Preview of Moon-To-Mars Report
schnarff writes "Space.com has obtained a sneak preview of the Moon-To-Mars commission report, which will be officially released June 16. The report calls for spinning off NASA centers as FFRDCs, establishing an independent cost estimation bureau, and otherwise streamlining NASA's bureaucracy."
"It's not going to happen. This whole deal is just election-year BS from your friends at the Bush Administration who are still trying to distract you from the gigantic fucking mess they've created in the middle east by waving around some cool-sounding ideas that they have no intention of following up on. Oh sure, we'll spend a whole lot of tax dollars coming up with reports (like this one!) and let some worthwhile science projects fall by the wayside, but in the end absolutely jack will come of it. Hey! Look at that shiney thing! And have a nice day."
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
FFRDC? WTF?
(JK. I RTFA.)
I heard a rumor that R. Daneel Olivaw will be helping out here and there, especially with a new technology that can capture approaching comets and mine them for minerals. Can anyone confirm this?
I also reply below your current threshold.
"Y'all need to stop worrying about the middle east and the economy. I got that under control! And we aint stoppin' at the moon. Write this down. M-A-R-S, Mars bitches. We're going to Mars. Red Rocks!"
/very ad-libbed
"Yeai yeaaaaii!"
commission chartered by U.S. President George W. Bush to advise him on implementing a broad new space exploration vision is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nation's space program at the White House.
.
The President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy is scheduled to release its final report June 16. A copy of that report, "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover", was obtained by Space News
The 60-page report outlines the organizational changes the commission says NASA needs to make if it is to achieve the space exploration goals laid out by Bush in January. Those goals include returning humans to the moon by 2020 in preparation for eventual human expeditions to Mars.
The nine-member commission, headed by former U.S. Air Force Secretary Edward (Pete) Aldridge, said if those goals are to be met, the nation needs to commit to space exploration for the long haul, and that the private sector must be given a much larger role in the U.S. space program.
"The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states. "Today an independent space industry does not really exist. Instead, we have various government funded space programs and their vendors. Over the next several decades -- if the exploration vision is implemented to encourage this -- an entirely new set of businesses can emerge that will seek profit in space."
The commission calls upon NASA to reach out to small, entrepreneurial firms through business opportunities targeted to them. The commission also endorses NASA's plans to award large cash prizes to encourage technological innovation. And the commission encourages the U.S. Congress to enact tax incentives, provide regulatory relief and clarify and protect property rights in space to encourage commercial exploitation of the final frontier.
In the more immediate future, the commission wants NASA to turn over nearly all launch activity to private firms.
"The Commission believes that the private sector is willing and capable of providing the initial boost into low-Earth orbit for the payloads associated with the vision," the report states. "To foster the continued development of this emerging market, the Commission believes that NASA should procure all of its low-Earth orbit launch services competitively on the commercial market."
The commission specifically exempts the launching of human crews from this recommendation, saying in the report that it realizes this responsibility "will likely remain the providence of the government for at least the near-term."
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said June 9 that he had neither seen the commission's report nor been briefed on its recommendations. But during a speech delivered at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce earlier that same day, O'Keefe pledged to heed the commission's recommendations on transforming the space agency.
"The Aldridge commission has given a great deal of thought to how we should be organized in order to achieve these objectives," O'Keefe said. "We will be willing participants in implementing their recommendations. We are determined to transform the agency and our way of doing business to put these goals within reach."
The report says NASA needs to transform its organizational structure, business culture and management processes "all largely inherited from the Apollo era" if it is to accomplish the multi-decade exploration agenda laid out by the president.
The commission wants NASA to transform itself into "a leaner, more focused agency" starting with a major headquarters reorganization that reduces the number of mission-focused departments or what NASA calls enterprises.
Planning for such a reorganization is already well underway at NASA. A draft organ
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Why not run it like Venture capital? Where each project is like a "business" that has to develop and sell a plan, with intended payoffs (exactly what kind of information they will be looking for), potential bonus performance beyond the life expectancy, etc.
meh
NASA announced today that with the privatization effort in full gear, Halliburton had been awarded a no bid contract to adminster the entire US Space Program...
Basically, the report concludes that moving the Moon to Mars is both impossible and pointless.
Unknown host pong.
While I don't have any love for the Bush administration I would really like to see a Mars mission happen. It doesn't necessarily need to be a national budget buster, as Robert Zubrin has pointed out in his detailed plans in the books 'The Case For Mars' and 'Entering Space'...
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
"The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states.
If I could, I would mod this "+1 Insightful". When government research is done only in-house, the trickle-down effect of new technology is slower. I think that by harvesting the efforts of private industry you can drive down the costs of space exploration while opening up that technology for use in the private sector. And given that one of the main ways people justify space exploration is through the use of space tech for other applications, I see this as a good move.
(Disclaimer: Being an astrophysics student, I'm all for the exploration of space for it's own sake, but I'm not the one funding it...)
"The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey...."
This one point seems so obvious. It has been said many, many times. Yet it's so hard for "The Powers That Be" to implement.
When the history of the airplane is considered, one has to be thankful that the Wrights did not work for the National Aeronautic Administration in 1904.
I am grateful for all that NASA has given us. But if we are to truly make the next step, the financial incentives for space must be given a chance to exercise their power.
It's hard to allow a child to move out on it's own, but for the good of both the child and the parent, it must be done. Yes, there will be mistakes and risk and danger. But the alternative is a stunted, deformed life that is nothing but tragedy.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Now the enemy is Islamic fundamentalists, and none of them are going to compete in a race to Mars.
China announced they were going to put a man in space and on the moon. Suddenly the US announced they were going to the moon and to Mars. It's not hard to connect the dots when there are only two.
The report calls for spinning off NASA centers as FFRDCs, establishing an independent cost estimation bureau, and otherwise streamlining NASA's bureaucracy.
Only in the federal government would "streamlining bureaucracy" involve "FFRDCs" and a "cost estimation bureau."
[the commission] is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nation's space program at the White House.
My leap to a conclusion leads me to believe that this is just another chapter in killing NASA completely. This means that more funding previously routed to NASA/JPL will go to the private sector. Whitehouse oversight further implies that the administration does not trust NASA with what little self-governance it has remaining to it, particularly after the most recent shuttle disaster.
Which all just points to the private sector being the future of spaceflight for all practical applications. Hopefully companies will do a better job than our government has been doing.
The problem with space exploration is that even if you go out to space with the most greedy intentions, the payoff is decades (asteroid mining) or centuries (terraforming) off. I'm all for it but getting capitalists to buy into it will be tough. Of course there is Microsoft with it's $40 billion nest egg.
Space exploration is really a public works project. This is a pretty interesting paper on the subject. The thing is that it ends up being a benefit to the entire human race but some the up front costs are so much, the payoff so distant and the effort so demanding, it's basically relegated to government bodies (or perhaps Bill Gates).
Blaze a trail to the New World
As an added bonus, people who complain about their tax dollars being "wasted on space" will have much less to bitch about.
While I agree that the Moon To Mars mission is just a PR stunt, and that they haven't even approached a reasonable budget for it, I have some real problems with the report. Namely, the "NASA As A Punching Bag" style.
I'm probably going to get jumped on for this, but *every* national space agency has had huge problems of every type. NASA being the biggest, it's no shock that we seem to have more than our share. But seriously - look at the ESA. Ariane has been a disaster. How many more bailouts are they going to need? How many more times is Ariane 5 going to explode? The Soviets, in their hayday, were even more unsuccessful than us; look at their appalling mars record, for example. We've got some newcomers on the scene - China, Japan, and India - for whom it is too soon to judge. However, don't hold your breath for a miracle.
Private industry? What a laugh. First off, much of NASA's work *IS* done by private industry. The company I used to work for, Rockwell-Collins, had a major shuttle contract when it was being developed. They abused the hell out of it. Whenever any project ran out of hours, they charged it to the shuttle, even if it was unrelated. Private industry is supposed to *save* us money?
Small startups? Not even the slightest bit of success. Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into private space startups during the dotcom boom, and all they have to show for it is a bunch of loping along companies and half-completed projects of bankrupt companies.
Is everyone just doing a bad job? Of course not. The problem is that the engineering challenges are *massive*, and there are so many variables that it is almost impossible to see what realistically could go wrong. On the really big projects, it gets even worse: not only do you have so many more things that could get wrong, but you have so many more people who have their ideas of what could pose a problem, most of which are not real threats. And now, if you don't investigate each of them, you're accused of suppressing whistleblowers.
This probably isn't going to be a popular post. I'm OK with that. But I don't like the typical Bash-NASA threads that these usually turn into, so I thought I'd add my two cents. Mod me as you will.
Carbon, made, only wants to be unmade.
So if this program is all a distraction, where are all the ads? Where is the heavy press covering the thing?
If one in a hundred people in the US could not even tell you anything about the program, could you really consider it a "distraction"? Or instead is this just another mindless attack agaist Bush, the content of which you post weither the topic is caterpillar reform or what kind of hot dog to include in the national school lunch program?
Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read the report to see if it's a good idea, regardless of who is elected. NASA needs an overhaul and at least this is a start. Otherwise you are really just an off-topic wanker.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"oh-my-God-it's-a-conspiracy"
No, not a conspiracy. A plot. It's just Bush's attempt to make himself appear "Kennedyesque," ingnorant of the fact that Kennedy launched the space program because he was already Kennedyesque. It doesn't work the other way around.
Not that it matters, because a project of this magnitude is going to take the continued support of multiple administrations, these aren't Kennedy's times either, and that continued support will not be forthcoming. This project is essentially doomed. It's a shame, but that's the reality on the ground. We'll get to Mars when a canditate runs on the "We're going to Mars" platform and wins, and not before.
But that's ok. The point of the project is exactly where you say it is, and where the real conspiracy lies. Spinning off tax dollars into the private sector, into the hands of cronies.
Make hay while the sun shines, as it were.
KFG
Slightly off-topic, but when the USA and the USSR were planning to dock two space-craft for the first time, neither power would agree to their craft being "penetrated" by the other - if I remember correctly a "female-to-female" adaptor was the eventual diplomatic solution.
Ironically, the Soviet Union was reasonably progressive in terms of putting women in space.
This is where the serious fun begins.
We can't learn anything about living on Mars by living on the moon, except maybe how people respond to being so far away from Earth.
Going to Mars AND going to the moon makes more sense, since the only related operations are leaving Earth orbit. Of course, since the moon is close enough for unmanned craft to do really good, long-term science, maybe we should set up unmanned craft on the moon, and send people to Mars where they can do the most good.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
... the same I have had for a few years now. I think the government is trying to gradually remove the civilian space program, turn that over to private sources at an almost "hobby" level, and concentrate on pure classified military useages of space. They can claim "streamlined government" and "grand opportunities for the private sector" and so on, then go back to space being the military's job, which has always been the real #1 reason to even have a "space" program, ie, it's the high ground, who rules there wins.. It also can have a blacker budget even beyond what they have now. In adition, we've gotten to the point that international "cooperation" has gotten seriously into the giving away the family jewels level, it is no longer prudent to do so.
IMO anyway
Private space launches will continue,like now, and the normal commercial satellites etc, but that is old hat tech now. I am guessing even the best of them will be at the grade B level of technology, grade A will be held closer by the mil complex guys, and that will be the stealthing of "man in space" to the public. they might blather on about some mars mission in 10-20 years, in the meantime I bet they will be doing a lot more manned missions using more exotic craft than what they let on to.