Bush To Announce Manned Trip To Moon, Mars

edmunz writes "Foxnews just placed an article on their website saying that Bush is expected to make an announcement towards the middle of next week, proposing a manned mission to Mars as well as a return to the moon. Bush hopes to spark a renewed public interest in space exploration. No mission would happen any time soon, rather a preparation of over a decade would take place before the first men/women set out to explore Mars."

Comments

Re:let's get this out of the way first

[Aardpig]

nasa has a plan for a lander on europa complete with a sub-ice probe that's been sitting on the backburner for years.

I wouldn't even call these plans; at the moment, the only Europa-relevant mission currently under consideration by NASA is the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). Unfortunately, as its name implies, JIMO won't have a lander facility. The mission, if it goes ahead, will be launched no sooner than 2011.

Also on spaceflightnow.com

[Greeneland]

here. They have links to other news sites. In particular, the UPI article has a mention about a presidential commission to review Nasa's plans. Interesting...

I am not particularly happy with the statement that all other Nasa programs that do not support the new effort are to be scrapped. Indeed. Perhaps this whole proposal can be amended to include a peer review of top scientists in reign in some of this...

Here's a summary.

[Visceral Monkey]

Regarding the forthcoming Bush announcement on space policy: From the various sources reporting on the subject, here's what the Presidents plan will look like. 1. Manned space flight will be NASAs only priority. Almost all non-manned projects will done away with or rolled into the manned program if appropriate. 2. The space shuttle fleet will be retired. Done. Finished. They will stay in service long enough to finish construction of the space station in the next few years. 3. A new space vehicle, the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) will be built and rolled into production in place of the shuttle. The era of winged spacecraft is over for nasa, the CEV is akin to a large Apollo capsule, only able to carry up to 6-8 crew. The CEV is usable in earth orbit AND lunar orbit. The shuttle was only capable of reaching earth orbit, the CEV will be able to leave earth orbit and fly to the moon! 4. Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules will be used to access the space station until the CEV in finished and ready for use. 5. The hierarchy of NASA will be changed so that the Defense Department is now included in the planning and future use of future technology. Expect big stuff from this. Having the military involved is a GOOD thing. 6. The first return trip to the moon is planned for 2013 and the following missions will begin the process of building a permanent, manned presence there. 7. Also starting in 2013, NASA will end almost all involvement with the ISS. Expect this to possibly become a private venture. 8. The CEV and moon base construction will be a test-bed for the Mars missions that will follow. 9. MARS 10. After mars, there will be manned missions to the asteroids. NASA will become one of only 3 federal agencies to get a spending increase (5%) in its budget over the next 5 years. The other two being the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. In 2005 a lump sum of $800 Million will be awarded to NASA. If this is indeed the Presidents plan, it is nothing short of remaking NASA in the image of what it once was in the days of Apollo. Manned space flight with a purpose, the days of space truckers in orbit is *over*.

Scrapping shuttles

[DonGar]

Here's an article with more information here

Amoung other things they are saying that they plan to scrap the shuttle fleet after ISS is finished.

It also says that NASA will be the only department other than homeland security and the military to get a budget increase. Personally, I'm not sure this will really happen, since they are planning through 2013, which is (including the current) four presidential terms away. The US goverment isn't very good at sticking with one plan that long.

Re:Dubya's on the moon

[rifter]

Y'know...

First of all, nice rhyme. Don't know if it's original or not, but well done.

The same argument was made in 67, when they started to pour tons of money into the first moon landing, and continued for ages. There was a comic in Mad Magazine, from roughly 1972.

Q "How come the guvmint can put people on the moon, but they can't feed us poor people?"

A "Who wants poor people on the moon?"

No, it is not original. In fact, it is a rather famous poem, Whitey on the Moon by Gil Scott-Heron.

For the lazy slashdotters who need not click links for fear of evil pictures (and now popups! damnit goatse.cx trolls, quit with the popups! goatse was enough already!) I have reproduced it here:

Whitey on the Moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
('cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he's uppi' me?
('cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I wuz already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that shit wuzn't enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an' arm began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)

Re:$1 trillion?

[KewlPC]

Yeah, because that $400 million, extensively-tested and over-engineered Spirit rover was a disaster, while the $65 million, under-tested Beagle 2 is sending back useful data.

While I'd like nothing more than to see NASA become more efficient money-wise, cutting corners isn't the right way to do it. There's a reason NASA's projects cost a lot: they check, double-check, then triple-check everything. Their systems tend to be over-engineered, which is exactly what is needed when travelling to another planet.

And before anybody trots out Mars Polar Lander, remember that the problem was, or so I have read, with one of the contractors not building its part of the spacecraft according to NASA's specifications (using Imperial measurements instead of metric). In fact, recent evidence suggests that Mars Polar Lander may have landed intact, which means that it failed for some other reason.

A human scientist on-site could probably learn much more than all the landers and rovers combined. During the course of its entire mission, the Mars Pathfinder rover only travelled a grand total of something like 40 feet. The reason the mission ended (and the reason that the Spirit and Opportunity missions will end, if everything goes well): dust gathering on the solar cells until they can no longer provide enough electricity for the vehicle to function. Not a problem with internally-powered humans.

Communications lag means that rovers can't be controlled in real-time, and the people involed with the mission don't want to risk getting the rover stuck (rightfully so), so each destination, and the best way to get to that destination, are carefully planned out. Combine that with the rover's low speed, and it's easy to see why Mars Pathfinder didn't travel very far. On the other hand, a human walking around on the Martian surface can decide which rock looks the most interesting and pick it up in a matter of seconds.

Lastly, NASA's budget is much smaller than many other federal agencies, as others have already mentioned.

Re:Isn't he

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:

# 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;

# 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;

# 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;

# 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;

# 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;

# 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;

# 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;

# 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;

# 2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase;

# 2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget;

# 2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated);

# 2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed);

Oink, oink - it;'s just a pork program

[Animats]

Going to the moon in ten years is a pork program. It only took seven years the first time, after all. It's just a way for Bush to pay off his Texas buddies. Like Reagan and the National Aero$pace Plane.

Space travel with chemical propulsion is never going to get any better. Chemical fuels are as good as they're going to get. There's been essentially zero progress in thirty years.

Building more chemically-fueled spacecraft is a dead end. The weight reduction required for them to work at all makes them so fragile that they'll never be reliable. If you could build a spacecraft with the weight budget of an airliner, (40% or so of the gross takeoff weight is fuel) spacecraft would be affordable and reliable. But when you have to build something that's 90+% fuel, (SSTO machines are something like 97%+ fuel, which is why nobody has built one), it has to be a fragile balloon full of fuel.

Nuclear power, maybe. But chemical fuels? Been there, done that.

An unmanned lunar orbiter would be worth doing. Last time, in the early 1960s, the US sent five orbiters, which used 70mm film, a chemical film processor, and a scanner to transmit the images back. So they only took 1654 images, and the imagery is only 60 meters per pixel. Putting a modern survellance camera in lunar orbit would get us 1m imagery of the whole moon, if not better. Maybe we'll find something worth checking out.

Dean supports, Clark likely...

[Goonie]

As the alternative to more GWB is one of the Democratic candidates slugging it out, a quick survey of their attitudes to space exploration in general and Mars in particular seems appropriate.

Howard Dean is the only one I know of that has explicitly stated his support for a manned Mars program. He stated in a press conference that "we should agressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars.", though he did hedge on the potential cost (a reasonable point, given how far down the toilet the US government's finances will be in a few years without radical spending cuts or tax rises).

As far as I can google, Wesley Clark hasn't expressed an opinion on the future of manned space exploration, but he did issue a press release heartily congratulating NASA on the Spirit rover. He seems to still be formulating his policy on NASA.

Dunno about the others..

For those unfamiliar with the Poltiics Home Game..

[raytracer]

Consider this:

1. George W. wants to be re-elected.
2. Reactions are mixed on the whole Iraq thing.
3. He wants to generate some buzz.
4. He can promise anything ten years down the line, he'll never be held responsible for it.
5. By refocussing NASA toward this ludicrous (and despite the peanut gallery's comments, at this point it is ludicrous) project to the exclusion of unmanned probes, he sets up NASA's eventual dismantlement for failing to deliver what even NASA must know they cannot deliver.

Wise up. This announcement has nothing to do with space exploration. It has to do with November, nothing more.

Re:Who to send...how many to send...

[N3WBI3]

there were no wars

Really the whole think about bombing the Balkans, Afganistan, Iraq, and the Sudan was a hoax? The USS Cole was not bombed under Clintons watch?

economy was great

Had as much to do with the Republicans in congress as it did the president..