uncertainties" in climate modeling, and avoid taking action. Does anyone really think that NOAA or USGS will get funding increases to make up for the elimination of NASA missions? I think not.

Certainly is bad news for Goddard (where I work). Then again, Maryland keeps voting Democratic, so what do you expect?

The $1 trillion number is not too far off, considering that engineers (economic illiterates) will most likely manage the project. Of course NASA has to define the parameters for the new space craft and mission objectives before any reliable numbers (cost) can generated,

I think it is wonderful that for the first time in over thirty years we are talking seriously about getting humans out of low earth orbit. Men landed on the moon when I was in 10th grade. I today turned 51 years old and we have not done a lot in human space exploration since then. It is also wonderful that we are building some space infrastructure. I like Zubrin's enthusiasm, but the last thing we need is an Apollo like mission to Mars followed by nothing for the next half century.

One thing that would be best is to continue with a version of the X-20 program we abandoned after the X-15. There is no reason we can't have an air breathing component for the lower stage and a rocket for the upper stage. It is being done right now in the California desert on private funds. Achieving low earth orbit at a much cheaper rate is a good start for any space program.

All that I can say is hoo-ray for the Chinese. A major driver for the Apollo program (if not THE driver) was the cold war, and our fear that the Soviet space program would dominate the high ground, and lob nukes at us from space. Similarly, I believe that the reason the current administration has focused on a new vision for NASA is similar - our fear of the Chinese space program, both politically and militarily.There's also the prestige factor. There is no way that the world's only mega-power is going to let another nation one-up us in space. Better to partner with them, but that's the next step.

After working with NASA since 1980, I am a little cynical. But I view this new initiative as a good thing, assuming it gains and maintains momentum. Dubya may be making the pronouncement, but the administrator has to make it happen.

For two decades, NASA's science programs have been the agency's star performer and have led in the exploration of space, from the birth of the galaxies and the discovery of extrasolar planets to the realm of the giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn. Even now, it is the remarkable -- and very public -- success of the Spirit mission on Mars that is making possible the planned Presidential announcement this week on the future of human exploration.

In all the speculation about NASA's future, very little has been said about the future generation of even more remarkable Earth and space science missions. Is this good news? Or reason for concern? Is NASA planning to slash and burn the world's premier science programs to "rescue" the troubled -- and troubling -- human spaceflight program?

Talk is cheap....er, $800M next year if you believe the budget. I was working on Mars exploration when George the first said "back to the Moon and on to Mars". Within a few months all Mars exploration, including robotic was cancelled. Notice that nothing is promised until long after George the second will be out of office, but if saying back to the moon gets him elected that's all he cares about. Also, investing more $ in yet more infrastructure (first in ISS and then the Moon) will delay not only human but robotic exploration of Mars.

Deja Vu? I think I've seen lovely pronouncements from Nasa before. A low cost space station Freedom, X-33 STO shuttle replacement, routine access to space via shuttle, Mars or bust by President Bush sr. But now there is reason to hope that the US gov't has turned a corner in support of a visionary space program. The Shuttle is too fragile to rely on much longer. One more disaster and it never flies again so a replacement is needed urgently. The Space Station is nearly done and its limitations obvious to all. The powers of the world have discovered Mars, the Moon and in between. Bush has identified the control of space as a key national security objective.

So this may be a time when a pretty romantic vision is a useful veneer to serious national security goals.

Unless there is greater competency in areas I am unaware of, this plan is likely to fail.

Reasons:

1) As others have stated, CEV is likely to follow a Shuttle-like development cycle unless control is removed from the current NASA middle management. Nothing in current reports indicates that such a move is likely.

2) The Washington Post reports that the narrowing of choices prior to the President's final decision was made by Karl Rove. Rove's central role in policy selection indicates that the plan will likely be designed for maximum political impact instead of technical competency.

3) Since removing large numbers of jobs from Bush-supporting states (Texas, Alabama, Florida) is not a wise political move, Rove's intervention dictates that, contrary to the requirements of point 1) above, JSC, MSFC, and KSC are likely to be awarded control of the new manned missions.

4) Reports of curtailing non-human missions are likely to cause political controversy, as popular programs such as the Webb Space Telescope (Hubble's replacement) and Earth observation (the primary mission of Stennis) are shut down. This problem might be solved by marginally increased funding in other agencies, particularly NOAA, who might take up the discarded missions.

5) The description of an Apollo 8-style Mars mission is deeply troubling. No Mars plan yet proposed involves a manned mission that remained in Mars orbit for a long duration. Possible explanations include:

a) The "Apollo 8" mission described is actually a version of the Ph.D. Mars mission proposal. Reasonable at first glance.

b) The "Apollo 8" mission relies on more powerful boosters that eliminate the need for Hohmann transfer orbits. Ambitious and unlikely.

c) The "Apollo 8" mission refers to, in fact, a flyby mission that tests transfer vehicle life support and demonstrates free-return trajectory. Little return for such a mission; an asteroid flyby mission (possibly with probe delivery?) would achieve the same goals and return much more value.

d) The "Apollo 8" mission is nothing of the sort -- the language has been garbled. Instead, the plan is a variation of the 1997 Reference Mission, in which the ERV remains in orbit while a MAV transfers astronauts back to the surface. Probable, but cannot be confirmed.

e) Alternatively, the "Apollo 8" mission could mean that an extra, unmanned ERV is sent ahead of a manned mission, along with the unmanned MAV. Makes the most sense, but does not fit the language of current reports.

f) The "Apollo 8" mission is just what it is described as: a habitat sitting in Martian orbit for months to years, snapping photos and returning home under its own power. Such a plan implies a direct parallel with Apollo 8, and a complete disregard for the advances of Mars Direct and the NASA Reference Missions, implying a deep disconnect between the White House/NASA HQ and the engineering staff. Such an interpretation feeds my deep-seated fears.

6) The words "construction of spacecraft in Earth or lunar orbit", again, evokes images of SEI, the 90-Day Report, and the 1989 policy disaster. A favorable interpretation of such words would be the simple two- or three-part docking procedures of the 1997 Reference Mission. However, the worrisome phrasing implies "Battlestar Galactica".

7) The plan, as noted elsewhere, makes absolutely no provisions for developing new heavy-lift capability, although it thankfully provides time to develop such capability.

8) The concept of a presidential oversight commission is welcome, but unless such a committee is given extraordinary powers to circumvent established bureaucracy, such a committee will be completely ineffective.

Comments on the new Bush policy to be announced assuming it is as reported thus far....

Let's get behind Bush in this election, and then let's continue to push for support. Let's finally get off the dime and do something tangible. It's great for the nation's morale, imagination and continuing prosperity to take on such a project.

I left NASA in the wake of budget cuts that killed (among other things) the project I was working on - X-38. I have been monitoring events from afar and really would love to see us go to the Moon and Mars. After the AMAZING feats accomplished at JSC during the Lunar Mars Life Support Test Projects, all of the recent JPL successes, etc. I think that it can be done...BUT...all of the centers still need to beef up their technical and managerial expertise for it to happen.

I look forward to showing my kids their efforts through a telecope.

I am happy that President Bush has a new vision, but I have a two problems with the implementation.

1. The OSP is a hangover of the NGLT and it looks like the proposed CEV will be a hangover of the OSP. You cannot make major changes in requirements and not impact the schedule (i.e., 2007 unmanned test flight.) Project success depends on writing good requirements and acceptance criteria. This is one reason that ISS had budget and schedule problems. The OSP needs to be cancelled and a new program initiated for the CEV.

2. OSP management was not successful running NGLT and CEV will not be successful with the OSP legacy. If the management is not changed, we have no chance of getting to ISS let alone the moon.

Going to send folks to the Moon? to Mars? give me a break! George the 1st tried that in 1989 and it was a bust -- and NASA was in better shape and the country was in better shape then than it is now. Your article notes that for the 2005 budget and beyond " programs not related to human space flight will be curtailed or terminated." (may not have gotten the quote exactly, but I think that's the gist of it). Does this mean that the fabulous science that the space and earth science folks have been doing SUCCESSFULLY will be rewarded with budget cuts? So MER and Stardust and Cassini and, and, and....are history? What a truly evil plan (but then what else did I expect from these people?). This Administration can put all the fancy initiatives it wants on the table. It won't change the fact that its unjustifiable war and ill-conceived tax cuts have mortgaged our childrens' and their childrens' futures. NASA won't get the money and even if it does, the CAIB was pretty clear that the agency doesn't have the internal organizational wherewithal to do what the President may propose.

"The still-unnamed program will culminate with a landing on the moon in 2013..."

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that it didn't take ten years the first time, and then we were starting from scratch?

At last exploration!

Better, faster, cheaper, faster has given away to smarter, farther, permanent!

This is the sea change NASA has need for a generation.

This is it. This is our chance that will not likely come again for this generation. The space community and supporters of manned space exploration have to be firing on all eight cylinders and speak with a single strong voice of support behind the President. Be prepared to push hard and let Congress and the Senate know there is strong long term support. If it fails, you'll need only to look in the mirror to know who to blame. I wish I had something inspiring or poetic to add, but its not time for that, there has been too much of that. Its time to go to work and help in anyway we can. Lets get it done.

"Sources said Mr. Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing programs that do not support the new effort." Since nearly all of the beneficial work that NASA has done in its history has had nothing to do with humans in space, this is truly sad. Although I'm neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet, I am quite certain that the Bush plan, if adopted, will lead to the end of NASA. Without the Cold War competition to serve as motivation, the U.S. public will not support spending the money. Except for a small number of die hard space exploration zealots, no one cares about going to the moon or to Mars. This plan has as much chance of succeeding as George, Sr. has of being elected President again.

As a former NASA civil service employee who resigned in '94 (I got fed up with doing nothing but viewgraph engineering every time Code __ came down with a new initiative of the week) I recall another HUGE, MAMMOTH and VISIONARY but completely unfunded Bush I initiative called the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). I hate to be a cynic, but does anyone else out there smell a political rat?

Let's Roll - We have been waiting for a long time for a vision for the space program. Nasa has not had a vision since Kennedy - that's a long time. We are excited about the upcoming announement and program changes. God Bless President George Bush. I have been in the space program for 20 years and this is exciting.

The administration's "plan" to have our space program go somewhere is what is sorely needed. I applaud any "plan" that would curtail or cancel any program that does not support the goal. That includes having NASA stop doing things that should be funded by other agencies. It's past time to phase out the shuttle, resurrect a new and improved heavy lift booster (Saturn Vb?). At the very least, we have a magnificient opportunity to stop letting politicians make engineering decisions. I remember when Saturn V production was halted. The money spent on development of the Shuttle rather than spending the same amount on increasing the capabilities of the Saturn V, was money wasted. The late Apollo era managers sold out a very mature system simply because the politicians said that people did not support the space effort anymore. So many plans that were on the drawing board to increase the capabilities to support other programs went right in the dumpster when the shuttle program was announced. Everyone who knows anything about engineering knows this. If the shuttle had not been trying to be all things to all people (who don't need it) we would have had a much smaller and more efficient orbital space plane AND the proven heavy lift capability of the Saturn V. These two systems would have assured our access to space as well as any construction/exploration/exploitation plans we wanted. Let's admit we made a mistake and move forward.

It always amazes me how much we focus on what NASA does with our money and yet we don't concern ourselves with the billions that the Government wastes in questionable programs that consistently fail to perform. After theColumbiaaccident we investigated and determined what it would take to fix the problems and yet after the 911 attacks and the obvious failures of the INS there is no open investigation into that.

Just my two cents worth.

I agree, it's about time! There are three points that immediately come to mind. (1) The Prez has to sell this to Congress. If he does, it will be doable; otherwise, it will be just another flash in the pan. (2) The plan apparently is to eventually to go to Mars (and perhaps beyond), with a permanent presence on the Moon as an interim step towards that end goal. This is the way to plan the nation's space program - two or three steps ahead, similar to a game of chess, for example. This doesn't seem to have been the case with Apollo (to me, anyway). (3) Finally, the policy, if accepted by Congress (i.e., the nation) provides the vision TO NASA. NASA's vision can then be the "how." This relationship is something we have sorely missed in recent decades.

Now this sounds like 21st Century Space! It is a shame it took a tragedy like Columbia to kick NASA into the new millennium. For so long NASA lacked focus and a common goal. That said, using the moon as a Space Station to get to Mars may sound ambitious or even impossible, but thats what folks said in the early 60s about going to the moon. I believe it can be done and that is what makes America GREAT. Using less than 1% of the U.S. budget on this program (NASA) is worth it...

Nothing real will come of this.

Like most GWB initiatives, there will be a big speech that sounds like exactly the right thing, but there will be no funding and no follow-through, and so little or nothing will happen. Last year AIDS in Africa, this year Men Into Space, next year, well, maybe there won't be a next year.

It's a damned shame.

I'm glad to hear that Pres. Bush plans to set a visionary course for the manned space program, and push aside the money-sink projects so fiercely protected by the entrenched bureaucracy. I fear, however, that NASA will toss out the baby with the bath water. To "terminate or curtail" the handful of unmanned Earth Science and Space Science programs that have managed to survive, in spite of the ever-increasing tilt of NASAs budgets towards the Shuttle and ISS programs, would be a tragic mistake. The money saved would be modest, the opportunity squandered immense.

"Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back or scrap all existing programs that do not support the new effort. Further details about the plan and the space agency's revised budget will be announced in NASA briefings next week and when the president delivers his FY 2005 budget to Congress."

What does this mean for NASA space sciences? Are they cutting TPF, JIMO, Prometheus, and the follow-on to HST? What about the various Earth-orbiting missions - Aqua, Terra and their follow-ons? Are they seriously considering jettisoning every program that isn't either manned or landing reconnaisance?

Hi Keith.

I just happened to be looking at my LifeSat files and found this file created in 1986. You could close your eyes, change a few dates and a few names, and viola: free flyer in 2004. Amazing how some things just stay the same. Focus particularly on bolded sections,

Does "During the remainder of its participation in space station activities, NASA's research would be redirected to sustaining humans in space. Other research programs not involving humans would be terminated or curtailed. " mean that Space Sciences probes to Mars, meteorites, etc. would be terminated or that they would be couched as precursors to human missions? If the latter, then that's got to stick in Weiler's craw.

For NASA, this is great news, but working for OSP (at JSC), I don't know if Bush's policy is going to help us or hurt us. Conflicting stories indicate OSP will be cut or OSP will be expanded. I hope the latter, but the main point is NASA is a getting a big boost from Bush. Let's hope for a lunar future!

I absolutely support the initiative because we will soon run out of land, water and air. But the reality is there is no money to pay for this. The President is only talking words. Moving humankind into space will fall on the shoulders of a future generation who truly recognizes the need.

I disagree that we "have been there and done that" regarding the Moon. We went there, looked around and left --gave up a great opportunity to establish a base for research and technology development in order to invest in a far more risky and tenuous partnership project: the International Space Station. A return to the moon - as our outpost in space - is long overdue, but we have a huge investment in the ISS; what do we do with it when NASA's resources are turned to the Moon? Salvage for the Moon base? Storage for interplanetary vehicles? I hope the new plan includes future uses for the ISS.

Where is all this money coming from? Since Bush or Cheney will not be in office in 10 years, will they be the President, Vice-President, or on the Board of Directors of an independent company who has a major government contract with this idiotic plan?

Can you spell H-A-L-L-I-B-U-R-T-O-N? Wake up!

Woo-freaking-Hoo is right!

One point I have seen no one articulate....what will NASA use for heavy lift?

Anyone who underestimates the need for heavy lift capability, in support of a new manned lunar and Martian exploration effort, is misleading themselves in thinking heavy-lift launch capability will not be needed to support the new initiative.

Fortunately, we have heavy-lift technology that is mature, is robust, and is available.

I seriously doubt the Administration is going to retire all of Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, at the same time the "space shuttle fleet" is retired...

Think about it.

Heavy launch capability is already in place at Kennedy Space Center. Mature manufacturing and resource flow for the manufacturing process already exists, at Michoud New Orleans, and with ATK Morton Thiokol in Utah.

How about retiring the Orbiter fleet only?

Shuttle "C" is at least on the drawing boards, the heavy-lift infrastructure that all the detractors are saying will be required is already in place. The VAB is already being scheduled for major refurbishment, serious studies for revitalization of the Apollo-era crawler-transporters is on-going, and Pads and B I am certain are being looked at for overhaul.

Why not leverage our existing strategic heavy launch resources to boost all of the heavy payloads out of Florida in an unmanned state, on the back of modified STS external tanks and SRB's, and fly the manned Crew Exploration Vehicles on next generation launch vehicles like Atlas 5 and / or Delta 4?

We should not discard the existing infrastructure I have illustrated in this e-mail. Our Russian colleagues and collaborators have set an enormously valuable example of the benefit and value in constant refinement of existing launch systems.

I think George Bush and Sean O'Keefe are listening....how about a civilian grass-roots effort to get the Washington decision makers to pay attention to these ideas? How about all of us who want to see this initiative happen get involved?

To give an example, I am planning to start back to university-level education in aerospace engineering this summer...why? I have always wanted to be involved in space exploration. I am a former profession airline transport pilot, with over 7,000 hours of experience in professional flying, up to an including the Boeing 727. I have had a lifetime love-affair with aviation and space. I am in a position where I can get additional education, and direct it towards the effort this e-mail articulates. I want to be involved with this, and will do what ever it takes to make it happen. All of you can do it, too.

We (like-minded people who understand the value of human exploration) are being given a second chance (after thirty years of politically-driven and politically correct manned "exploration" programs that went nowhere) to help again make the United States of America the premier space-fairing nation that our country should be, and the dominant civilization from Earth that colonizes our solar system.

Only time will tell if we have the intestinal fortitude to see the effort to fruition.

Keith

Thanks to you and Frank for a great article and I am glad that at least some of the press was involved and can get the story right.

The return to the Moon is long overdue and for those who have said "been there done that" it should be noted that Columbus did much more exploring of the "New World" on his first "mission" and that to abandon the moon after only covering about 0.000000001% of the surface of an entire planet is patently absurd.

With the growing importance of vacuum processing of high tech materials here on the Earth and the growing need for resources to implement the hydrogen economy, the Moon is going to be one of the most important locations in our civilization within the next thirty years.

If I were to make a recommendation it would be to pass regulatory and statutory incentives such as congressman Dana Rohrbacher's Zero G Zero Tax and other incentives so that private enterprise beyond the NASA/contractor world is involved. Any program that is completely dependent upon the government for sustainment is not sustainable and private enterprise will take part if the risk to capital is reduced.

Thanks to Mr. Okeefe for his vision and to President Bush and his father for their continuing support of the space program. I was involved in the SEI with the first contract which was a Lunar Orbiter that was the victim of a recission by the then democratically controlled congress. We look forward to a more favorable response this time.

As a geologist in planetary sciences I say this:

USA USA USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God bless President Bush and America

In the article "NASA to Start From Scratch in New Effort, AP" by Paul Recer the statement is made that, "After the Apollo program ended, the equipment, tools and plans for building the rocket were lost."

I find this statement to be in error...

1. Equipment

The original crawler and VAB from the moon landings are still in use today on the shuttle program. There is also copious documentation as to the location of numerous test articles and flight hardware that has been preserved around the nation, and even the world. For instance the Saturn V center at the Kennedy Space Center.

2. Tools

While I am sure most of the original fabrication equipment has been replaced or lost, would we really want to build a modern launcher with 1960's technology? Today computers give us the opportunity to design and test aerospace vehicles in ways that NASA engineers in the 1960's could never have dreamed of. Also, individuals, like Buzz Aldrin, have proposed new ideas like the combination of RS-68 engines with the Space Shuttle's external tank and Solid Rocket Boosters in order to create a heavy lift vehicle. This would maximize the use of existing infrastructure and still get us the power that we need.

3. Plans for building the rocket:

I attended "Space Camp", they call it Space Academy because I am probably too old to still want to be an astronaut, and I was given a tour of the archives at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center near Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

There is a room that is filled with documents written in direct support of the moon missions, some even written by Werner Von Braun himself! And I can only assume that other centers have similar archives.

This leads me to the conclusion that Mr. Recer needs to be much more careful about what he writes because there are people out there that read Associated Press articles and believe what is written in them. I have worked for a failed Aerospace start-up and I can speak first hand about the error of forgetting your history and starting from a completely blank slate.

Thank you for you time, sorry for the rant... I love your updates on NASA Watch.com

The provision of a long-term vision for NASA is long overdue. Some comments:

1) Finishing the station is important - glad to see this is part of the plan. It provides us with real experience building real spacecraft and maintaining it over long periods - that's imperative for long missions to Mars.

2) Retiring the shuttle after ISS assembly complete - again, that makes sense.

3) Going back to the moon is the next logical step. The complaints that say: "been there, done that" are simply uninformed. There is likely good economic and technical reason to go there next even apart from the obvious reality that it is better to learn how to do things three days away (and scant seconds away communications-wise) than to try them on Mars first. It's a stepping-stone in many ways and canot be ignored.

4) Setting a goal for Mars is the right thing to do. People are fascinated by it.

5) NASA aeronautics programs should be continued. Langley and Dryden specifically do great work that provides real benefits for our country.

6) NASA unmanned interplanetary probes should be continued.

7) The manned program should be refocused and wasteful programs eliminated. I believe that is what was meant when the articles stated that many programs would be halted to free up resources for new programs.

I'm looking forward to seeing what develops.

Comments on President's plan:

I like it. L-1 and L-2 are great places to start an integrated solar system exploration strategy, but the human and American part of me wants to see astronauts on the Moon. The one thing I don't like is the reliance on foreign launch vehicles. The Arianne V , even the ECA version, isn't any more powerful that our heavy versions of EELV's. Plus I think as we've seen with the Space Station the less international "cooperation", the less money and less time it will take.

One more thing. If the shuttles are to be retired before another manned vehicle is ready, and it sounds like with the first test flight of the ECA could occur in 2007, does that give us enough time to reach ISS partner assembly complete with the current launch rate? I doubt it.

So I think we should probably do one of two things: A "crash" shuttle launch campaign of 8 launches per year and get this thing done. The space shuttles are only getting older and sucking up resources. Or a complete shutdown of all ISS/Shuttle ops; that would result unfortunately in the disappearance of a permanent human presence in space, but would free maybe $10-15 billion to work on this new initiative.

Either works for me.

Keith: Awesome scoop!

This is just another feel good plan with no meat to it. First NASA management is incompetent, just a bunch of bureaucrats which can only deal with budgets and schedules. Unfortunately, the current administration is weakening the technical staff capability even more with their civil service staffing policies - less technical people and more bean counters. Also, the people in charge of fixing NASA's culture problem are the ones that created it in the first place, like having a criminal manage your bank accounts. This is going to go the way the first Bush plan went - to the wishful thinking bucket.

Well, the good news is that the government has, after losing 14 people and destroying 40 percent of its fleet, finally realized that winged vehicles aren't the way to go. Long overdue. Very long overdue.

However, there are some questions about the plan:

NASA will continue ISS construction when shuttle flights resume in about a year from now. That process will take what, two years? So, around 2007, after 23 years of work, we'll finally have a fully constructed space station at a cost approaching $100 billion. However, NASA will end its participation in the program about six years later when lunar flights begin.

That makes no sense. Unless NASA can turn the station over to some private authority that could run it with minimal financial support from the U.S. government and there are private ventures capable of using the facility commercially. Maybe that's part of the plan. If it is, it might make sense.

I also see nothing in the plan that will reduce the cost to orbit, which is the biggest problem that NASA (or anyone) faces in really opening up space. They can point to progress in commercial suborbital technology, but orbital flights are a much bigger leap. So, unless private companies can do this or there's some other NASA initiative, there's a big gap in the plan.

And wouldn't we need a new launch vehicle for lunar flights? I'm not sure existing vehicles can do an adequate job there. Unless they're going to try to resurrect Energia as a booster. I dunno,

There's also some understandable skepticism about how much this will really cost, or the government's ability to sustain such costs given Bush's economic policies and the massive budget deficits we've run up. And, oh yes, the administration's loopy estimates of the costs of Gulf War II. This could be another bait and switch where Bush grossly understates costs to sell a program and claims they were really unknowable when they become known.

On the plus side, once a new vehicle is developed, the cost of flying them should be considerably lower. That could free up a lot of money.

Also, the idea of sending humans on a three-year round trip to Mars to simply orbit the planet and do photo recon......HUH? Really?

I think this is exactly what America needs now, more than ever...a new challenge, and hope! I think we're all tired of waking up every morning, and reading about war and terrorism. We need a new focus, something to get excited about! This is it!

The article says that shuttle would be retired as soon as ISS is completed. If so, how will NASA send large & bulky replacement parts to fix systems on ISS that fail? such as the gyro package that currently needs to be replaced & is too large to fit inside Soyuz. Maybe some medium-size items could be launched inside an MPLM on top of an unmanned Soyuz, using the Kurs automatic docking system, but how would one replace an entire solar panel assembly without the shuttle to carry it up?

Ariane 5? Fine launcher, but what happens to the Delta IV and Atlas V heavies?

The suggested course (such as it has been revealed) defines an excellent approach to starting a sustainable solar system exploration effort that shows much thoughtful analysis behind it. Growing out of the shuttle is the only logical thing to do, given that it's design was shackled by too many conflicting requirements and too little development money; and the concept of the core-design crew exploration vehicle is brilliant (with its own proven precedent (Apollo's CSM)).

But having the President stand up and offer a bold space vision isn't as important a milestone as many people think; it is necessary, yes, but not the greatest challenge to overcome. Everyone interested in this matter should read Howard McCurdy's 'Space Flight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership.' The JFK 'Apollo' model was an anomaly, not the way Washington REALLY works (Freedom & SEI demonstrated that all too well, to say nothing of the retreats from exploration offered during the Carter & Clinton administrations). The engineering challenges ahead will be easy compared to the political challenge of sustaining a program for decades to come.

HOWEVER, I have a strong suspicion that the right people are in the right place at the right time to get this started. As many others have noted: FINALLY! (Interested parties might also want to read McCurdy's 'Space & the American Imagination' as well; while even I don't agree will all of his points, he addresses some important issues regarding the whys & hows of space exploration as set against the greater background of government & society.)

Now if only the media would let the public in on the fact that it's really not going to cost them very much money in the bigger scheme of things. If we DOUBLED what we've been spending on shuttle and ISS annually, that would be just a nickel for every TEN DOLLARS collected in taxes. Five cents for every 10 dollars you pay in taxes? I think that most Americans (sourpusses not withstanding) would consider that a worthwhile investment, even if just to have something going that inspires and excites our children--something, that is, that doesn't take ten days to take its first step off the lander.

I'm scared by a statement I saw in one article claiming that all NASA projects that did not support extended human spaceflight would be cut. I like Bush in general, but he can be to single objective driven. I hope you NASA guys are ready for a fight to keep non-human spaceflight projects going.

This is something all of us who care about space exploration should support. We have an opportunity here to do something exciting and worthwhile. It won't be easy. There will be problems and hardships, but we will need to stay the course.

The main challenges will be technical and political. It will take all of us to do our part to surmount these challenges.

I can't wait for the President's speech next week. Moreover, I can't wait to see American men and women on the Moon doing the prep work for eventual missions beyond.

Previous to this announcement I was concerned with Bush's war activities and was planning on voting for Dean. Bush can now invade Canada for all I care - if he's going back to the moon and on to mars, he's got my vote.

... the FOXnews article on this seems immediately negative. Also they report that, as soon as they shut down Apollo, that all tools and plans to build the Saturn V were "lost." So nary a blueprint or wrench from a Saturn V can be found? That's idiotic!

As far as my comments, not only is this the right thing to do and the right way to get there, but Bush and O Keefe are showing signs of something called LEADERSHIP.

While I applaud the administration's new attention upon the space program, there are two issues which concern me greatly:

1) New trips to the moon still strike me as an attempt to re-live past glories. We ve been there, done that. The real juice is elsewhere, and it seems to me that more time on the moon will be as much of an attention and money drain upon the system as ISS. We should push ahead full-bore for Mars and beyond rather than taking diversions upon the way.

2) The "period of several years when NASA would lack manned space capability" scares me. It sounds awfully similar to the Nixon administration s abandonment of Apollo. One must remember that times and administrations change. Mark my words: If there is an interruption in manned NASA flights, it will be even longer than the last interruption [between ASTP (1975) and the Shuttle (1981), and quite possible infinite.

While I'm very happy to see a long overdue re-evaluation of our nation's space exploration goals, I do have reservations over the Bush administration's plan. I think the irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration will come back to hurt us, and now is probably not the time to commit to a tremendously expensive space initiative, given that we are already facing tremendous deficits. I'm sure Bush wants to try to make himself look like Kennedy as the election approaches, but he is certainly no JFK.

Regarding the specifics of the plan, I'm happy to see that the shuttle fleet will be phased out within the next few years. The shuttle's retirement is long overdue, and I'm happy that we will no long hear this nonsense about keeping the space shuttle operational for another 20 years. However, I hope that we will not prematurely abandon the International Space Station after spending so many years, and so much money, designing and building it. It seems odd that we're talking about phasing out the space station before it has even been completed, and before any meaningful research has been performed aboard it. NASA needs to get some return on its investment, and we owe it to our international partners to see this project through. I would also like to see an effort to develop a new generation of fully resuable launch vehicles. That is apparently lacking from the administration's vision for our space program, and it seems to me that abandoning RLV technology in favor of expendable vehicles would be a step backwards.

Despite my reservations, I am glad to see a renewed focus on our space program, and I look forward to exciting developments in the coming years!

Bush the Younger appears to be fixing the things Bush the Elder didn't quite get right. In particular the War in Iraq and now a Mission to Mars. Coming up next "read my lips - no new taxes!"

I'm cautiously optomistic. It's the right series of goals, for the right reasons, proposed at the right time, supportable on it's merits, and maybe most importantly at a cost per year not much more than what has been spent over the last decade or so. If this plan doesn't fly, then the U.S. will have stated it doesn't care to explore anymore and I will start learning to speak Chineese.

Let's go for it!

Kudos on your scoop!

I have several concerns I would like to voice. First of all, while I am hopeful that this new effort will revive the manned space program, I fear what impat it will have on the unmanned program. If this initiative means cutting back the well laid out and successful programs we have had in space science and exploration, it will be no bargain. It would be a tragic replay of past mistakes if projects like Prometheus, the Webb Space Telescope, Discovery, New Frontiers, and the Earth Observing Program, are curtailed or cancelled to support this effort. These programs needs to be kept strong for the manned program to make any sense.

Secondly, it is not clear if this program will address the main problem: the cost to get into Earth Orbit. As long as it cost $20+ million dollars to put a man in space, progress is going to be expensive and slow. We really need to emphasize the development of technology that will make going into space as costly as crossing the Atlantic by airplane. Once this happens, activities like going back to the Moon and then to Mars, space industrialization, and space tourism will take off very quickly. This will also open the door for these space activities to be done by private industry, away from the vagaries of relying on politically inspired government funding.

Finally, I am concerned about NASA's ability to conduct this mission. NASA's track record on post Apollo manned space programs is very poor. What we have seen over the last twenty years is a great deal of waste, futility, and tragedy with the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle programs. Any new program must be managed more compentently. I hope that NASA management is up to the task.

I am hoping for the best, but we will see. Keep up the good work!

Comments on rumored Bush plan:

It all sounds very nice but until fundamental problems inside NASA are addressed this is just not going to happen. NASA has been decaying for many years and facilities and technical staff are no longer capable of doing anything this bold. Also, the tremendous explosion in misplaced bureaucracy inside of NASA is an ever growing drain on resources and morale. Unless things fundamentally change (technical leadership in charge instead of political/budgetary/procurement/planning/etc. and several $B/yr. are committed to rebuilding NASA), then this is just a feel good pipe dream that is never going to happen.

I am a firm believer that the current manned space effort is standing in the way of a better future. Money needs to be invested in developing new launch systems, life support systems, robotic probes, etc. and less on keeping a few people orbiting the earth trying to keep the Space Station operating. Budget realities are not going to allow for doing anything grand unless current systems are abandoned. Management of NASA is just not up to the job.

Would be nice if new Space Policy addressed total disaster that is going on in Aeronautics side of the house. Aeronautics is going to be needed for future space work (not to mention trying to keep the US competitive in making those boring things called airplanes, helicopters, etc.) and it is barely hanging on in spite of what seems to be the best efforts to kill it.

Good luck.

regarding returning to the moon and on to mars all I have to say is:

Its About Time!!!!!

I just hope congress/senate and politics in general don't make it so undoable that it just dies on the vine. Lets make the commitment and then fund it. Make it so George!

RE: Bush OK's new missions... I think the idea is a great plan from what has been released so far.. Lets hope future presidents keep the ball rolling as budgets tighten and that international partners become involved. However, I wish CNN.com wouldn't state ridiculous cost estimates though.... http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/09/mars.moon.whats.needed.ap/index.html states 'No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again, would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface.'

Love to know who is in on the informal discussion....

I think this is exciting stuff, but I would like to get clarification on a few things. Such as: what does the comment about cutting back on all activities not related to human space-flight? Also, what does "NASA would end substantial involvement in the space station project in 2013" mean?

Hopefully this plan will focus on minimising cost of access to orbit and the formation of an Earth-Moon infrastructure that is reusable and maintainable. Good luck.

Great story on Moon/Mars, and great news, I hope.

If they pull this off, I propose that the first lunar settlement be named Georgetown.

Once again you beat everyone to the punch, Keith. Congratulations are again in order! Kudos!

I am glad that there is some high level backing for the space program once again. Space exploration seems to have lost it's way, an amount of focussing has been needed for some time. My enthusiasm is tempered somewhat by the fact that it is Bush that has been orchestrating the focus. I suspect, whatever the public gets to see/hear, his eye will have been on space's military possibilities.

I believe President Bush and NASA are making the right decision about focusing our national space policy on human missions to the Moon and Mars. Our human spaceflight program has floundered for too long focusing on technology without a destination or purpose. We need a destination to give our space program a purpose and we need a global theme for moving human space endeavors beyond LEO. Ensuring the human race thrives and can survive at more than one location (Earth, LEO, Moon, Mars, etc.) and providing an off-Earth location for preserving knowledge and species, we can unit the nations behind this move into the solar system.

After reading the postings you put up on NASA Watch about Bush's Space initiative, I have to say that one part in particular bothers me.

"However, sources said, the current timetable leaves a period several years when NASA would lack manned space capability -- hence the need to use Soyuz vehicles for flights to the station. Ariane rockets also might be used to launch lunar missions."

I think and hope this is one issue the President may not get his way on. Only once before, during the what was supposed to have been a short, but turned out to be long, waiting period between Apollo and the Shuttle, has America not had a manned space capability. Relying on the Europeans and the Russians, that is sending even more tax-payer dollars to countries who have not been high on American most-favored lists, might very well be a non-starter in Congress. I know it is for me. What have you heard from Delay's staffers about all of this?

To leave a door open for opponents of the space program is silly and a strategic mistake politically, IMHO. Because at some point someone in Congress could suggest that if the Russians and Euros are so cheap, why build our own? Rather, we should look at lowering the Shuttle launch rate and closing non-essential or non-manned space exploration supportive programs rather than shutting down American manned space access for "several years" and paying the Russians and Euros to get us up there.

There is one light at the end of the tunnel. If NASA-JSC and NASA-Marshall screw this up, like Shuttle and the Station, then they are toast. So hopefully they are motivated to get it right this one time. Well, at least I can hope.

We can do better than this.

Return to NASA Watch