Bush may call for a return to the Moon

[LunarOrbit]

According to SpaceRef.com, President Bush may announce plans to return to the Moon at the Centennial of Flight celebrations at Kitty Hawk on December 17th, 2003.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=892

I'll believe it when it happens, but I'm sure hoping it's true.

[archiebald]

If it happens, don't you think it is strange coincidence that the last time the US had a moon project, they were also involved a war that they could not ultimately win.

Is history repeating itself?

spooky....

[Retrospector]

Another parallel may lie in the recent efforts by the People's Republic of China in manned space exploration. They have definitely stated their interest in making future efforts toward exploring the moon. There's nothing like some competition to spur the US government to action. Of course the Chinese program has a long way to go but it's the perception that counts. Just like it was in the 50s and 60s.

[Skyjim]

Archie, the war that spawned Apollo wasn't Viet Nam - that parallel might work if the Apollo commitment had been made in 1965, but it wasn't.  In 1961 Viet Nam was neither a major commitment nor concern to most Americans.  It was barely a blip on the popular radar. Cuba and Berlin were far more in the popular mind. Retrospector has a better parallel IMO.

  The thing which spurred JFK was the perceived political cost of ceding preeminence in space to the Soviets at a time when technological prowess was perceived as a demonstration of the relative virtues of two opposing idealogies. Stung by setbacks like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy wanted to find a major space project with high propaganda value which offered an essentially level playing field - one in which the early Soviet lead in booster capability was nullified.  If he had been convinced that a large space station would achieve the effects he desired he would've gone for that - but he settled on the lunar landing.  His science advisor was violently opposed, but it wasn't a decision based on science.  It was a calculated exercise of ambition to decisively triumph in an arena then viewed as pivotal in the world perception of the virtues of West vs. East.   The fact that this looks almost quaint now makes it easy to underestimate how important such propaganda coups seemed at the time.

The primary effect of Viet Nam on Apollo was to kill exploitation of all that capability by siphoning off vast amounts of money and creating widespread disenchantment with not just the military but all things technological.  Apollo was politically almost irrelevant by the time it reached the Moon - and it was a political animal.   Once the stated goal was achieved, funding went away.  The J-missions which provided the bulk of the science return were very nearly cancelled completely.  As it was, we walked away from two of them, which could've nearly doubled the science return of the program - even though the boosters and spacecraft had been bought, built, and paid for and the crews trained.  The cost of flying the missions was trivial compared to the resources already expended in R&D and production.  

Anyway, it was the Cold War, not Viet Nam, which created the forces which moved Kennedy to reach for the Moon.  History doesn't really repeat - but perceived rivalries often spur efforts calculated to maintain or improve status in the eyes of the world.  It is entirely possible that policy makers in the Bush administration might decide that a lunar program would effectively counterbalance possible Chinese Lunar efforts without the expense of a Mars program, while providing an answer to the well-founded criticisms of the NASA and it's lack of clear goals.  the big funding needs would also be conveniently in the future - a tactic Bush, like other presidents, has used on many budgetary issues.

 I don't really think Bush cares one way or the other about space exploration, but he knows there is enough support for NASA and need for refocus in the wake of Columbia that his administration needs to finally create some actual policy statements.  I'm not holding my breath for any real funding increases in the long term, though - a billion a week in Iraq is going to insure that.  Bush could make a nice speech and stir people's Apollo nostalgia, gain some points from some people for "vision", divert attention for a day or so from Iraq, and not really incur any big bills - he knows that the realities of the budget will preclude major spending increases, and the onus will be on Congress if funding cannot be found.    

[LunarOrbit]

Congress seems to be in favour of a more robust NASA, but whether they still will be when it is time to pay for it is another matter.

Here is a letter that the members of Congress recently sent to President Bush, copied from SpaceRef.com:

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


October 24, 2003

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear President Bush:

On February 1, 2003, you eloquently said, "Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on." We commend you for publicly recognizing that we are a nation of explorers, and for expressing your continued support for the U.S. space program.

As you know, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has recently completed its investigation into the events and circumstances that led to the tragic Columbia accident. In its report, the Board observed that, "... we believe that the White House, Congress, and NASA should honor the memory of Columbia's crew by reflecting on the nation's future in space and the role of new space transportation capabilities in enabling whatever space goals the nation chooses to pursue."

We are writing to you as Members of Congress to express our strong support for a robust future for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is our vision that this future includes vigorous manned and unmanned exploration of the universe around us. We believe that a robust NASA, which partners as appropriate with other government agencies, should provide the foundation for the future of our nation's space strategy. NASA should be aggressively engaged in expanding the boundaries of human space exploration, improving our nation's access to space, enabling a safer and more efficient air transportation system, solving the scientific mysteries held in our solar system and the universe beyond, and understanding our own Earth and its environment. By tackling these challenges, our nation will maintain its technological edge over the rest of the world. A strong NASA will also play a critical role in strengthening the spirit of innovation which has made our country strong, educating our future high-tech workforce that is a prerequisite for our future national and economic security, and for inspiring the next generation of explorers. Recognizing that NASA is funded by valuable taxpayer dollars, NASA leadership should endeavor to focus the agency on an inspiring mission that reflects the priorities of our citizens, and strive to maximize the benefits of its work and accomplishments to the American public.

Historically, the funding requested for NASA from multiple Administrations, and provided to NASA by Congress, has not demonstrated an appropriate level of commitment to an agency that is so important to the future of our nation. According to the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, between 1993 and 2002, the federal government's discretionary spending grew in purchasing power by more than 25 percent. In contrast, NASA's budget went from $14.31 billion in Fiscal Year 1993, to a low of $13.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2000, and increasing to $14.87 billion in Fiscal Year 2002. This funding profile represented a loss of 13 percent in purchasing power over the decade. We enthusiastically write to you today to clearly and unambiguously express our strong interest in reinvigorating NASA and turning this funding trend around.

On February 1 of this year, the world lost seven brave astronauts. Over seven months later, we continue to remember the ultimate sacrifice that these intrepid explorers made in the name of scientific discovery for the benefit of all mankind. The greatest tribute that we as national leaders can make is to ensure that their legacy of exploration is continued through a vibrant NASA. We eagerly look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner to assure that America maintains the preeminent space and aeronautics program in the world, and we respectfully await your reply on this important matter.

[LunarOrbit]

There is a US Senate hearing currently being held to discuss the future of NASA. One of the witnesses is former Senator and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt.

The hearing began at 2:30pm ET.

Click here for more information, including a link to the webcast.

[Skyjim]

I thought the statements were interesting - especially the brevity of Jack Schmitt's - he knows that the Congress is, as he once said "not fertile ground" for discussing long-term visions.  He's trying to cast it as seed money to allow a good business case to be made for investors.  I like the repeated hammering on the "Lewis and Clark" theme a couple of the statements contained.  Instead of the fur trade, substitute lunar solar power, or Helium-3 mining, or fuel resources out of the terrestrial gravity well!  

I think a lunar industrial effort has a much better chance to become a reality than a Mars program - and we'll have the infrastructure to go to Mars at a time of our choosing.  Take a working Earth-Moon transportation system, and you have the basic building blocks to go anywhere in the inner solar system.  Yes, you need more power, more fuel, more shielding - but  these are things that can be overlayed on the basic designs needed for lunar work.  If a lunar operation can truly create a space-based economy, as the Lunar Solar Power advocate hopes, Mars and the asteroids will come naturally as more and more people and resources are off-planet.   I want INFRASTRUCTURE!
   

[xir]

comon theres two reasons Bush wants to send nasa back to the moon one is that he dosnt want to let a partialy comunist country to get established up there. The second is that he thinks its made out of chesse and with his spending budget he thought he'd make himself a nice snack [smiley=cheekysmiley.gif]

[Looter]

Back when his father was president, Bush Sr announced plans to set up a Moon base in a State of the Union Speech. Absolutely nothing came of that, the same will come of any plans launched today.

[remcook]

write the president!

http://planetary.org/action/president_email.html


It can't hurt I guess

[remcook]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

[Skyjim]

Rem, I think Mars is already off the table - so I can't agree with the Planetary Society on this one.  I've already written my letters advocating a lunar program with tax incentives for private enterprise participants - how about a Lunar Solar Power demonstration project with private participation?  

There is no way that really large budget increases are going to happen, and I don't see NASA doing human Mars exploration absent them.  OTOH, if  the lunar mission were to become a goal, it is possible that more modest increases - on the order of 10-15% of real spending power -  along with retirement of the shuttle system after major ISS assembly is complete, might free up enough money to return to the Moon and establish a base in 12 years or so, after a new crew and cargo transportation system is in place tailored for the job.  That's about the best scenario I can see happening.  More likely, this is going to go nowhere, as others have predicted.  Shooting for Mars carries larger risk, higher cost, and no political upside I can discern - my best guess is that it's not even being considered.

OSP may die without added mission focus - and I think that we need a small crew transport to LEO no matter what mission we choose.  Efforts are already underway to kill it.  If that happens, and no alternative is advanced, NASA's human spaceflight efforts will lurch along on the shuttles, flying crews solely for the sake of maintaining a human spaceflight program, until we kill another crew.  ISS would then likely be abandoned.  The institutional inertia that would allow this to happen is disheartening, but I think real.    

BUT - If resources are focused on a specific mission, I think it can revitalize NASA.  A lot of dead wood needs to be pruned, and it will be resisted, but I don't agree  with those who want to tear NASA apart completely and start over.    

[remcook]

...and the disappointment is larger than ever...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/04spacepolicy/

[yale]

Jim..
I have been a lunar colony fanatic for more than forty years. The death of Apollo thirty years ago took the wind out of my sails in a terrible way.

I think the path out to the universe starts with the moon. While sympathetic to O'Neil type habitats (and a serious supporter), I think humans need a "planet" to consider itself at home.

I think the value of living on our sister planet is a necessary step in our evolution.

That being said, I cannot see any real economic justification for the return to the moon.

Ideas like Criswels Lunar Solar Power System simply cannot make cost/benefit sense. On a list of ways to to provide end-user services on Earth (heat, light, transport, etc.) LSP would be down near the bottom from an economic, environmental, and vulnerability point-of-view.

The same holds true from a mining angle, whether minerals (which are already common on Earth) or Helium3 Fusion, a technology which has never ever been accomplished, cannot be shown (similar to LSP) to be cost effective, and has serious weapons proliferation problems.

Tourism MAY be a possibility, but I don't think that the return would cover the costs. In any event, I suspect tourists would prefer a zero-gee oribital experience (just for sexual purposes alone).

I don't know...
I dream of a  future in space, but I see no way to sell it to bean-counters .

yale

[spacecat27]

A sad story..... working at the Cape just before the launch of the Lunar Prospector in 1998, my team was driving past the road to the Athena pad after a dinner break.  I offered a wisecrack: "If that should find big deposits of platinum and gold, we'll have a REAL space program again, won't we?"
Our supervisor gave me a stern look.  "No.  It would cost too much to go after it and bring it back."  Of course, he was right.

I'm afraid the only chance for a 'return to the moon' program right now would be to show that Halliburton could make a huge profit from it.