Bush Space Plan Envisions New Spacecraft(cost $750B to $1 trillion)

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-bush-space.html

Bush Space Plan Envisions New Spacecraft
By REUTERS


Filed at 4:22 p.m. ET
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush, in his big space policy announcement on Wednesday, will call for replacing aging U.S. space shuttles with a new generation spacecraft to get Americans back to the moon and on to Mars, officials said on Saturday.<snip>

Bush will urge Congress to approve development of a new capsule-type spacecraft, called a crew exploration vehicle, capable of performing a variety of missions, including trips to the moon and the International Space Station, officials said.

It would be launched using conventional rockets much like the Apollo capsules of the 1960s and 1970s and would have an escape system that the shuttle does not have.

The new spacecraft would replace a planned orbital space plane that had been expected to follow the space shuttle.
<snip>
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the moon/Mars initiative will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly as much as $1 trillion.<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Moon-Mars-Cost.html

<snip>Depending on how elaborate the plans are and how quickly the nation decided to accomplish them, the ultimate costs could be over $750 billion spread over many years.

<snip>An expedition to Mars is even more daunting. Just getting there could take months, unless new propulsion systems, using electric rockets, are developed to accelerate the journey. Then, there have to be dependable ways to get people to and from the Martian surface from an orbiting mother ship. And once there, there would be a need for power, probably coming from a compact nuclear generator that has yet to be designed and built.

Still another craft may be needed -- a robot cargo ship that could deliver supplies to the Mars to await the arrival of humans or to resupply those already there.<snip>

[Traje]

1. Nowadays, with corporate greed controlling everything...

...it's too expensive for governments to do anything significant anymore.

I live in New South Wales, Australia, and the State Government recently planned a new Railway Line to fit within the existing Sydney Suburban Network. It was canned because the Government could not afford it. When a state of six million people cannot build a few kilometres of railway track anymore, how on earth can a nation of 270 million fly moon and mars missions with technology that is yet to be implimented without comprimising affairs on earth?

Thus, this plan of Bush's is simply a duel attempt to awe the slack-jawed masses into the GOP vote, while pumping a few hundred extra billion dollars into Lockheed Martin.

[foreigncorrespondent]

11. Welcome to DU...

...my fellow Aussie. :)

Melbourne here.

[rooboy]

15. Welcome to DU too...

from sunny Brisbane :hi:

[cosmicdot]

2. Bush, plan and envision in the same breath - hmmmmm

[Just Me]

3. Endeavor is fabulous, timing sucks

,...and I am a bit confused about the whole proposal. I am definitely for endeavors involving space exploration. However, we are ear-deep in debt and are hurting and have so damned many problems that require redress. If the proposal involves a new directive without significantly more pile-on debt,...great. But, we cannot take on so much when we are suffering already.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. No need for worry

Bush doesn't give a flying f**k about space exploration. He's doing this to boost his approval ratings in time for the re-election. Period.

This will be another "Jawbone-of-an-Ass" maneuver, like his failed education programs, or his AIDS package, or his deep sympathy for the Working Man. All of it smoke, mirrors, and Pixar.

What will happen for real? A lot of aerospace companies will get to feed at the public trough with no demands for results. By the time the next inaugural is over, either the Democrat will kill it (and forever be labeled as "anti-space" by the GOP) or Bush will say, "there's not enough money to go to Mars and fight them varmints!" and let it die.

Mars will wait ... laughing ...

--bkl

[45th Med]

5. Why not use a Space Plane like the Shuttle......

to actually ACT like a shuttle? Take a landing capsule to the moon in the cargo bay, the Shuttle orbits the moon and a lander capsule returns to the shuttle.....shuttle returns to earth.......docks with space station and return capsule lands the crew?

[rocketdem]

6. insufficient payload in current configuration

The shuttle carries approximately 40 klbm to LEO. Now, that does not include the Orbiter but that is a reusable vehicle with a specific mission, i.e., earth orbit, reentry, and landing. So the total mass to LEO is about 215 klbm. This is still less than the Saturn V vehicle, which took about 250 klbm up, but it's not bad.

In theory, the shuttle stack, configured differently could have enough total power to take into orbit the payload necessary for a moon mission. But that is using the stack (engines, motors, and tank) in a completely different manner than it is currently used and it could not include a reusable landing vehicle or else you'd never get enough up there to support a lunar mission.

[45th Med]

10. Well, a newly designed Shuttle.......

The best thing about the shuttle is it is reusable. Maybe if it had 2 Atlas rockets instead of SRB's and the main engine wasn't used during liftoff, it could dock with the space station in orbit and refuel for a trip to the moon.

A bigger shuttle design would be good. Start from scratch incorporating an escape module. A small supply of fuel to make a powered landing. Use the robotic arm to capture the LM......

I think it'd be a good idea instead of the antiquated capsule approach. We're just throwing hardware away when we need to be able to reuse a vehicle and sustain many missions to the moon to establish a presence there.

[rocketdem]

12. starting from scratch

It is a necessity that a moon or mars mission will mean essentially starting from scratch. Yes, certain components can and will be carried forward assuming that nobody has their head totally up their ass, but the performance margins for any such missions, or even the current shuttle mission, are so tight that there's no way to avoid a large amount of starting from scratch.

The notion of liquid boosters rather than SRBs has been proposed a number of times. The difficult part, however, is simply dismissing the power that the SRBs provide. These are some hoss motors.

Air starting the main engines is certainly not impossible, but that does automatically translate to safety concerns. When you light them on the ground, you have an opportunity to make sure that everything is kosher before you blow the bolts. If you start them at 200,000 ft and something is wrong, it's a long way down.

The notion of refueling at the space station works in scifi movies, but doesn't really make much sense unless we specifically design it to be a refueling station. That would mean putting into orbit storage tanks and a cryogenic maintanence system. Then, of course, you'd have to perform several launches to fill the tanks. At that point it becomes a trade study comparing the complexity and advantages of multiple launches versus a single mega-launch. The latter was the choice in the 1960's.

I would hesitate strongly before accepting the notion of reentering with propellants. The last thing that you'd want with you under such severe conditions are potentially explosive liquids. That's like playing with gasoline around an open fire in my humble opinion.

Just some thoughts on the issue.

[Occulus]

19. We need a better way to get off the ground. nt

[mouse7]

16. Space shuttle REALLY needs to be replaced

The space shuttle was designed with 60's tech. It's time for a new vehicle.

That doesn't mean I want Dumbya in charge of it. He can't even feed the troops in Iraq with massive corruption screwing it all up.

[rocketdem]

7. I'll believe it when I see the $

The current NASA budget is approximately $15B per year. If you were to assume that this new program were to take twenty years, and if you were to assume that NASA suddenly dropped all other responsibilities (not likely), then at the very least you'd have to have the annual budget go up by a factor of 2.5, or to $37.5B per year. Since NASA will not be dropping everything else that NASA does, you're more likely talking about $45B per year, or a tripling of the current budget, at least.

I am a long time and involved space proponent. I would support this initiative if I honestly believe that it was real. Unfortunately, as others have said, it's more likely just a diversion. It's difficult to trust an administration that lies so easily and so refularly with impunity.

The speculation regarding the propulsion system for a Mars mission is not quite correct. A nuclear electric propulsion system, while very high in "gas mileage," would take too long for a manned mission. It's far more likely that they'd use nuclear thermal propulsion similar to that already tested in the late 1960's (called NERVA).

[cosmicaug]

8. My low expectations of the Bush administration finally paid off!

For once, the Bush administration has exceeded my expectations. I was absolutely certain he was going to go for a white elephant boondoggle of a space plane which will make the space shuttle program look good by comparison and instead the New York Times article seems to suggest they're going for the sensible choice instead.

However, I still think this is of little significance except as a way to divert funds from better science and to worsen the federal deficit.

[cosmicaug]

9. My low expectations of the Bush administration finally paid off!

I'm shocked and amazed. For once, the Bush administration has exceeded my expectations. I was absolutely certain he was going to go for a white elephant boondoggle of a space plane which will make the space shuttle program look good by comparison and instead the New York Times article seems to suggest they're going for the sensible choice instead.

However, I still think this is of little significance except as a way to divert funds from better science and to worsen the federal deficit.

P.S. Sorry for the double post.
On edit: Added postcript.

[sam sarrha]

13. Excuse to haul in Thousands of Foreign Engineers then cancel the project

then keep the engineers to cut he wages of out technical support and eliminate the cost of educating our own people.

[lovedems]

14. And just how is this going to be paid for???????

When he hits the stump and talks of cutting the deficit in half (which I have heard pundits saying) how do you talk of building NASA at the same time? That is some expensive shit!

Maybe his corporate buddies will foot the bill!

[rman]

23. isn't there one trillion missing at the pentagon?

so i'v heard.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. I don't trust this asshole for a minute

Not even with this space program. Stumbled across this piece from Sep 15, 2002. It's PNAC (of course) but here's what stood out the most ...

"calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US"

Here's the article: http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Even the internet part is occurring. Check this out: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1073739677234010.xml

*peeks through curtains looking for dark van at the curb*

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. This nonsense shows how desperate they have become

about the employment problem. Old man Bush made the same kind of pronouncements towards the end. Things must really be rotten for them to invent a pie this big in the sky.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

20. He's after California's electoral votes

With so much of the space industry located here, it's like dangling a carrot before a hungry mule. He lost California in 2000 (hell, he lost the election in 2000), and Rove intends to make sure that doesn't happen again.

[daleo]

21. With the gradual merging of NASA with military roles

This gives a great opportunity to hide plenty of space weapons in black budget items. That rocket we are told is being developed for Mars/moon and therefore costs giga-bucks (terra-bucks?) can hide plenty of jazzy atomic ray cannon research (or whatever). This is the real agenda.

Bushco has no real interest in Mars or the moon. Which is too bad, because a true international endeavor along these lines might be a good idea.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Corona all over again

You're absolutely right about hiding them like that. Just like during the satellite race.

[Barrett808]

24. "electric rockets" -- really NUCLEAR-electric rockets

Funny how NYT left out that little detail.

[catmandu57]

25. The sad thing is we could've done this

back when we had a budget surplus. Before two tax cuts to the rich piggies and endless war took the money. Now just keeping our kids educated, keeping retired, and disabled people alive will strain the the budget to the breaking point.
I'm afraid that this is just hot air escaping, designed to impress idiots. We're broke and are going to be broke for a long time to come.

[KansDem]

26. When did Halliburton get into the spacecraft-building industry? (eom)