H.R. 3057: To the Asteroids, Moon and Mars

apsmith writes "Democrats have just introduced the Space Exploration Act of 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives; the author is Nick Lampson of Texas, with 26 co-sponsors. The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA, beyond the Low Earth Orbit of the Space Station and Shuttle, outlining a series of incremental steps for human spaceflight. These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."

Comments

Now the important question...

[MagPulse]

Does it have a chance? Have any senators commented on it yet? At the bottom of the bill it lists $50 million for 2004 and $200 million for 2005. Are these on top of NASA's budget? If it is, with the deficit we're running now, this looks more like a political stunt. I hope it's not.

Re:Now the important question...

[SydShamino]

Well, keep an eye on the bill. If the cosigners cross party lines but are almost all in aerospace districts (and no, I haven't checked if they do and are), then I would categorize the bill as A), "a good idea, which passes only because it provides pork across the country."

If the cosigners are all Democrats, then one of two things will happen. B), the bill is scuttled by the current congress as "more pork barrel legislation on idealistic goals, when we instead need to deal with the real world and real issues." Or, C), the bill is modified to specify that only Haliburton can receive any of the funds, all Democrats end up voting against their own bill, and congress points out how Demos "vote against pushing the boundaries of science, technology, and human achievement that made this country great."

Option D) is that the bill is entirely Democrat backed, but it is embraced by Republicans and passes overwhelmingly. Personally, I'm not optimistic. :)

---------

The above post is to be considered Funny +1 and/or Interesting +1.

Re:Now the important question...

[hpulley]

Well, $50 million and $200 million are not a big slice of even NASA's current budget so they will be easy to slap on today. They won't accomplish much with that money, however, aside from some initial planning and research. To really do what is proposed will add much more, at least an average of $2 billion per year more according to most estimates of what it will take to get to Mars.

Hopefully some new technologies like nuclear electric propulsion will turn out to be fit for this sort of purpose to cut the travel time to Mars down to a reasonable level so we can survive the largest problem with such a mission, radiation. Since Bush likes nuclear technology, this one might even fly.

Re:Hmmm-

[Anonvmous Coward]

"You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?"

You mean like Digital TV by 2006?

Very Dangerous Legislation

[Grendol]

It is ALWAYS very dangerous to legislate must do goals like this. Whole beneficial programs can be scrapped to enforce some Idealistic Goal. Look at what Title 9 did to mens sports for example. This may blow up in our face. As much as I would love to get us out of LEO and on to greater things, this sort of legislation may hinder more than help.

Re:Very Dangerous Legislation

[cmowire]

True.

NASA has shown that they can't really get anything done quickly and cheaply. It's not going to get us much more advances if they are all put aside once the goals are reached. It's also not going to help unless you define what "reusable" means. Apollo capsules could be called reusable if you stretch things.

The problem is that NASA needs to be mostly out of the loop. NASA has interfered and bungled stuff up more than once. It is increasingly appearing (At least to me) that the best way to do things is to have at least 2 teams build one or more prototypes each that don't *need* to actually complete all of the goals of the project, they just need to pave the way for the production vehicle that occurs next. Especially for something that goes up to LEO.

The ideal program there is that they will stipulate some sort of contract that revolves around funding 2-3 teams to develop a launcher for $x million over y years and, once it's operational, paying $z/lb with a guarantee of at least w lbs shipped "up" per year. They could probably fit the ideal contract on 2 sheets of paper.

The language in this bill is quite interesting, actually. Nothing is said about getting people from earth to LEO, just about getting from LEO to other places. A reusable craft that goes from LEO to the moon is pretty easy in comparison to a reusable craft that goes from earth to LEO. Picture a module the size of the service module with some larger engines.

A certain amount of "NASA's not building it" is present, but not quite enough. It looks to be congressman-friendly, in terms that Congress is going to have to review the selections. The problem here, of course, is that congressmen generally don't do much research other than what lobyists "research" for them. I'm not sure if that is better or worse than NASA deciding on the idea beforehand and then making it happen -- both have had some beautiful screwups.

They do earmark some funds for 2004 and 2005, which is at least positive.

There's probably a lot of hidden expenses that will go along with this. To go to most of these places, you need better shielding for radiation, which means a heavier craft or some new research. You will probably need to bring the launch costs to LEO down, which might even be accomplished by something as simple as placing a large enough order for Atlas V and/or Delta IV CCB's to bring the cost-per-unit down signifigantly. You will probably need either a shuttle replacement or a good number of OSPs. You will likely still need the ISS, too.

And the goal is to not cancel too many other NASA projects, like sonic-boom research, the mission to Pluto (which has to happen soon), and other such things. Although I can guarantee that the mission to the asteroid could replace a good chunk of the asteroid-related missions that we're currently doing.

Wow, an actual plan?

[timeOday]

Having a vision for our space exploration makes a lot of sense to me. So much so that I wonder if NASA already had something like this, which a lot of us just didn't know about.

I know many of us tend to be skeptical about mission statements. However, it seems like a good idea because unlike a business (universal business mission statement: "Make Lots Of Money"), it isn't that obvious what NASA is trying to do, or should try to do. And I think it should be more specific than "explore space, and earth from space."

Re:Hmmm-

[American AC in Paris]

You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?

It wasn't Congress, but I seem to recall a President in recent history who declared that we'd put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. The fact that we hadn't yet invented the Lunar Lander didn't do much to dissuade him. It would be disingenuous to suggest that many of the technological leaps made in the years that followed would have come about without the chief executive's impetus driving them.

True, Congress can't say, "invent Spiffy Technology X, now!" Congress can say, "This is what you're going to do. Figure out how to do it!"

Re:Hmmm-

[The Old Burke]

I would'nt say that you could directly contribute the success of the moon landing to Kennedy.

A lot of the innovation and technology that made it possible to send people to the moon can be traced back before Kennedy. For example the breaktroughs in within rocket science came from scientists that we hired from Germany. They helped us develop the first stages of our rocket program.

So legislating advamcement in technolgy is hard because of the timespan. Luckily our great nation has lately acquired a lot of high tech rocket technology from Iraq. Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.

Finally!

[ENOENT]

The government wants to spend money on something I like!

Maybe they can reallocate some money from ongoing projects such as propping up totalitarian regimes to a space colonization project. That would be nice.

Spend the 87 Billion from Iraq on Space

[thbigr]

And we will have a base on, the moon, mars, heck I bet we could even go to Jupiter. They can plan all the want, it takes MONEY to realy build something.

I am in favor of sending machines, dumping the shuttle, etc.... But it is all meanless unless we get a president that wants to actually spend MONEY on the space program.

Kennidy, wanted to and did. Reagan chalanged, but only spent on SDI (What a waste!)

*sigh*

Re:Budget proposal is way off

[hitchhikerjim]

Like any long-term project, the first part is formulating a more detailed plan, doing some basic research and costing, and building the infrastructure. In other words, the first year is not spent on the expensive stuff. $50M for the first year and $200M for the second year sort of makes sense, so long as the third year is even hight -- and based on the cost estimates that they come up with in that first two years of planning and research.

I work in government science research. Multi-year funding for projects always looks sort of like a bell curve. The planning and initial research is cheap, the building of the project and primary operation of the project is expensive, and the wind-down is cheap again.

Out of curiosity

[Timesprout]

Given the recent trends we have seen from the US (Pax Americana, attempting to control the Gulf, the intention to control technology etc). I am curious to know how people think the US would respond were China for example to make sudden huge breakthroughs in space technology within the next 5-10 years and begin establishing Lunar/Martian bases and exploring deeper space?

Re:Hmmm-

[Manitcor]

true, however having top-down support for the big chief himslef along with the neccassary funds allocation helped make it a relaity.

Of course all this was motivated by the cold war ultimiatley.

We may have gone to the moon eventually however we have never been back since the orignal missions as there has never been a push like that in the past. I would love to see the goverment put some goals on NASA and give them the funding to match.

Pretty cheap too...

[Bendebecker]

"(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for carrying out this Act--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."

Heck, M$ could pay for the bill. Why not get some sponsorship? Good PR for the company, a mission that wouldn't have been for NASA. Just as long as the given company didn't try to patent any organism it may/may not find on Mars.

As for the bill itself, all I can do is appluad. Finally, some ppl in washington with vision. We fucked this planet up to the point where it is going to take 1000's of years to fix it (if ever). The current attitude that is mostly 'let's fix earth's problems first' simply isn't realistic anymore. In addition, we have wasted enough time in low-earth orbit. Let's really start exploring space now. The space program has been asleep since the end of apollo, the sleeper must awaken. Plus, if an asteroid pulverizes earth, at least any colonies on mars we can set up mmight survive. The time for the future has come!

"...a person needs new experiences, it touches something deep inside us allowing us to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken!"
---Dune (The Movie)

Your forgot to list ...

[burgburgburg]

some of the things that the selected President has gone all flowery on but has inconveniently left underfunded like

Americorps

No Child Left Behind

AIDS help for Africa

Homeland Security

Rebuilding Afghanistan

Halliburton

Oh, wait. He made sure to properly fund that last one.

Re:Your forgot to list ...

[drakaan]

Seems to me that funding is a budgetary consideration...doesn't congress handle that stuff?

Population pressure

[ffallen]

I believe, as part of a long term population control measure, China plans to establish a "human" export program to space. In addition to relieving population pressures and getting rid of undesirables such as proponents for democracy, the Chinese government also believes that this will distract the remaining citizens from the glaring black eye of their abysmal human rights record. Of course, I'm waiting for Elvis to come back too

on manned space missions

[kipsate]

Almost all manned space missions are a prestige matter and hence a waste of money for as much as science is concerned. Yes, in the sixties the U.S.A. put men on the moon to show the world how advanced they were, ahead of the rest of the world. It was a political statement in the cold war: look, Russia, we can walk on the moon, we are technically superior to you.

But what is the use in 2003 to start planning a mission to put men on Mars? Such a mission would cost billions of dollars, money that could much better be used for more interesting things, such as:

- Is there life on Venus? Although surface temperature at Venus seems to hot for live, there might well be cooler spots where bacterial life may exist. Bacteries are found alive and multiplying on earth at temperatures of 120 degrees celsius under high pressures. Who knows, there are live forms possible at higher temperatures and more, what we would call, extreme circumstances, than we so far imagined to be possible.

- More missions to moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are hints that liquid water exists at some of the moons. Let's try to land on a few of them.

- A bigger space telescope. Yes, I know, another space telescope is already being build. But why not make it a little bit better, bigger, more advanced, more versatile?

- More budget for research on rocket ion-engines or other ways to propel a spacecraft. The speeds that we can reach with current technologies are not very impressive.

All this and more can be done for the costs of a manned Mars mission. In the name of science, lets forget about manned space flight for a while.

Re:on manned space missions

[kcbrown]

Almost all manned space missions are a prestige matter and hence a waste of money for as much as science is concerned.

People, the sooner you start looking to the horizon the sooner you'll understand what needs to be done and why.

This isn't about science. It's not about profit. It's not about efficiency. It's not even about short-term survival.

It's about the human experience and long-term survival. The reason we should be trying to get into space on a permanent basis is that eventually it's where we must be, because otherwise the species will die.

And the reason we should be trying to build a permanent, distributed manned presence in space is that there is simply no substitute for human experience. It's human experience, and only human experience, that provides us with the judgement and knowledge needed to accomplish anything worthwhile. We're not going to learn how to get people into space and keep them there by sending unmanned probes there. Nor will we learn all the little things that ultimately make the difference between a comfortable experience and a painful one, or the difference between a survivable experience and one that isn't. Only some of that can be learned through probes. The rest requires that we be there.

Oh, and for those whose only concern is the defense of the country, consider this: whichever country manages to build a permanent manned presence in space first and move at least some of their government there will be able to rule the rest of the planet, because they'll have the ultimate bargaining chip: the ability to cause an asteroidal strike while not being completely vulnerable to one.

why space exploration == NASA budget?

[BigGerman]

It seems to me much better way to actually get space exploration going is to make it profitable for a business.
Is not it what a well-behaived capitalist government supposed to do? Promote good things, guard against the bad things but generally stay away?
Giving more money to large government agency that was flying shuttles mostly "because there were there" would not get us any further.
Congress needs to come up with a major incensive for businesses to go to space. Like a super Xprize. (or tax-free lifetime for any corp or individual participating in a Mars shot ;-)

Note the Congressional Districts

[ketan]

Note that Nick Lampson is representative from the Texas 10th District. From his web site (emphasis added):

This site is a resource for and about the Ninth District, which serves areas in Jefferson, Chambers, Harris, and Galveston counties; including Johnson Space Center, NASA's astronaut training facility and Mission Control.

Note also that 11 of the 26 sponsors are also from Texas. I'm not making a comment about this bill's worth. However, Lampson's district would probably benefit from a beefed up space program, and the state of Texas itself would also benefit. The line between worthy project and pork is a very fuzzy one. My representative (D-Texas 10th) is not on that list, but I'm sure he was asked, since Lampson seems to have made an effort to get Texas representatives on board. I also note that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas 22nd) is not a co-sponsor. His district includes parts of Harris County (Houston) and Galveston county as well. Maybe just a political thing, since the other sponsors are Democrats. I wonder if one of the California Democrats has Vandenberg in his/her district. Nobody from Florida, though, so no direct connection with Cape Canaveral. Food for thought.

Re:The Bill is Worthless...

[cappadocius]

I say if we can spend 87 billion dollars to force our democratic ideas on another country militarily, then we should be able to get a billion or so a year for space exploration.

Then if we find anything there, we can spend another 87 billion dollars to force our democratic ideas on it.

Re:The Bill is Worthless...

[Docrates]

See I don't know about that...

I'd rather have a bill that reads: "NASA, you have to make sure we setup a base on the moon, go to mars and setup a refueling station at the Larange point between the Moon and the Earth", instead of one that mandates NASA to do those things by themselves.

This would be similar to the farmaceutical industry, where the government gives huge grants for pure research to private companies that eventually develop good products for illnesses that wouldn't make economical sense to do it on a for-profit basis from the start (i.e. a rare desease that wouldn't provide enought clients, etc.).

Now, what would the private sector ever get from space? well, what do you think would happen with the first company that sets up a space tourism business where anywone with, say, 10,000 to spare can go up? and after that, what happens with the first company that can provide a refueling station for that first business? and maintenance? there are entire countries whose whole economies are based on this principle.

Now, with NASA's current budget, or what they've spent in the last 10 years, do you think we would be there already? I think so. Look at XCOR and hwo they're doing off their own pockets, or how Bezos had to become a gazillionaire so that he could setup his own space business (or whatever it is blue origins is doing). They both have plans for ORBITAL travel. And don't get me started on what Carmack will be doing in the next 10 years if he doesn't die on his own rocket (no quake references please).

Now, I don't pretend to know what the economics of all this are, but I'm sure they could be figured out and the answer wouldn't be that far off.

Re:I work at JPL...

[WinterSolstice]

I agree. Where I work, we were told 6 mos ago to implement a new system with "A zero dollar budget". Well, six months later, we got this system ready for production only 2 weeks late, and with the purchase of only the software required. No new hardware or personnel. It took a huge effort, and a lot of tuning, but we were able to get two huge applications to respond properly on hardware sized for one, but it was possible. JPL is about half-full of losers and whiners... not the engineers and dreamers you need for serious space exploration. Sometimes you have to say "Hmmm, what if...", not "Naah, not possible". Sheesh. -WS

Re:Hmmm-

[Esion Modnar]

I would'nt say that you could directly contribute the success of the moon landing to Kennedy.

Well, of course not, since any advanced technology is the end-product of millenia of baby steps in that direction. For instance, we could have never gotten to the Moon without the mathemetical development of orbital mechanics, by Keppler, etc.

We could never have built anything capable of surviving the stresses of acceleration and reentry without technologies ultimately based upon the ancient techniques of metallurgy, and so on.

What may be claimed by Kennedy, is providing the kick-in-the-pants to actually take the current state of the technology, develop upon it, and go that one extra step, to actually do what is possible.

You can't legislate new technology, any more than the Continental Congress could legislate plasma TV's into existence, or Congress can legislate warp drives. What can be legislated, is a reasonable step forward from the current state of the art.

Re:Mars? Get real.

[Bendebecker]

"Manned space flight is not practical, it only gets in the way. It prevents rather than promotes space exploration."
Human biengs are not pratical, they only get in the way. It prevents rather than promotes any task. There is something known as the dignity of man (or people for the pc), the dignity to be valued as being something more than a machine.

"There are certain things men must do to remain men." (The Ultimate Computer - ST:TOS)

"I said they were more effecient, not perferable. Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them. Captain, a starship also runs on loyalty to one man. And nothing can replace it or him." (The Ultimate Computer)

We can send probes to mars. But probes do not inspire. There is more to exploration than effeciency. It is the ability to say that we we're there. Probes can explore strange new worlds, seek out new life, and new civilizations. But they cannot boldy go where no man has gone before. We gain more than knowledge from exploration. We are inspired to look beyond our petty differences to a see a greater reality. No ones imagiens themselves as probes exploring, they imagine themsleves exploring. There is something unique we get from manned exploration, that we don't get from machines.

Re:Hmmm-

[Liora]

Actually, Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars is was not the first to point out that information, and he and his colleagues at The Mars Society are not the ones that came up with the solution to which I was referring. I know the guy that did, but it's not really information I should give out right now... not because it's classified (although to a certain extent I suppose it is), but because I sort of like my anonymity and I don't really want to tell the world whose daughter I am (mostly because then you would know my real name...).

But, I will tell you this much. Until the recent space disasters (Columbia, Mars probes) they had anticipated sending men to Mars for a two year fact-finding mission in 2009, then 2011. They have to do it in two year windows because of the orbits. Those dates have been pushed back now, but I think the whole project is still a go. (Read: I haven't heard otherwise, but that doesn't mean that otherwise isn't true.)

Re:A Republican led Congress ...

[drakaan]

That tears it. I'm sick of republican/democrat/libertarian/pick-a-platform crap. I agree with about 20% of the things any given political figure says, which leaves all of them seriously wanting.

I'm only 31 (32 in October), so I can't run in the coming election, but I hereby announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America in 2008.

Here's how I stand on a few issues:

• Abortion: pro-choice, although I couldn't see doing it in my family
• Taxes: I think they're about right as they stand (for individuals), but the budget's seriously screwed up
• Death Penalty: Haven't made up my mind. There are some people I don't feel bad about losing, but how do you know for certain they're guilty?
• Gun Control: People have guns, and have for a long time. I don't have one, but I don't care if you want to, as long as you can reasonably prove you're not a nut-job or a violent felon.
• Space Program: Needs about 10 billion dollars a year. We should have commercial space programs by now.
• Prayer in school: Well, seeing as how we're all supposed to be free from religious persecution, it should be allowed (for any religion).
• Education: Teachers should get graded along with their students, and students should have to demonstrate basic reading, writing, and math skills, as well as a basic understanding of geography and US and world history.
• War in Iraq: Split decision, we're there for the wrong reason, but working towards the right goal (removing Saddam permanently). Get it finished, get the UN and Iraqis to take over, and get out when it reasonably safe. Try not to spend too much money on it.
• War on drugs: Legalize pot and tax the shit out of it. Industrialize production to put the criminals out of business, make it legal for those of drinking age, and require filters on manufactured marijuana cigarettes. If people can get drunk and fight, they should be able to get high and nap. (No, I don't smoke pot, myself.)
• Defense spending: US troops are in too many other parts of the world. Pull them back, except where there are places they have to fight, decrease deployment costs, and increase their paychecks. Find out (and publish) exactly how much money needs to be spent, and on what. Stick to that number.
• Elections: Why the hell do we still have an electoral college? It's not like we couldn't count votes nationally in a timely fashion. Candidates are allowed to spend too much money on their campaigns, cap campaign contributions at $1,000,000 (higher than seems necessary, to me, really) and require 1 debate that includes all of the candidates...haven't figured out how to pick the questions, yet.

So, if you think I'm any better (or any worse) than who's in office, or who's about to be in office, or want to call me a raving lunatic, just say so.

Re:A Super X Prize

[cmowire]

Actually, they can get a lot of this just by running a program a little better.

If they make the program a few years instead of 10 years, it's more assured funding and less propensity towards useless middle management. Plus, it's much easier to cancel a 10 year project 3 years in instead of canceling a project that's 3 years into a 4 year project.

If you have competing bids up to the point of prototypes, which the military does, you get 2x the basic developments for 1.25x the cost. If you have a clear setup of prototype-then-production, you don't end up with a 20 year old prototype like the shuttle. (It's probably the case that they should have just built Enterprise and maybe Columbia first, except at half-size and then gone back to the drawing board for Challenger, Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour)

And if you concentrate on a few things, like cost, safe transport of 4 crew, and the ability to get up and down, you can do it in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable budget. The problem is that they tried to make the shuttle do too many things and be too advanced.

The problem with stopping the manned space program is that it's doubtful that we'd be able to get it started again once stopped.

Operation or Research

[chrisatslashdot]

Keep in mind that NASA was not putting men in space as they developed the shuttle. The last Apollo astronaut launched in 1972 and the first shuttle launch occured in 1981. Are we willing to put another hold on human space flight for 9 years to develop new vehicles and technologies? What about the ISS?

Currently it takes most of NASA's budget to operate the shuttle. Ending the shuttle program would free lots of engineers, scientist, and dollars to develop the next generation of vehicles.

Re:On a sense of proportion

[mwood]

Yes, thank you for pointing out that my model is nonsense. There's a very nice explanation with diagram that I should have dug up before spouting.

It still looks like the nearest Earth/Sol point ought to be several million miles away, but then I've already proven that I don't know beans about orbital mechanics....