| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 548.1 | DIR/TITLE=topicname | RENOIR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Wed Jul 19 1989 16:04 | 2 |
| See also Topics 50 and 359.
|
| 548.2 | I support a space program, but no lunar base, yet. | FDCV06::ARVIDSON | What does God need with a Starship? | Wed Jul 19 1989 17:39 | 18 |
| RE: < Note 548.0 by MILPND::STOJDA >
> -< URGENT: SUPPORT A LUNAR BASE >-
> NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT
>
> By calling the White House comment line 202-456-7639 asking
> Pres. Bush to support the lunar base plan, you can help to
> expand the space program.
I don't support this. I think it would be a waste of money. It would be
a better use of the money to develop craft for interplanetary travel.
Develop the space station and interplanetary spacecraft simultaneously, then
visit other planets. Since the funds are limited, which I also agree with,
as in let's fix our world before we screw up another, why go to the moon again?
What will we gain? If anything we should send men to Mars.
I called in support of a continuing space program, but not a lunar base.
Dan
|
| 548.3 | I TOTALLY DISAGREE! | HAZEL::LEPAGE | Truth travels slowly | Wed Jul 19 1989 18:15 | 40 |
| Re: .2
To construct an interplanetary craft to Mars without first testing
the techniques and hardware in Earth orbit (on the Space Station)
and on the Moon (on a lunar base) would be imprudent and quite likely
suicidal. Now THAT is a waste of money. I feel that to go back to
the Moon, which is only a few days from the safety of Earth, is
the best way to adequetly test the technology needed for extended
voyages to the planets. Any sort of machine as complicated as a
interplanetary ship ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES extensive, careful testing
preferably near the Earth. Any other course of action is just asking
for trouble and IMHO is simply INSANE.
In addition to testing needed technology, a return to the Moon
can still return a large amount of knowledge about that body as
well as the rest of the solar system. It is pure arrogance to believe
that after six manned landings and a couple of dozen simple unmanned
probes that we know EVERYTHING there is to know about the Moon. The
Moon is very big place and we still have much to learn and benefit
from studying it.
As far as the financing is concerned, that is all just a bunch
of Washington BULLSH*T! There is nothing in the Constitution nor
is there any other law of Man or Nature that prevents adequet funding
for space activities. The needed money is there. Its just a convenient
myth to think otherwise. The problem for the past ump-teen years
has been that nobody has the political intestinal fortitude to make
the long range financial commitment that the space program requires
or deserves. If the NASA budget increased as much over tha past
10 years as the DoD space budget has over the same period, there
would be enough money for the Space Station, a Moon base, a mission
to Mars, as well as many other important UNMANNED projects.
I support any effort to return to the Moon AND to building a
Space Station as long as it is stated up front that these are just
stepping stones to planetary missions. Such a plan will result in
us reaching Mars a few years later BUT let's set up the solid
foundation needed for the eventual colonization for our Solar System.
We must be patient. We can NOT blow it this time with Mars as we
have done for the past 17 years with the Moon!
Drew
|
| 548.4 | MOON IS BEST MON! | MEMIT::SCOLARO | Fusion in a Glass! | Wed Jul 19 1989 20:43 | 19 |
| re .2 and .3
Besides, any interplanetary intersteller craft we could now come up
with would use oxygen as an oxidizer. A number of studies have
concluded that for several trips to let us say mars, it is FAR FAR
cheaper to build a base on the moon to make oxygen for the oxidizer,
than it is to ferry the stuff up from the earth, since lunar oxidizer
is already half the way there. Besides, if the propellant is cheap
enough, you could either send more stuff, or send it faster.
Most well thought out studies of extensive manned exploration of the
outer planets (including mars) ALWAYS include a lunar base, if for no
other reason than for lunar o2. There are other nice possibilities,
like very long baseline radio interferrometry (250K miles long
baseline!) and radio astronomy on the lunar far side, that make the
moon an EXCELLENT next step, from a economic AND scientific point of
view.
Tony
|
| 548.5 | more ranting and raving | GUESS::STOLOS | | Thu Jul 20 1989 08:42 | 20 |
| Yes! we should go for the moon base. haven't we realized the mistakes
of our past? when we had the one shot deal to the moon we had no
infrastructure to continue! we built our first one shot spacestation
and permitted it to fall. in the mean time the soviets had taken
incremental steps and are doing real science now in space. WE NEED
TO BUILD A PERMANEMT MANNED PRESENTS IN SPACE! the technology to
do this and the spinoffs from the technology will keep us in the
ahead of the world in industry and commerce. where do we get the
funds? i know of an overgrown carbon-fiber boomerang we could
postpone;')
i'm sorry i know i'm preaching to the choir on the most part.
i'm a product of the space race. the educational money from the
"sputnik threat" helped out my addiction to science and technology.
we work for a company that was effected by this race, space research
is good bussiness! we cannot fortell the benefits a manned lunar
base will provide us on earth. more important than that is we need
a dream, a goal as a nation we need another manifest desitiny to
make us strive for excellence!
flame off!
pete
|
| 548.6 | The Federation | THOTH::FILZ | DTN 223-2033 | Thu Jul 20 1989 08:53 | 6 |
| With the high cost and time to go back to the moon and mars wouldn't
it make sense to work with the soviets and other countries to do
this and have all of mankind share the benefits of space.
Spock
|
| 548.7 | | CSSE::TRAPHAGAN | | Thu Jul 20 1989 10:06 | 5 |
| RE .-1
RIGHT ON!
JT
|
| 548.8 | | GUESS::STOLOS | | Thu Jul 20 1989 13:26 | 11 |
| re:6
nothing wrong with working with other nations, even more so if the
ussr becomes a democracy. and the goal can used to unite the world
great! i just think it would be much more dificult to organize a
world effort, than a nation's effort.
but everytime i hear jfk's speech i feel sooo proud i'm an american
and so empty inside that we as a nation are not striving like we
did in the 60's for a goal that we can be proud of. i feel the space
program has been nickeled and dimed to death and it hurts.
to be a vital and strong democracy i feel we need a frontier, and
the moon should be the start of it.
|
| 548.9 | | CHRCHL::GERMAIN | Down to the Sea in Ships | Thu Jul 20 1989 14:05 | 18 |
|
re: .8 GUESS::STOLOS
>to be a vital and strong democracy i feel we need a frontier, and
>the moon should be the start of it.
This is a concept I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with
this concept as time goes on. I admit to feeling this way too.
But that suggests that we cannot be vital and strong within our
own "borders".
Gregg
p.s. I liked the Kennedy address to Congress, but I liked a
later speech even better - the one where he said that we do this
not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
|
| 548.10 | A station and I-craft first, then 'Out There!' | FDCV06::ARVIDSON | What does God need with a Starship? | Thu Jul 20 1989 16:32 | 57 |
|
Re: .3 <HAZEL::LEPAGE>
>Re: .2
> To construct an interplanetary craft to Mars without first testing
> the techniques and hardware in Earth orbit (on the Space Station)
> and on the Moon (on a lunar base) would be imprudent and quite likely
> suicidal. Now THAT is a waste of money.
I don't disagree here although I don't believe you clearly read my statement.
I didn't state that my opinion included no testing or that Mars would be first
to be visited. My Mars comment was regarding a visit rather than a base much
like our trip to the Moon. I believe the focus of the development should be
a space station and interplanetary craft. The space station would allow us
to maintain a presence in space that would benefit Earth and the development
of interplanetary travel at the same time.
>I feel that to go back to the Moon, which is only a few days from the safety
>of Earth, is the best way to adequately test the technology needed for extended
>voyages to the planets.
Why not hours to get to a space station? Back and forth from Earth?
> In addition to testing needed technology, a return to the Moon
> can still return a large amount of knowledge about that body as
> well as the rest of the solar system. It is pure arrogance to believe
> that after six manned landings and a couple of dozen simple unmanned
> probes that we know EVERYTHING there is to know about the Moon. The
> Moon is very big place and we still have much to learn and benefit
> from studying it.
I agree. But, IMHO, that is not enough reason for why the moon should be
our focus. Build the first Interplanetary craft and visit and build a base
on the moon with it. Then explore the moon, hop from destination to
destination.
> re .2 and .3
> Besides, any interplanetary interstellar craft we could now come up
> with would use oxygen as an oxidizer.
For Apollo this nation developed many new technologies to safely get us
to the moon. Larry sent me a list of the technologies that included spinoffs
that have and are benefiting us today.
- helmet visors worn by Moon-walking astronauts for harsh environments
- cordless tools used in collecting soil samples
- fabric for the spacesuits
- NASA-patented water ballast stabilization system for splashdown rafts
- inorganic coatings for the launch gantry
- Booster fuel insulation
Looks like we have a new challenge, a need for a new fuel technology.
I'm unconvinced. Larry had even mentioned to me that any space program is
better than none. I disagree here, too. We need a worthwhile focus.
The way we're going, with Qualye as the Executive leader for the space
effort, we'll end up attempting to build a base on a man-made satellite rather
than the moon!
Dan
|
| 548.11 | But is there meat among the gravy? | RENOIR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Thu Jul 20 1989 17:32 | 79 |
| From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NSS Hotline Update for Space
Date: 20 Jul 89 19:26:50 GMT
Organization: The Internet
/* Written 12:09 pm Jul 20, 1989 by jordankatz in cdp:sci.space */
/* ---------- "NSS Hotline Update for Space" ---------- */
This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline, update -
Space Day, July 20, 1989.
At 10 am this morning President George Bush on the steps of the
National Air and Space Museum commemorated the 20th anniversary of the
Apollo 11 mission which landed the first men on the Moon. He went on
to stress the need to look forward, and that in the 21st century
peoples of all nations will leave the Earth for voyages of discovery
and exploration. He stated that now is the time to commit ourselves
to a sustained program of human exploration of the solar system and
the permanent settlement of space.
"Our goal is to establish the US as the preeminent space fairing
nation, from the voyages of Columbus to the triumph of the Moon
itself...." He implied that space exploration is a worth-while
venture from an economic stand point by stating the Apollo program
paid down to Earth dividends, and the human exploration of the Moon
would have been a bargain at twice the price. "Apollo is the best
return on investment since Leonardo DiVinci bought his first sketch pad."
In his speech, he announced his long range vision as the
completion of the Space Station Freedom in the 1990s, a permanent
return to the Moon at the turn of the century, and then the human
exploration of Mars. Each mission will succesively build upon the
next. He added that the future of the space program lies within the
hands of Congress and ultimately in the hands of the public.
It is President Bush's intention that the 30th anniversary of
Apollo 11 should be celebrated not in Washington, DC, but on the fully
operational Space Station Freedom. He went on to add that the space
station will serve as a bridge to the solar system and our own fragile
Earth. "International initatives are need to seek new solutions to
global environmental problems, and Mission to Planet Earth is an
important initiative in our national space program. The Space Station
Freedom is the necessary next step for sustatined human exploration."
The President charged his "right hand man" Vice President Dan
Quayle and his National Space Council to work out the specific time
frame, milestones and resources needed to return to the Moon
permanently and go on to explore Mars.
He closed his speech by saying the dream of reaching new stars and
exploring new worlds will be realized not in his generation or even
his childrens generation, but we must begin with this generation. "We
can't make the next great leap for mankind tomorrow unless we take the
single step today."
The NSS mourns the death of a valued and visionary member of the
Board of Directors, George A. Koopman, president and co-founder of the
American Rocket Company. Mr. Koopman died Wednesday of injuries
sustained in an automobile accident. He was forty-four years old.
AMROC officials affirmed that preparations for the company's first
space launch, scheduled for August 14, 1989, will continue as planned.
James Bennett, AMROC's vp for External Affairs, said "This represents
an enormous loss to AMROC. Koopman was a true space pioneer, not only
by virtue of his key role in founding and sustaining AMROC, but also
his long support of and participation in organizations such as the
National Space Society. The realization of George Koopman's dream of
creating affordable access to space will be his memorial."
Koopman's family has requested that in lieu of flowers,
contributions to one of several charitable organizations be made. NSS
has been selected and will set up a trust fund in his name to continue
the visionary goals he pioneered. Contributions will be excepted by
the NSS to the George A. Koopman Memorial Fund.
This has been the National Space Society's Space Hotline updated
SpaceDay, July 20, 1989.
|
| 548.12 | Now sings the Rising Star, Now sings the Rising Star... | KAOM25::TOMKINS | This MIND left blank INTENTIONALLY | Fri Jul 21 1989 17:10 | 13 |
| To those of us who say, let's clean up our act here first, I say
we can't. We have neither the structure, the money nor the inclination.
Mankinds tremendous growth and prosperity periods almost always
corresponded with building. Building up after the first and second
world wars, building up a new nation in the emigration from europe
to north america. The exploration of foreign lands has always fueled
more growth.
The only way that we can begin to make things better at home, is
to start investing in the long-range future of mankind. If we commit
to explore our skies, to traverse the heavens, the time, effort
and money spent, will make more of each, that we can then use to
make life better at home for others less fortunate than ourselves.
|
| 548.13 | Cabin Fever | EPIK::BUEHLER | The IRS believes in effort: tax yourself | Sat Jul 22 1989 15:39 | 31 |
| > To those of us who say, let's clean up our act here first, I say
> we can't. We have neither the structure, the money nor the inclination.
I've often been stuck on the question of whether it was an incredible
blunder to leave the planet before we get our act together. But the
above statement made me think about it in a slightly new way. And that
is that it's not the structure or the money. It's the inclination.
It's not in our present nature to clean things up. Sure, a few people
in power and some percentage of the population believe in it, but it's
not the essential drive in mankind.
To paraphrase an Apollo astronaut as he stepped onto the lunar surface:
"It is true that it is the essense of man that he needs to explore."
The transition to a responsible civilization will come with time. In
the meantime, we shouldn't fight the basic drives that so many of us
feel. Colonize. Grow. Be challenged by new frontiers.
It may be after we've totally messed up Earth, the Moon and Mars that
we, as a civilization, understand what can and cannot be done in order
to garantee long-term survival in the closed environment of a planet.
So be it.
It's interesting that nations can attack a problem with incredible
energy if they believe in it, yet as a planet we are beginning to
stagnate because we have no new frontiers to challenge us. Doesn't the
need for exploration strike a chord in you? Perhaps burning off that
excess energy by poking around the solar system will do us some good.
John
|
| 548.14 | Every effort requires the appropriate classroom. | TEKTRM::REITH | Jim Reith DTN 235-8459 HANNAH::REITH | Mon Jul 24 1989 10:29 | 11 |
| Re: .13 and others
I believe that we'll continue to learn and mature as time goes on and a self
sufficient lunar base will teach us a lot about small closed bio spheres. You
can't pollute something the size of the AstroDome for 100 years with fossil
fuels...
The learning curve/cycle time for the environment will be much quicker in these
closed habitats
Get off the planet and learn while it's an option not a survival effort.
|
| 548.15 | Recycling technology | HPSRAD::DZEKEVICH | | Mon Jul 24 1989 13:42 | 10 |
| I was thinking that a possible result of a manned moon base would be
the recycling technology, that could be used on Earth......kind of
like all of the materials and medical technology that resulted from the
Apollo and Shuttle programs. Nothing like a dedicated project for the
development of new technologies.
On the other hand though.....I don't want to pay any more taxes.
Joe
|
| 548.16 | When it comes to sound solutions in the vein of doing the right thing... | KAOM25::TOMKINS | This MIND left blank INTENTIONALLY | Mon Jul 24 1989 14:32 | 9 |
| On the note of recycling, PBS did a show a while ago about a plant
that was in Sweden (If I remember correctly) that takes all the
garbage, processes it and produces building blocks. There seemed
to be no waste from this plant. BTW, this plants process is controlled
by DEC systems.
I would pay higher taxes to have one of these things in my backyard.
But I suspect that this would be a going business concern, so I
wouldn't have to pay more taxes.
Richard_who_doesn't_like_landfill_or_incinerators.
|
| 548.17 | There, but for $100 billion, ... | PAXVAX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jul 25 1989 15:39 | 21 |
| One big problem that has to be solved before a Lunar base or Mars
trip can be contimplated is the shortage in launch capacity. I am
still very doubtfull that 4 Shuttles can support the Freedom space
station, never mind a Lunar base, and the Aerospace plane prototype
probably won't fly before the centry is out.
It's all a nice thought, but with budget realities being what they
are, the chance of building 5 or 6 more shuttles or seeing the Aerospace
plane within the next 15 years is remote. And the Lunar base would cost
more beyond that.
I'm all in favor of higher taxes to fund these programs, but I'm in
a very small minority. Of course, if they canceled the Batplane ...
oops, I mean ... B-2, there would be $45 billion more to play with.
I'm sure, however, that if the B-2 were canceled, the money would go
to other defense programs.
For the next couple of decades, I'm afraid we will have to be satisfied
with unmaned probes to deep space.
George
|
| 548.18 | | CHRCHL::GERMAIN | Down to the Sea in Ships | Wed Jul 26 1989 09:35 | 4 |
| They just made an enormous cut in Star Wrs - I wonder where that
money will go?
Gregg
|
| 548.19 | | SAUTER::SAUTER | John Sauter | Wed Jul 26 1989 09:37 | 2 |
| re: .18---It will probably go towards reducing the deficit.
John Sauter
|
| 548.20 | What does it take to support the station? | TUNER::FLIS | stopit!stopit!stopit!stopit! | Wed Jul 26 1989 09:47 | 13 |
| I have heard several people comment that the space station couldn't
be supported by only 4 shuttles. Not built, rather "supported".
Why?
Our first space station, skylab, was supported just fine with zero
space shuttles.
What exactly is the *requirement* of many shuttles to support such
a station?
jim
|
| 548.21 | that would be nice | CHRCHL::GERMAIN | Down to the Sea in Ships | Wed Jul 26 1989 10:41 | 13 |
|
Note 548.19
SAUTER::SAUTER "John Sauter"
>re: .18---It will probably go towards reducing the deficit.
> John Sauter
As much as I'd like to see a vigorous space effort, I don't think I
would argue if they actually DID use the money to reduce the
deficit.
Gregg
|
| 548.22 | Aaron Cohen to handle Moon-Mars projects | CLIPR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Wed Jul 26 1989 21:03 | 38 |
| Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Truly assigns JSC's Cohen to lead NASA preparation for new civil
space goals (Forwarded)
Date: 26 Jul 89 21:02:48 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
James W. McCulla
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 27, 1989
RELEASE: 89-126
TRULY ASSIGNS JSC's COHEN TO LEAD NASA PREPARATION FOR NEW CIVIL SPACE GOALS
Richard H. Truly, Administrator of NASA, today announced that he
has asked Aaron Cohen, Director of the Johnson Space Center, to lead
agency activities in response to the national goal of human
exploration of the moon and the planet Mars announced by President
Bush last week. Cohen will be temporarily assigned to NASA
Headquarters in Washington for the next few months.
Speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing,
the President asked Vice President Quayle to lead the National Space
Council to determine what is needed for the next round of exploration
to establish a scientific outpost on the moon and begin human
exploration of Mars. Recommendations to the President will be
influenced markedly by the NASA effort which Cohen will lead.
"From his engineering work in the early days of the Apollo
program in the 1960s to today, when he leads the JSC team in support
of the Shuttle and Space Station programs, Aaron has done outstanding
work," Adm. Truly said. "No one in the agency is as well suited to
prepare NASA to accept the challenges of this historic new project.
Aaron will be calling on many other people across NASA to accomplish
this comprehensive self-examination of the agency, and all of us look
forward to this challenge. JSC will remain in good hands during this
period under the leadership of Paul Weitz, the Deputy Director."
|
| 548.23 | | PAXVAX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jul 26 1989 22:35 | 42 |
|
> I have heard several people comment that the space station couldn't
> be supported by only 4 shuttles. Not built, rather "supported".
> Why?
> Our first space station, skylab, was supported just fine with zero
> space shuttles.
Skylab was not perminently maned. A single apollo would fly up with
a 3 man crew who would stay as long as they or the apollo were able to.
If anyone had to return, or if the apollo had problems, they would all
return to earth.
The freedom space station is being built with a different philosophy.
It is suppose to be perminently maned. People are suppose to be left
up there when the shuttle returns to earth. Also, the people left up
there are suppose to be scientests, rather than the test pilot types
that dominated Skylab and the Soviet stations.
It seems that for best results, the shuttle would have to visit the station
at least once every couple months. NASA claims that they can do it with
4 trips a year, but that seems like cutting things kind of close. Another
factor is that there is no flexability to launch a shuttle in case of
problems. Sure, some sort of apollo like escape capsule could rescue
the crew, but they may not be able to respond to an emergency to rescue
the station itself. Also, with an escape pod system, if one person gets
sick, everyone has to come home.
Even at 4 trips a year, that takes more than 1/2 of the shuttle capacity. I
don't think there's been more than one or two years in which they have had more
than 7 launches. That doesn't leave much capacity left for other shuttle
missions. And needless to say, one more Challanger type accident and the space
station is out of business for a couple of years.
If the Shuttle can build the station, they may be able to operate it on a
more or less perminent basis, but that's a big if and there is certainly no
shuttle capacity left to support a base on the Moon or a trip to Mars.
I'm afraid that George Bush is doing his usual, "promise the world and
deliver a globe." I think that the fact that Dan Quayle is in charge of
space planning should tell you what he really thinks of the space program.
George
|
| 548.24 | Words for thought | CLIPR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Thu Jul 27 1989 09:08 | 3 |
| "The ability of man to walk and actually live on other worlds has
virtually assured mankind immortality." - Wernher von Braun
|
| 548.25 | | VCSESU::COOK | Hello there Ladies and Gentlemen... | Thu Jul 27 1989 13:11 | 6 |
|
re .23
Have some faith brother.
/prc
|
| 548.26 | Bush and Truly on APOLLO 11 and beyond | RENOIR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Wed Aug 02 1989 14:30 | 788 |
| From: [email protected] (Eric William Tilenius)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,sci.space
Subject: President Bush's Speech on Space Policy Goals -- Full Text
Date: 1 Aug 89 22:00:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release July 20, 1989
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF
APOLLO MOON LANDING
The Steps of the Air and Space Museum
Washington, D.C.
10:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very, very much. And thank you, Mr.
Vice President, for your introduction and for undertaking to head
the National Space Council and for -- already for demonstrating
your skill for leadership there.
And thanks to all of you, who have braved the weather to join us
today. Behind me stands one of the most visited places on Earth -
- a symbol of American courage and ingenuity. And before me stand
those on whose shoulders this legacy was build -- the men and women
of the United States astronaut corps.
And we are very proud to be part of this unprecedented gathering
of America's space veterans -- and to share this stage with three
of the greatest heroes of this or any other century -- the crew of
Apollo 11.
It's hard to believe that 20 years have passed. Neil and Buzz, who
originated the moonwalk 15 years before Michael Jackson ever even
though of it. (Laughter.)
And Michael Collins -- former director of this amazing museum --
and the brave pilot who flew alone on the dark side of the Moon,
while Neil and Buzz touched down. Mike, you must be the only
American over age 10 that night who didn't get to see the Moon
landing. (Laughter.)
And later this evening, after the crowd disperses and the sun goes
down, a nearly full Moon will rise out of the darkness and shine
down on an America that is prosperous and at peace. And for those
old enough to remember that historic night 20 years ago -- step
outside tonight with your children or your grandchildren. Lift
your eyes skyward, and tell them of the flag -- the American flag -
- that still flies proudly in the ancient lunar soil.
And for those who were not yet born, or then too young to recall -
- you who are the children of the new century -- raise your eyes
to the heavens and join us in a great dream -- an American dream -
- a dream without end.
Project Apollo. The first men on the Moon. Some called it
quixotic, impossible -- had never been done. But America dreamed
it. And America did it. And it began on July 16th, 1969. The sun
rose a second time that morning as the awesome fireball of the
Saturn Five lifted these three pioneers beyond the clouds. A crowd
of one million -- including half of the United States Congress -
- held its breath as the Earth shook beneath their feet -- and our
view of the heavens was changed forevermore.
Three days and three nights they journeyed. It was a perilous,
unprecedented, breathtaking voyage. And each of us remember the
night.
Barbara and our daughter Dorothy were with me in our red brick
house right here on the outskirts of Washington, where we moved up
here to represent Houston in the United States Congress. Our 12-
year-old kid, Marvin, was on a trip out West with family friends
and remembers stopping at a roadside motel to watch. Second boy,
Jeb, 16 that summer, teaching English and listening by radio in a
small Mexican village, where electricity had yet to arrive.
The landing itself was harrowing. Alarms flashed -- and a computer
overload threatened to halt the mission while Eagle dangled
thousands of feet above the Moon. Armstrong seized manual control
to avoid a huge crater strewn with boulders. With new alarms
signalling a loss of fuel -- and the view now blocked by lunar dust
-- Mission Control began the countdown for a mandatory abort.
America -- indeed the whole world -- listened -- a lump in our
throat and a prayer on our lips. And only 20 seconds of fuel
remained. And then out of the static came the words: "Houston.
Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
Within one lifetime, the human race had traveled from the dunes of
Kitty Hawk to the dust of another world. Apollo is a monument to
our nation's unparalleled ability to respond swiftly and
successfully to a clearly stated challenge -- and to America's
willingness to take great risks for great rewards.
We had a challenge. We set a goal. And we achieved it.
So today is not only an occasion to thank these astronauts and
their colleagues -- the thousands of talented men and women across
the country whose commitment, creativity, and courage brought this
dream to life. It's also a time to thank the American people for
their faith -- because Apollo's success was made possible by the
drive and daring of an entire nation committed to a dream.
In the building behind me are the testaments to Apollo and to what
came before -- the chariots of fire flown by Armstrong, Yeager,
Lindbergh, and the Wrights. And in the National Archives -- across
the great expanse of grass -- are preserved the founding documents
of the idea that made it all possible -- the world's greatest
experiment in freedom and diversity.
And here -- standing between these twin legacies -- is a fitting
place to look forward to the future.
Because the Apollo astronauts left more than flags and footprints
on the Moon. They also left some unfinished business. For even
20 years ago, we recognized that America's ultimate goal was not
simply to go there and go back -- but to go there and go on.
Mike Collins said it best: "The Moon is not a destination -- it's
a direction."
And space is the inescapable challenge to all the advanced nations
of Earth. And there's little question that, in the 21st century,
humans will again leave their home planet for voyages of discovery
and exploration. What was once improbable is now inevitable.
The time has come to look beyond brief encounters. We must commit
ourselves anew to a sustained program of manned exploration of the
solar system -- and yes -- the permanent settlement of space. We
must commit ourselves to a future where Americans and citizens of
all nations will live and work in space.
And today, yes, we are, the U.S. is the richest nation on Earth -
- with the most powerful economy in the world. And our goal is
nothing less than to establish the United States as the preeminent
spacefaring nation.
From the voyages of Columbus to the Oregon Trail -- to the journey
to the Moon itself -- history proves that we have never lost by
pressing the limits of our frontiers.
Indeed, earlier this month, one news magazine reported that Apollo
paid down-to-earth dividends -- declaring that man's conquest of
the Moon "would have been a bargain at twice the price." And they
called Apollo "the best return on investment since Leonardo da
Vinci bought himself a sketch pad." (Laughter)
In 1961, it took a crisis -- the space race -- to speed things up.
Today we don't have a crisis. We have an opportunity.
To seize this opportunity, I'm not promising a 10-year plan like
Apollo. I'm proposing a long-range, continuing commitment.
First, for the coming decade -- for the 1990's -- Space Station
Freedom -- our critical next step in all our space endeavors.
And next -- for the new century -- back to the Moon. Back to the
future. And this time, back to stay. (Applause.)
And then -- a journey into tomorrow -- a journey to another planet
-- a manned mission to Mars. (Applause.)
Each mission should -- and will lay the groundwork for the next.
And the pathway to the stars begins, as it did 20 years ago, with
you -- the American people. And it continues just up the street
there -- to the United States Congress -- where the future of the
space station -- and our future as a spacefaring nation -- will be
decided.
And yes, we're at a crossroads. Hard decisions must be made now
as we prepare to enter the next century.
As William Jennings Bryan said -- just before the last turn of the
century: "Destiny is not a matter of chance --it is a matter of
choice. It is not a thing to be waited for -- it is a thing to be
achieved."
And to those who may shirk from the challenges ahead -- or who
doubt our chances of success -- let me say this:
To this day, the only footprints on the Moon are American
footprints. The only flag on the Moon is an American flag. And
the know-how that accomplished these feats is American know-how.
What Americans dream, Americans can do.
And 10 years from now -- on the 30th anniversary of this
extraordinary and astonishing flight -- the way to honor the Apollo
astronauts is not by calling them back to Washington for another
round of tributes. It is to have Space Station Freedom up there,
operational, and underway -- a new bridge between the worlds --
(Applause) -- and an investment in the growth, prosperity and
technological superiority of our nation.
And the space station will also serve as a stepping stone to the
most important planet in the solar system -- Planet Earth.
As I said in Europe just a few days ago, environmental destruction
knows no borders. A major national and international initiative
is needed to seek new solutions for ozone depletion, and global
warming, and acid rain. And this initiative -- "Mission to Planet
Earth" -- is a critical part of our space program. And it reminds
us of what the astronauts remember as the most stirring sight of
all. It wasn't the Moon or the stars, as I remember. It was the
Earth -- tiny, fragile, precious, blue orb -- rising above the arid
desert of Tranquility Base.
The space station is a first and necessary step for sustained
manned exploration -- one that we're pleased has been endorsed by
Senator Glenn, and Neil Armstrong, and so many of the veteran
astronauts we honor today. But it's only a first step.
And today I'm asking my right hand man, our able Vice President,
Dan Quayle, to lead the National Space Council in determining
specifically what's needed for the next round of exploration -- the
necessary money, manpower, and material -- the feasibility of
international cooperation -- and develop realistic timetables,
milestones along the way. The Space Council will report back to
me as soon as possible with concrete recommendations to chart a new
and continuing course to the Moon and Mars and beyond.
There are many reasons to explore the universe, but 10 very special
reasons why America must never stop seeking distant frontiers --
the 10 courageous astronauts who made the ultimate sacrifice to
further the cause of space exploration. They have taken their
place in the heavens, so that America can take its place in the
stars.
Like them, and like Columbus, we dream of distant shores we've not
yet seen.
Why the Moon? Why Mars? Because it is humanity's destiny to
strive, to seek, to find. And because it is America's destiny to
lead.
Six years ago, Pioneer 10 sailed beyond the orbits of Neptune and
Pluto -- the first man-made object to leave the solar system. Its
destination unknown. It's now journeyed through the tenures of
five Presidents -- four billion miles from Earth.
In the decades ahead, we will follow the path of Pioneer 10. We
will travel to neighboring stars, to new worlds, to discover the
unknown. And it will not happen in my lifetime, and probably not
during the lives of my children, but a dream to be realized by
future generations must begin with this generation. We cannot take
the next giant leap for mankind tomorrow unless we take a single
step today. (Applause.)
To all of you here, our able director of NASA and other who've
served so well -- to all of you here -- and especially the
astronauts -- we wish you good luck in your quests, wherever that
may take you. Godspeed to you, one and all. And God bless the
United States of America.
Thank you all very, very much. (Applause)
END 10:46 A.M. EDT
Eric W. Tilenius | Princeton Planetary Soc. | [email protected]
Quadrangle Club | 315 West College | [email protected]
33 Prospect Avenue | Princeton University | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540 | Princeton, NJ 08544 | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411 | 516-424-2298 | CIS: 70346,16
Eric W. Tilenius | ColorVenture Software | [email protected]
Quadrangle Club | 11 Prospect Drive South | [email protected]
33 Prospect Avenue | Huntington Sta, NY 11746 | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540 | 516-424-2298 | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411 | * Sft. for the CoCo 3 * | CIS: 70346,16
From: [email protected] (Eric William Tilenius)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.misc,sci.space
Subject: Press Briefing by NASA Administrator Truly on July 20 -- Full Text
Date: 1 Aug 89 22:10:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release July 20, 1989
PRESS BRIEFING BY ADMIRAL RICHARD H. TRULY
The Briefing Room, 11:25 A.M. EDT
MR. FITZWATER: Ladies and gentlemen, we have with us
this morning to brief you, the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Admiral
Richard Truly. Admiral Truly will have a brief opening
statement and then take your questions.
ADMIRAL TRULY: Thank you and good morning.
Q: Got a sign-up list? (Laughter.)
TRULY: July 20, 1989 is a very important day because
it's 20 years after this nation first landed men on the
Moon, and the President and the Vice President were kind
enough to help NASA and the crew of Apollo 11 celebrate
that on the steps of the Air and Space Museum, just a few
moments ago. It -- 1989, I think finds NASA and our
space program in a healthy state. We are flying again.
As a matter of fact, we're going to be flying another
shuttle flight here within the next few weeks. Flight
readiness review is early next week and then we'll set
a launch date, which will be early in August.
We're fighting hard on -- up on Congress for
Space Station Freedom. And as I have looked across the
Agency, I think that I find NASA and the American civil
space program to be poised and ready to move out into the
future. And I believe that President Bush very clearly
this morning, and again, asserted that he believes that
America should have an aggressive space program, and that
we should both look back here to our own Planet Earth,
where there are many environmental problems and many, I
believe, that cannot be solved without a data collections
program that we've called a "Mission to Planet Earth" to
understand what's going on here on our Earth.
But he also directed that we also look ahead to
the future. He said that he had asked the Vice
President, as head of the National Space Council, to work
with NASA to present a specific plan as soon as we could;
to follow his broad direction, which was to have a long
and steady goal of human exploration, as we did earlier.
One that would be a long commitment, that would lead, in
his words I believe, to the potential return to the Moon
with a science outpost, possibly -- or go there to stay
in the first decade of the next century, and then
eventually later, a human exploration of Mars.
Q: Do you have a date on that?
TRULY: No, we don't.
Q: Any way of knowing?
TRULY: No, we don't, because we -- I just, frankly,
learned this morning what his direction was. He laid it
out in three steps. For the 1990's, he very clearly said
that Space Station Freedom is our first priority, which
it is today. And incidentally, the space station stands
on the route to any exploration direction. And then the
second step was a lunar -- a scientific outpost -- its
purpose not to go, just touch the Moon, and return, but
to do science there.
Q: Do you say that's the first decade of the next century?
TRULY: That's what the President said, yes. The first
decade of the next century.
Q: Admiral Truly, don't you and the administration
already have a blueprint in place, deriving from the
report of the National Commission on Space in 1985? Why
does the National Space Council and this administration
need to go back and revisit this, when you already have
this blueprint for the Moon and Mars and beyond?
TRULY: Well, as a matter of fact, that's really not so.
We do have a number of studies in our hip pocket that
have been done by independent commissions. And each of
them are generally in the same -- have been in the same
direction, as you say. And that is to lay out an
exploration goal that would include the Moon and would
include Mars, particularly in the next century. The
space policy that was first -- in which it was first
stated, was early in 1988, however, where it said that
it was a national policy to expand our presence into the
solar system. But until this morning, we really have not
had a president who laid out in broad terms his view and
his series of goals so that the Space Council and NASA
can flesh them out.
Q: Admiral Truly, can you tell us how the sort of hard
realities of what are resources are, given the fight
you're having now over Space Station Freedom, how can you
give any credibility to this kind of a goal, when you are
up on the Hill now just trying to sustain the relatively
modest levels? You know, the Apollo Project produced a
doubling in the size of NASA after Kennedy announced it
in the budget. I don't see any indications that the
President has that in mind for his presidency, do you?
TRULY: Well, first of all, there's never a time that
we're not fighting for our budgets. We did it last year
and the year before, and we'll be doing it next year.
It is an irony that we are -- at the time that we find
this sort of leadership and vision for America's future -
- that at the same time this very day up on the Hill, we
are, in fact, fighting very hard for the very life of
Space Station Freedom, and other things in the civil
space program. But the Apollo program peaked at over
four percent of the federal budget. That was about what
it cost at the peak to go to Apollo. But there was --
as magnificent a goal as that was, there was something
about Apollo that allowed us to walk away from it and,
in fact, then the funding for the civil space program
plunged to less than one percent.
The program outlined today, we will -- it will
be more than it is today, naturally, but, frankly, the -
- as the President said in his speech, each time we have
explored, each time we have invested in our future, we
have always lived to thank that day. And he laid out not
a program to be done in this Congress this summer, even
though that's the -- the major start was Space Station
Freedom -- and not a two-year goal and not a 10-year
goal, but a sustained vision of the future. And I
applaud him.
Q: Admiral Truly, when President Kennedy called on the
nation to go to the moon, he warned that it would not be
easy and it would not be cheap. And he said that it
would require a commitment to considerable additional
funds and if there was no such commitment, the decision
should be made then and there. President Bush made no
comments about the specific nature of funding that would
be required, though there are some estimates that it
could cost $100 billion to establish a base on the Moon.
What are the ballpark figures, and why wasn't there a
call for continued national sacrifice from the President
today?
TRULY: Well, I -- as I listened to the speech, I thought
it was clear that he made a call, a very direct call to
the Congress about Space Station Freedom. I believe that
he clearly said that our nation, which has the strongest
economy in the world, is capable of a sacrifice to
explore and continue to explore along the lines that he
talked about. Surely, it is clear that we should not -
- and it was said, I think, very eloquently -- I think
by Mike Collins this morning -- surely, it is clear that
we shouldn't base the future exploration on poverty on
our own country. Surely, we should turn to our own
Earth. And we have major -- we do have major problems.
But we also are a country of free will. We have
a very large economy. And over a long period of time,
we may choose -- we have the free will to choose the
directions that we go. And I don't know what the budgets
will turn out to be, but I can assure you that they are
very affordable, I believe, in the total context and over
a long period of time, and secondly, they will be
considerably less than the Apollo peak.
Q: Well, is the $100 billion figure an accurate figure?
What do your own hip-pocket studies show?
TRULY: Well, I've read in the media an estimate that a
program such as this, a crash program -- which,
incidentally, he did not call for -- would cost about
$100 billion over a period of 10 years or so to return
to the Moon. We don't have any detailed NASA figures.
We have, obviously, in the last several weeks, have
looked in gross terms what it would cost, but there was
no specific timetable and I have not presented the
President with a specific and detailed list of budgetary
requirements.
Q: Admiral Truly, more and more, the space program is
being characterized as a matter of great scientific
interest and, in that context, somewhat of a luxury.
What about the national security implications of
expanding the space program, and in that context, where
do we stand vis a vis the Soviet space program?
TRULY: Well, that's two or three questions in one. I
think -- in reverse order, I think where we stand with
the Soviets is we have a very different program than
theirs -- and, incidentally, I'm a great admirer of the
Soviet's program in that they have had a great dedication
and tenacity to follow through in a consistent program.
However, I believe that no space program on Earth today
has the kind of technology and capability that our does.
Obviously, there are national security priorities
in space also, but that generally is not -- the civil
space program -- that's not the NASA business and it's
certainly not the goals of what Bush outlined today.
Q: Do you think that this is important enough that we
should raise taxes to pay for it?
TRULY: Well, that's an issue that should be left to the
President and to the entire -- and to a view of the
entire national economic scene. And I can assure you
that I'm not an expert in it. I can -- let me tell you,
though -- one of the reasons that I feel so strongly
about it and that I've given my life to working on it is
that we -- that no one's asked about today -- that makes
it very worthwhile is that is stands and has the leverage
for the very things the President stands for --
education, competitiveness, the things it can do for
America -- a boost to technology. We have study after
study that shows that the dollars that we spend on the
space program, which are spent not in space but on Earth,
pay us back seven or eight dollars to one over a period
of a decade or so. And you can say I'm wrong by a factor
of two; it's still quite an investment in the future.
And so a program like this excites me because it
will position our country as we enter the next 1,000
years in a very -- a much better competitive posture.
Q: Well, would you like to see the President go to the
American people and say, we can't afford it with the
budget we have and I'd like to ask you to pay more in
taxes so we can afford it?
TRULY: I can't imagine for me to be happier for the
President to go to the American people and say what he
said the morning.
Q: He basically said we don't have the money for it, so
I'm not going to ask for it now.
TRULY: No, I believe he told the Vice President and the
Space Council to lay out a specific plan along these
broad goals, and we'll do that.
Q: Has he given and deadline to Vice President Quayle
for making a report? And you mentioned the other day
that if the President today gave a commitment to some
future program like the Moon or Mars, that NASA as it's
structured today wouldn't be able to do it. What will
it take to rebuild NASA to carry out a program like this?
TRULY: First of all, to my knowledge, he has not set a
specific date. Frankly, it's a very hard analysis that
needs to be done in order to lay it out. And you're
right, I did say that the other day. Today's NASA, even
though we have the underpinnings and the strength to
build, to be able to do such a program, we can't do it
today. We have faced a string of years in which our
budgets have been tight. We have a full plate today with
flying our space shuttle missions and building Space
Station Freedom. And to take on a project like this,
I've made -- or tried to make clear that we will need
some help. We'll need additional engineers and
scientists and techs to do the program. We have some
facilities problems that will need to be corrected.
However, on the other hand, let me not leave you
with the wrong impression.. In the last several weeks
when I have looked at NASA, even though we do have these
problems, I have found, frankly, that NASA has been doing
the right things. For example, if any president laid out
a view of the future like President Bush did this morning
and we didn't have a vehicle like the space shuttle, we
would have to invent one. If we didn't have a station
like Space Station Freedom, we would have to invent one.
If we didn't have the kind of facilities and launch pads
based on Apollo that we have, we would have to do that.
And we have those things, so I think we're poised and in
good shape.
Q: Admiral Truly, one of the things in all this talk
about how Kennedy inspired the nation in 1961 -- that was
only three years after Sputnik and not long after Gagarin
-- and there was a great deal of fear about the Soviets
gaining a superiority in space. Now with the new
political relationship with the Soviets, do you think
this is hurting your cause? Do you think a good Soviet
communist scare might get you more money? (Laughter.)
TRULY: No, it might help us in the short term, but I
think it would be awful. I love what I see going on in
the world today when we -- compared to 1961. And
frankly, I believe, at least for this short period of
time, and I hope it's a long time, the nations of the
Earth, and particularly the Soviet Union and the United
States, are living more equitably together. I'm
interested to see what reaction internationally from this
will be. I hope it's positive; I think it will be and
I'll bet it will be from them as well.
Q: Why did you say that we could walk away from Apollo
at some point and that we did walk away? Was it because
we became so blase?
TRULY: Well, I've thought a lot about that. My theory
is -- the Richard H. Truly theory -- is that it was
caused by two things. One is the goal that President
Kennedy set, which was a magnificent goal, but the goal
was to send man to the Moon in the decade and bring him
safely -- and return him safely to the Earth. And when
Neil and Buzz and Mike returned safely to the Earth, even
though there were a number of missions to follow them,
there was -- I think there was a collective "whew, we did
it" and we were so proud, and the goal had been achieved.
The second thing was the Vietnam War -- 1969, if
you remember -- and I know you have studied more than me
-- the Apollo landing on the Moon was one of the few
great things that happened in 1969. And the things that
were going on with the war and a number of areas,
combined with the achievement of Apollo, allowed us, for
whatever reason, to turn away.
I don't think that's what the future in the civil
space program ought to be. I think we ought to have a
long-range goal, not one that on a certain year at a
certain date we're done with it. I think there's so much
value to our American life from the space program that
having a goal that is sustainable is one worth waiting
for. And, by golly, we have waited 20 years for the
opportunity to really set such a goal and I'm glad we -
MR. FITZWATER: Let's take a couple of final questions.
Q: Admiral, the way I figure it, you want to get back
to the Moon in about 20 years or so. And if you've got
to do that, you're going to need a plan and you're going
to need some specifics rather sooner than that. I just
wondered what the timetable is to come up with a specific
plan, its cost, the way its to be financed, as well as -
- and a timetable. At what point in the Bush presidency
would you like to see this?
TRULY: Oh, I think that -- as a matter of fact, somebody
just yesterday said they were worried about what they
President was going to say on Thursday, and I said, don't
worry about what the President's going to say on
Thursday, you'd better worry about what you're going to
be doing on Friday.
We have lots of work to do. I think it's going
to take a number of months for us in NASA just to lay out
how this affects what we're going and what our plans are.
The President -- I think his words, for getting
back to him, were as soon as possible. As I said
earlier, I'm not aware of a specific deadline, but we
have our work cut out for us. But I do look forward to
it. But we've got a lot to do.
Q: Could you tell us as simply as possible what man will
be able to do on Mars in the second decade of the 21st
century -- robotics -- something we can do?
TRULY: We certainly would precede a manned mission to
Mars with robotic precursors. As a matter of fact, we
have -- one of those first precursors is already on the
books, and it's going to be launched in 1992 -- called
Mars Observer. We'll probably need to send higher
fidelity imaging systems and very possibly a robotic
sample return mission -- in other words, bring back a
little piece of Martian soil to -- but Mars has intrigued
the people of this world for hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of years. The first excitement about going to
Mars will simply be one of exploration. And that is to
send men and women there to go to the planet and gain
knowledge from it.
I think probably in the longer run that we will
have such a program on Mars as the President mentioned
today about the Moon. The Moon is much easier for us to
do and that is, a science outpost, not unlike our outposts
that are in Antarctica, which, as you know, are international
outposts, and in a way, several international outposts add up
to make an international base.
Q: You say man is a symbol of the exploration, then,
rather than a necessity for science.
TRULY: This is a -- no, I didn't say man didn't do
science, but I did say that the driving urge, I think,
over the centuries to the Red Planet, the Planet Mars,
has been one of exploration. And it will lead later, as
in all explorations, to a later program of using the
planet for science and knowledge.
Q: When you were briefing the Congress with Vice
President Quayle, you outlined an option to the Moon by
around 2001 or 2002, and Mars by 2016. The President
today talked about just a space station in the 90's and
the Moon in the first decade. I mean, it seems like even
now, he's sort of taking a more leisurely path. Was
there a change?
TRULY: Well, the first decade of the next century starts
in the year 2000. The last year of the first decade is
the year 2010. The President is quite aware that the
information and studies we've been looking at over the
last several weeks has been done in a very short amount
of time. I think it would be, frankly, foolish and I
would never have recommended that he, based on our
knowledge of what it takes, to say on a specific date.
However, our early studies show that, if you ask
the question, when could we be back on the Moon, it would
be in the dawn of the next century.
Q: Admiral Truly, can we afford to go it alone? Won't
it take joint mission, including the Soviets, to
accomplish these goals?
TRULY: Yes, I think we can afford to go it alone,
although I think that's probably in the long run now
what's going to happen.
The world has changed since the 1960s in space.
It used to be only the Soviet Union and the United States
that could fly in space; that's the way it was when
President Kennedy made his speech. The world has
changed. The Europeans, the Japanese, the Canadians, the
Chinese, the Soviet Union -- all of these countries here
in this brief 20 years now have the capability to fly in
space.
Space Station Freedom is an international project.
It's premature in this particular direction to know where
we're heading, but I would think it would have an
international flavor.
Q: Sir, did you attend the Naval Academy?
TRULY: No, Ma'am, I didn't.
Q: Can you tell about your educational background?
TRULY: Yes. I went to Georgia Tech on a Navy ROTC
scholarship, and since that day until the first day of
this month, I've been on active duty in the Navy.
Q: Are there any Martians? (Laughter.)
TRULY: No.
Q: And will they brief? (Laughter.)
TRULY: One more, please.
Q: Admiral, your predecessor always said if Congress is
going to cut the money for Space Station Freedom, it
might as well be killed altogether. Are you willing to -
- if the money is cut for Space Station Freedom, are you
willing to cut back on the concept of a space station to
a smaller space station, perhaps?
TRULY: Well, we've asked for, I think this year's
requirement for the space station that we need in the
President's budget is a little over $2 billion -- $2.05
billion. If we got one dollar less, I guess I would -
- you know, there's -- certainly, I think we can build
that one.
We're being threatened very directly with a cut
as large as $400 million. There have been amendments
bouncing back and forth up on the Hill that would kill
the space station. So there is a point where we can't
build the space station that we have talked about before,
but I don't want to scale it back. We know the space
station we want to build. It's named "Freedom". We're
entering a preliminary design review. That's the space
station the country ought to build. Certainly, there is
a level in cuts that -- we wouldn't cancel it, but I
would have to direct my people to look at changes -- and
I've already done that.
But I've tried over and over again to make it
clear that I'm only doing it because I think it would be
lousy program management if I didn't take account of the
realities when I'm being threatened directly with a cut
of almost half-a-billion dollars early in the program.
And I think the President's strong support today that
that is the first thing to do, as we chart a new course,
was one that I hope helps me and you and NASA and the
civil space program on the Hill.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 11:50 A.M. EDT
- ERIC -
Eric W. Tilenius | Princeton Planetary Soc. | [email protected]
Quadrangle Club | 315 West College | [email protected]
33 Prospect Avenue | Princeton University | rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni
Princeton, NJ 08540 | Princeton, NJ 08544 | princeton!pucc!ewtileni
609-683-4411 | 516-424-2298 | DELPHI: TILENIUS
|
| 548.27 | Reactions to Bush's space plans | RENOIR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Fri Aug 04 1989 08:01 | 78 |
| From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 89 19:11:37 -0700
Subject: NSS Hotline Update
/* Written 6:36 pm Aug 3, 1989 by jordankatz in cdp:sci.space */
/* ---------- "NSS Hotline Update" ---------- */
This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline updated August 1.
Response to President Bush's space speech of July 20th, the Apollo
anniversary, has run a full range - from critical commentary from the
media and Capitol Hill - to lukewarm from the public and interested
parties (such as industry) to muted esctasy from NASA and the space
advocacy community.
Bush's ambitious 30-year plan for NASA has drawn heavy fire from
Capitol Hill. Sen. Gore of Tennessee accused the president of offering
"not a challenge to inspire us, but a daydream as splashy as a George
Lucas movie - with about as much connection to reality." Rep. Charles
Schumer of New York, whose amendment to transfer $714 million from
NASA to social programs lost in a lopsided vote on the House floor,
also criticized Bush's statement as "space exploration by press
release." Space program supporters, such as Sen. Jake Garn of Utah
praised Bush for providing "a blueprint for a substantive, visionary
space policy," and encouraged Bush to lead the fight to "garner the
support of members of Congress."
Several newspaper editorials in the week following the presdent's
address were harshly critical, with the New York Times stating that
the president is "merely giving NASA a nominal goal to justify its
vast and so far fruitless investment in the space shuttle and space
station." The St. Louis Post Dispatch said that the president's
speech was an "exercise in feel-good Reaganesque public relations."
Positive media commentary did come from, of all places, the Wall
St. Journal. Its editors noted that "Washington's tribe of frightened
people (shouldn't) stop the rest of the country from being bold and
brave and successful."
Public commentary seems to have been muted, something which space
advocates can and should change. Spacecause, the grassroots space
lobby, suggests letters to the editors of local newspapers praising
the president's initiative as the departure point of true space
exploration. Calls to the Presidential comment line would also show
the Administration that there is support from the public for his
initiative. The number is 202-456-7639.
The fight for the Space Station and the NASA budget in general
moves from the House to the Senate, but not until after the August
congressional recess. The space station came through the House on the
20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing with only a $395
million cut to its $2.05 billion request. Sen. Barbara Mikulski's VA,
HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittee will next take up the debate
over appropriations for the NASA budget. Milkulski, in a speech to a
group of senators, NASA officials and industry supporters on July 19th
said that she is an "unabashed space enthusiast" who would struggle
"to make sure we fund the space station". Sen. Mikulski is apparently
stalling the mark-up of the subcommittee's bill in order to keep as
many options open as possible.
Johnson Space Center Director Aaron Cohen has been temporarily
assigned to NASA headquarters to lead the agency's response to the
national goal of human exploration of the Moon and the planet Mars as
announced by President Bush on July 20th. JSC will be managed by
Deputy Director Paul Weitz in his absence. Former NASA General Counsel
John E. O'Brien will become an assistant deputy administrator with
responsibility of supporting NASA's efforts in formulating plans to
implement the president's stated future goals. He will provide
"special analysis and management problem solving" skills according to
a NASA spokesperson. Cohen and O'Brien will both report directly to
the Administrator.
Vice President Quayle will address employees at Marshall Space
Flight Center on Wednesday, August 2nd.
This has been the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the
week of July 31st.
|
| 548.28 | The latest on Bush's plans for NASA from Truly | RENOIR::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Thu Oct 26 1989 18:42 | 85 |
| Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Truly updates aeronautics and space programs for Press Club (Forwarded)
Date: 26 Oct 89 17:51:07 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
1:00 p.m. EDT
October 26, 1989
RELEASE: 89-165
TRULY UPDATES AERONAUTICS AND SPACE PROGRAMS FOR PRESS CLUB
Four months after becoming NASA Administrator, Vice Admiral
Richard H. Truly issued an upbeat assessment of the agency's many
programs and said an analysis of future manned missions to the moon
and Mars "is proceeding exceedingly well."
While the Moon and Mars missions "will be technically demanding and
not without risk, they are well within our reach," Admiral Truly said at a
National Press Club luncheon in Washington, D.C.
"These expeditions will stimulate new technologies and enhance our
nation's long-term productivity," Admiral Truly said. "They will improve
national competitiveness. They will advance scientific knowledge and
lead to discoveries about our solar system, Earth and life, itself."
The NASA leader's broad-brush review of current NASA programs
included the following highlights:
* Aeronautics - NASA technology has enabled the U.S. aerospace
industry to maintain "an unqualified lead in world markets." To help
maintain this position, NASA has revived research on a high-speed civil
transport -- research that will lead to "environmentally sound, supersonic
travel for the future."
* Space Science - The recent launches of the Galileo and Magellan
space probes ushers in an extraordinary era of space science missions.
Over the next 5 years, NASA will launch 37 space missions that will
"radically change our understanding, not only of the universe but also
of ourselves."
* "Mission to Planet Earth" - Using "superior new instruments," we can
take a comprehensive look at the entire global system -- lands, oceans,
ice and atmosphere. This program is taking shape and promises to provide
data that "will be coordinated in a decades-long effort to better
understand our fragile Earth."
* Space Shuttle - With six successful missions since the return to
flight, NASA is moving confidently to safely increase the Shuttle's flight
rate. The Shuttle is "unquestionably a far safer and much more reliable
vehicle" and will be critical in the construction of Space Station Freedom.
* Space Station Freedom - The "cornerstone of our future in space,"
Freedom is the largest international cooperative space project ever
undertaken. It is an essential step toward moving again beyond Earth
orbit and into the solar system, providing new insights into the human
body and psyche as we cope with longer durations of space flight;
allowing us to test exploration technologies; and permitting the
assembly service of space vehicles.
Last July 20, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing,
President Bush committed the United States to return to the moon and
then explore Mars. NASA is supporting the efforts of the National Space
Council, chaired by Vice President Quayle, to determine what resources
will be required and to set a realistic timetable to meet these goals.
Admiral Truly said the benefits of future missions to the moon and
Mars are difficult to quantify and include such intangibles as knowledge,
success and pride. "Each time we go to the frontier and beyond," he said,
"we bring back more than we hoped for. This time we have the chance to
bring back more than we can imagine."
He also said manned space exploration will stimulate science and
engineering education in the United States. "I feel strongly that NASA has
a special responsibility in education for a very special reason. Our
programs -- airplanes, spaceships, moon, Mars and astronauts -- can get
to kids."
Note: Copies of Admiral Truly's prepared remarks are available from the
NASA Newsroom, Room 6043, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., Washington, DC
20546 (phone: XXX/YYY-ZZZZ).
|
| 548.29 | America back on the Moon by 2010? | WRKSYS::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Wed Jan 24 1990 15:41 | 29 |
| Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/23/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 24 Jan 90 18:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, January 23, 1990 Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, January 23:
The weekly publication "Space News" reports that NASA
Administrator Richard Truly last week asked Vice President Quayle to
recommend to the President that he set 2010 as the date for the U.S.
to return to the Moon.
The publication reports that during a meeting last Thursday of the
National Space Council, other members present said they were not in
favor of setting a specific date. The paper says Quayle listened to
arguements on both sides, asked many questions, and then ended the
meeting without comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
|
| 548.30 | The Space Exploration Initiative | WRKSYS::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Fri Mar 02 1990 12:49 | 46 |
| From: [email protected] (Jay Glass)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: [Alan Fernquist <[email protected]>: HEI]
Date: 28 Feb 90 22:47:23 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 58
I thought you might be interested in a memo that came out of the
National Space Council last week on the Presidential Decision on the
Space Exploration Inititative:
"The President has approved the following policy for the Space
Exploration Inititative program:
- The Initiative will include both Lunar and Mars program elements.
- The early program will focus on technology development with a
search for new/innovative approaches and technology.
- The program will include investment in high leverage innovative technologies
with potential to make a major impact on cost, schedule, and/or performance.
- The program will take at least several years defining two or more
significantly different human space exploration reference architectures,
while developing and demonstrating technology broad enough to support
all; selection of a baseline program architecture will occur after
that time.
- The program will perform mission, concept, and system analysis
studies in parallel with technology development.
- The program will include robotic science missions.
- By spurring research and development in high technology fields,
the space program will help promote American economic leadership.
- The program will require the efforts of several agencies. NASA will
be the principal implementing agency. The Dept. of Defense and the
Dept. of Engergy will also have major roles in the conduct of
technology development and concept definition. The National Space
Council will coordinate the development of an implementation strategy
for the Exploration initiative by the three agencies. To facilitate
coordination, the Dept. of Energy will be added as a formal member of
the National Space Council."
|
| 548.31 | NASA, LLNL, and GE plans for Luna and Mars | WRKSYS::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Sun Mar 04 1990 14:47 | 106 |
| Date: 3 Mar 90 08:20:09 GMT
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Space news from Jan 22 AW&ST
White House orders NASA to get more input from outside sources,
notably industry and the science community, on plans for the Moon and
Mars. The White House, uh, *noticed* Lawrence Livermore's proposal to
do a good fraction of NASA's plans at 1/40th of the price. Quayle
says "We need to consider innovative ways of doing business... [past
plans] may be bound by restrictions and policy which, while well
intentioned, bow more to tradition than ingenuity".
Feature article on Lawrence Livermore's "Great Exploration"
proposal, doing Moon and Mars bases by the year 2000 for total cost of
about $10G (compared to NASA's 25 years and $400G). It's caught the
eye of a lot of people; NASA's response has been very negative. The
primary authors are Lowell Wood, Rod Hyde, and Yuki Ishikawa.
The G.E. proposal is explicitly a minimal scheme, not an
"absolutely first class" [translation: gold-plated] one like NASA's.
Major points of note:
- Reliance on existing technology. "The thing we plan to do
use existing technology in forms and integrations that can be
demonstrated on Earth in 2-3 years at a cost of $50-150M."
No new launchers: hardware goes up on Titan 4s and Deltas,
people on the shuttle or in Apollo-type capsules, with use
of commercial launchers a possibility. 24 launches in 10 years.
- Risks comparable to those accepted during Apollo, rather than
the rather lower levels NASA prefers now. However, there are
provisions for emergency crew return at all times.
- Less early science. "The crew will all be trained scientists
and engineers who will do science the way Charles Darwin did it
during the voyage of HMS Beagle. Darwin was the only scientist
aboard and his scientific work was ancillary to his other duties
as part of the crew." For example, there is no major observatory
as part of the lunar plans. Later science work would build on
the GE infrastructure.
- No unnecessary auxiliaries. Specifically, none of the numerous
unmanned precursor missions (mapping and communications satellites,
probes, and sample-return missions) that are bundled into NASA's
plans.
- Standardized inflatable modules forming an Earth-orbit space
station and the lunar and Martian bases. Using current space-suit
technology, inflatable Kevlar modules weigh one-tenth of what
rigid structures do and can be packed much more efficiently at
launch. The basic hardware for the space station, the Moon base,
and the Mars base is *one* Titan 4 launch each. Modules would
be 5m in diameter by 15m long, with double outer walls, metal
end plates, and a multi-layer outer shield to provide insulation
and meteorite protection. Seven modules, at under a ton each,
would be joined around a central hub for the space station.
The lunar base would be another seven; the Mars base would be four.
They would be inflated at the destination, after which astronauts
would enter and (in shirt sleeves, not spacesuits) put together
the interior furnishings. Interior components would be modular
and prefabricated, assembled and tested on Earth beforehand.
NASA, um, has doubts. It questions the feasibility of the
inflatable structures, but Wood replies that (a) NASA's own spacesuit
contractors say the modules are practical, and (b) NASA's own
lunar-base plan includes an inflatable dome 11m in diameter. Wood
says that in general, all the GE technology is from NASA research or
NASA-sponsored industrial research. NASA says having the astronauts
assemble the internal hardware is "a huge flaw", but Wood says it is
no more difficult than prefabricated home construction on Earth, and
saves vast amounts of weight (the weight advantage is a factor of 2-3
even after furnishing). NASA says the cost estimates are wildly
optimistic and omit important expenses.
The basic GE plan, if started immediately, would test components
for the space station and orbital fuel dump immediately and launch
them in mid-1991. Design and procurement of lunar-mission hardware
would start while water was being launched to the fuel dump, to be
converted to liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and stored for the
lunar mission.
The lunar hardware would go up in mid-1994 and go to the Moon
later that year, using a lunar transfer vehicle powered by RL-10
engines and fueled in orbit. Lunar equipment would include a
rocket-powered "hopper", two lunar tractors, an emergency-return
module, a greenhouse module, and enough food, water, and air to
support four people for ten years in a "spartan" lifestyle. Once
modules were inflated and assembled, a small "snow blower" would be
used to cover them with lunar soil as protection against radiation and
meteorites. A "soil roaster" to extract oxygen from lunar soil for
use as fuel is an option, possible with an extra launch but not
essential to the main program.
The Mars mission hardware would go up in fall 1996, and would
likewise be fueled in orbit, to leave early 1997. Two vehicles would
go, one to be used for surface descent, the other a return vehicle to
be left in orbit. Surface equipment would include a plant to extract
oxygen from the carbon-dioxide atmosphere, an ascent module,
scientific instruments, rovers, a hopper, and life support for a
400-day stay. Return would be in late 1999, with at least 1000lbs of
samples. Part of the crew could stay on Mars, and more missions would
follow.
--
Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [email protected]
|
| 548.32 | The Lunar Society | VERGA::KLAES | All the Universe, or nothing! | Tue Sep 01 1992 14:12 | 183 |
| Article: 1621
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: [email protected] (Jean Y. Kim)
Subject: Lunar Society
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:09:17 GMT
Hi netters, I am forwarding this for a friend.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
It's less than ten years to 2001...
.... do you know where YOUR space program is?
THE LUNAR SOCIETY
was founded because of a single profound and distrubing insight:
politicians, bureaucrats, and aerospace corporate managers are not
going to get US into space.
We can't afford the price of a ticket, let alone the space-equivalent
of the covered wagon. The only way WE are going is if we build the
machines, vehicles, tools, habitats, factories, encampments and
homesteads -- OURSELVES.
Think about the early visions of von Braun and Ley, Clarke and
Heinlein, Goddard and Oberth and Tsiolkovski, and ask youself why we
haven't come farther in the last fifty years? A big part of the
answer is -- the national space program doesn't exist to fulfill those
visions. It does exist to create jobs in certain congressional
districts and to advance national prestige. That approach won't open
the high frontier of space.
The Lunar Society was created because of the deeply held belief that
if real progres is to be made towards the goal of settling the high
frontier, private groups and individuals must lead the way.
Governments will not be the agents of progress, nor is it desirable
that centralized, monolithic, bureaucratic organizations dictate the
future of free people on the frontier of space. TOO MUCH IS AT RISK
TO DENY OUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT TO CREATE OUR OWN FUTURE.
_What are the Society's Goal?_
To provide the individuals the means to homestead the space frontier.
To fund the infrastructure that will permit human settlement of
near-Earth space and Earth's Moon. To conduct research into advanced
technologies which will lower the cost of access to space. And to
educate everyone about the challenges of the age of space, so that we
all have the opportunity to play a role in this great adventure.
In Herman Oberth's words: "This is the goal: to make available for
Life every place where life is possible; to make inhabitable all
worlds as yet uninhabitable and all Life purposeful."
_Why now?_
In the past decade there have been rapid advances in materials, small
computers, software, propulsion systems and life support. These
technologies have enabled an assault on the barriers of access and
cost which blocked small, non-governmental space efforts in the past.
Taking inspiration from the experimental aviation community, and
employing the experiences of entrepreneurs and scientists, engineers
and enthusiasts, the time is right for a non-governmental program
which will create a space civilization.
_Why Another Organization?_
Because we have a unique role to play.
The Lunar Society will not lobby Congress for more money for the U.S.
space program, or publish glossy magazines for members. Others can
play those parts. The Society is raising money to fund needed
technology development which will make settling the high frontier
feasible as well as economical. And then, we'll step aside and let
private businesses pick up the effort. Let's not forget author Larry
Niven's words: "After all, we're capitalists, right?"
We're starting small, working on components such as engines, software,
space suits, and design studies, but we're advancing quickly to flying
vehicles, space platform design and planning lunar missions. REAL
HARDWARE FOR REAL MISSIONS. No other organization today has the
comprehensive space settlement program of the Lunar Society.
_Join Us!_
The Lunar Society is leading the way on the return to the Moon, and
the creation of the first human home on another world. We need your
support in order to jump-start the future. For if not you, then who?
"To accomplish this goal we have committed our lives, fortunes and
honor. If you share this vision, join us."
Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D., Chairman
James Ransom, President
ENROLLMENT
The Lunar Society is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization founded in
1986 by Dr. Jerry Pournelle, present Chairman, along with Dr. Philip
Chapman (former Apollo astronaut) and Mr. James Ransom (Society
President). The Society has established an Associates Program to
permit individuals to participate directly in the greatest adventure
ever undertaken by the human race.
Associates receive the Society quarterly newsletter _Cisluna_ plus
discounted admission to the annual Society conference. Cost is
$100/year. The Society is not a menbership organization, and the
contributions of the Associates are principally used to support
hardware development programs, not to provide menber services.
Contributions are tax-deductible. Any amount of contribution is
welcome; any donor of $25/year or more will receive _Cisluna_.
Enroll by mailing a check to the Society at the address below, or by
calling our voicemail/fax system and using your VISA or MasterCard.
CISLUNA 93
Lunar Society Associates may attend the CISLUNA 93 conference and
exposition (January 15-17, 1993, San Francisco Bay Area) at a
discount. Attendance is $35 per person for the Associate and one
guest before Nov. 30, 1992, or $50 after.
Non-Associates $50 before Nov. 30, 1992, $65 after.
Send a check to the Society at the address below, or call our
voicemail/fax system and use your VISA or MasterCard.
P.O. Box 2500,
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Voicemail/Fax : (415) 593-5575
Email : [email protected]
"There is no way back into the past: The choice, as Wells once said,
is the Universe, or nothing." - Arthur C. Clarke
"The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs"
- Robert A. Heinlein
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle
forever." - Konstantin E. Tsiolkovski
"Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?" - Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill
"We desire to open the planetary worlds to mankind." - Dr. Wernher von Braun
"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars."
-Anon.
Article: 1616
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Lunar Society
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:45:47 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>... by Dr. Jerry Pournelle, present Chairman, along with Dr. Philip
>>Chapman (former Apollo astronaut)
>
>There has never been any Apollo astronaut named Philip Chapman that ever
>flew on a mission. Are we having our chains yanked, or maybe this guy
>went through the training, but didn't fly? What selection group was he in?
He was in the second group of scientist-astronauts, selected in 1967.
That group was basically a victory of optimism and politics over
realistic crew needs; if memory serves, they were privately warned
quite early that their chances of flying on Apollo were slim. You
wouldn't recognize most of their names, because few of them stuck it
out long enough to actually fly... especially since it became clear to
them quickly that it was not possible to combine astronaut status with
an active scientific career. Chapman resigned in 1972. A few of them
did go on waiting and eventually made it up; Bill Lenoir was one of them.
--
There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| [email protected] utzoo!henry
|
| 548.33 | Who pockets the money | MAYDAY::ANDRADE | The sentinel (.)(.) | Wed Sep 02 1992 09:54 | 15 |
| Re. -1
This Lunar Society sounds like a Human Aid organization, living
off donations... And not much accountability, the goal is right
but the means is wrong.
First, why should they not lobby the governament and cooperate
& complement it in their efforts...
Second why should they step aside for private enterprise, once
things get going ??? Aren't they a private enterprise ? Anyway,
where do they draw the line, a thousand or a million people on
the Moon.
Gil
|
| 548.34 | | AKO452::OFOR15::GERMAIN | He's the Iceman - a Hunter! | Wed Sep 02 1992 10:16 | 5 |
| Gil,
because there are dozens of groups lobbying the government already.
Gregg
|
| 548.35 | | DECWIN::FISHER | I *hate* questionnaires--Worf | Wed Sep 02 1992 13:44 | 6 |
| They've been around since 1986 or so, it says? What hardware have they
developed? Do they do it themselves or issue contracts to companies? What
do they do with the hardware once they get it. I'm suspicious, although
Jerry Pournelle being associated makes be feel a little better.
Burns
|
| 548.36 | try the Space Studies Institute instead | TECRUS::REDFORD | | Wed Sep 16 1992 14:00 | 13 |
| Pournelle is basically a publicist, so I wouldn't expect any real
research to be done by such a group. If you're interested in
contributing to someone who has already done a wide range of
interesting work and is much better established, try
the Space Studies Institute of Princeton NJ. It was founded by
Gerard K. O'Neill and has worked on lunar materials processing
and mass drivers.
To be honest, though, no operation in the $10^6-7 range can
accomplish much in space technology. This stuff is inherently
expensive.
/jlr
|
| 548.37 | | AKO452::OFOR15::GERMAIN | He's the Iceman - a Hunter! | Thu Sep 17 1992 09:19 | 14 |
| Talked with Gary Hudson on the phone. He's the chief honcho, it seems.
The idea is to put a colony on the moon by the end of the century for
100 million bucks.
to do this they are going to use old, proven technologies. For example,
they bough two Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engines from a museum and are
reverse engineering them so that they can be produced again. He
estimates $250k per engine. This engine will be the main thrust unit
for the entire program.
Pournelle is merely a figurehead.
More details later.
|
| 548.38 | | DECWIN::FISHER | I *hate* questionnaires--Worf | Thu Sep 17 1992 13:58 | 6 |
| RL-10 is the Centaur engine, isn't it? That doesn't seem powerful enough to
get people to the moon, unless they use a heckuva lot of them.
I must be wrong, though because Centaur is still in production...???
Burns
|
| 548.40 | Saturn V S-IVB Used J-2 Engine | LHOTSE::DAHL | Customers do not buy architectures | Thu Sep 17 1992 14:05 | 6 |
| RE: <<< Note 548.39 by STAR::HUGHES "Captain Slog" >>>
> Yes, the RL-10 is the Centaur engine (and also powered the S-IV stage).
What S-IV stage? The Saturn V's S-IVB third stage was powered by a J-2 engine.
-- Tom
|
| 548.41 | | AKO452::OFOR15::GERMAIN | He's the Iceman - a Hunter! | Thu Sep 17 1992 14:11 | 1 |
| rl-10's were on the Saturn 1B if memory serves......
|
| 548.43 | | AKO452::OFOR15::GERMAIN | He's the Iceman - a Hunter! | Thu Sep 17 1992 19:02 | 4 |
| As I said - RL-10's were used on Saturn 1b's
According to Gary, RL-10's are cheap to produce, robust, reliable,
proven technology.
|
| 548.45 | RL-10 Reliability | VIKA::HUGHES | TANSTAAFL | Fri Sep 18 1992 12:29 | 33 |
| Av week reported on two recent failures of Atlas-Centaur missions that occured
when one of the two RL-10s in the Centaur stage failed to start. The last report
had some interesting detail. Telemetry indicated that in both failures the
turbo-machinery failed to spin up.
In the first failure the guidence system did not attempt a restart because the
deceleration threshold was set too high. With one engine running there was
enough acceleration to keep the system above the threshold. The out of balance
thrust cause the Centaur to tumble and it and the payload were destroyed.
Two changes were instituted as a result. First, ignition was delayed a few tens
of milliseconds from the start of propellent flow. This increases the torque
available to break the turbopumps loose. (I hope I got that right, I don't
have the article here to check.) Second, the deceleration threshold was lowered
so that the guidence computer would attempt a restart even if one engine lit.
This procedure worked as planned in the second failure but it didn't help. At
staging one engine lit but the other failed to spin up. The guidence computer
shut down the good engine and then attempted to start both engines again. The
good engine restarted but the other again failed to spin up. The computer shut
down both engines, (with the computer equivalent of "Ahhh s**t", I imagine),
and range safety destroyed the bird.
In both failures the debris landed in deep water and hasn't been recovered,
though they may make the effort after the second failure. Av Week reported that
there is speculation that there was ice forming in the fuel lines though they
thought they had that problem fixed.
I find the details of this stuff fascinating. When all goes well all we see is
the gloss. It's easy to underestimate how complicated and difficult even off-
the-shelf technology like the RL-10 is.
Mike H
|
| 548.47 | Nit Part II | LHOTSE::DAHL | Customers do not buy architectures | Mon Sep 21 1992 10:28 | 8 |
| RE: <<< Note 548.44 by STAR::HUGHES "Captain Slog" >>>
> I guess this is nit, but I said in .42 that RL10s were used on the
> Saturn I only, not the IB.
Then I guess that this is another nit :-) -- neither of the replies you
referenced mentioned anything about the Saturn I.
-- Tom
|
| 548.49 | | AKO452::OFOR15::GERMAIN | He's the Iceman - a Hunter! | Mon Sep 21 1992 13:51 | 9 |
| Gary,
Is Pratt & Whitney still making RL-10's? Or is Nasa using up an
inventory?
If the latter, then that would explain why you have to reverse
engineer the things....
Gregg
|
| 548.50 | | EPIK::DAHL | Customers do not buy architectures | Mon Sep 21 1992 14:09 | 10 |
| RE: <<< Note 548.48 by STAR::HUGHES "Captain Slog" >>>
Hi Gary,
Oh, this is getting silly. I said "neither of the replies you REFERENCED," not
replies that you WROTE. The two repiles that you referenced in reply 42, that I
was talking about, were replies 40 and 41. Neither 40 nor 41 talk about the
Saturn I, yet your reply 42 said "close but no cigar". Both 40 and 41 contain
corrects statements, so far as I know. OK?
-- Tom
|
| 548.52 | End of Line | EPIK::DAHL | Customers do not buy architectures | Mon Sep 21 1992 17:30 | 7 |
| RE: <<< Note 548.51 by STAR::HUGHES "Captain Slog" >>>
> re .50
> You stated that the Saturn IB used RL-10s. It did not.
Re-read my original reply 40. I cannot find any reference to the Saturn IB.
-- Tom
|
| 548.53 | Rathole alert. | VIKA::HUGHES | TANSTAAFL | Mon Sep 21 1992 17:44 | 4 |
| Come to think about it, this topic is about lunar bases, Jerry Pournelle et. al.
My fault. Should have found another, more appropriate, topic for the RL-10 info.
Mike H
|
| 548.54 | Back to the Moon Bill | VERGA::KLAES | All the Universe, or nothing! | Tue Nov 24 1992 10:10 | 63 |
| Article: 51929
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Back to the Moon bill
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:20:50
Since the initial proposal for a bill that would get America
back to the Moon in this decade was announced, considerable momentum
for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act (the "Back to the Moon"
Bill) has been generated. The Back to the Moon bill would authorize
the NASA Administrator to purchase a geochemical map of the Moon from
the lowest qualified U.S. bidder by December 31, 1996.
Why is this important? The United States last launched a
dedicated lunar mission in December of 1972, twenty years ago. Since
that time, the government has spent millions on paper studies of lunar
missions, but has spent no money on actually going there. The Back to
the Moon bill would get America back to the Moon by 1996. All other
initiatives have stalled in Congress, which is understandably leery of
giving NASA money for lunar probes, and which sees a new start for
lunar exploration as being the "nose of the camel in the tent", as a
new start for solar system exploration may develop into a new Apollo
program.
On the other hand, the Back to the Moon bill would stimulate
the private sector to map the Moon. There may be valuable resources
located in the areas of the Moon not explored by the Apollo astronauts
or scientific probes, which focused on the equatorial belts of the
Moon. Some theorize that water ice exists in deep craters at the lunar
poles. The Back to the Moon Bill, if passed, would provide hard data
on lunar resources. However, it will take passage of the Back to the
Moon Bill to get America moving again to explore the lunar surface.
Among the important recent developments:
Interest among the California congressional contingent has
been expressed. Assuming the final draft of bill is politically viable,
it is likely that it will be introduced in the 103rd Congress, and with
some effort on the part of the space movement, passed sufficiently early
so that hardware for lunar missions is created in 1994.
Public hearings on the Back to the Moon Bill are tentatively
scheduled to take place in the Los Angeles area in February, 1993.
Some lunar scientists are responding positively to the
prospect of obtaining new lunar data. Others are considering
participating in bidding process to fly the lunar mapper. Others,
however, are concerned about the possibility of the privatization of a
formerly governmental field.
The Back to the Moon Bill is receiving positive feedback from
National Space Society (NSS) chapters and newsletters, as well as by the
"experts" in the Beltway.
Space activists should have a major role in the passage of
this bill. We need volunteers to deal with local congresspersons, with
the media, and with other grassroots organizations. Please support
this effort, by helping to pass the Back to the Moon Bill. For more
information, please contact San Diego L5 at 619/295-3690, or David
Anderman at 714/524-1674.
--- Maximus 2.00
|
| 548.55 | Revised Lunar Bill | VERGA::KLAES | I, Robot | Thu Dec 17 1992 14:35 | 97 |
| Article: 53490
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Revised lunar bill, Ver. 1.5
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:15:28
"Back to the Moon" Bill Proposed
December 15, 1992
With most funding for the Space Exploration Initiative
eliminated in recent budgets, and over twenty years having
passed since the last NASA mission to the Moon, it is clear
that simply waiting for the government to get around to lunar
exploration is futile.
The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act (the "Back to the
Moon" bill) would authorize the U.S. government to purchase lunar
science data from private vendors, selected on the basis of
competitive bidding, with a cap on the bids of significantly
less than $100 million. There would be few restrictions on how
this data would be obtained by the bidder, or whether a winning
bidder is a for-profit or non-profit corporation.
This mission would accomplish the widely acknowledged first
step in returning to the Moon, a lunar polar probe that would
generate a complete geochemical map of the lunar surface and
possibly determine whether ice exists in deep craters at the
poles of the Moon.
During the last several years, there have been several false
starts in mounting a new lunar mission: the Bush Administration
has proposed a series of relatively inexpensive lunar probes
(approximate cost of $125 million per probe), and private
non-profit organizations have attempted to raise funds for their
probes via donations. There has been no success on the part of
these public and private efforts, and little prospect for the
future. Only the Back to the Moon bill has a reasonable
probability of jump starting our lunar program.
How you can help: In order to make a return to the Moon in
this decade a reality, we need assistance from the space activist
community with the following:
Why return to the Moon now? What is the rationale for the U.S.
Congress to establish a requirement for lunar data now, instead
of the year 2000, 2010 or beyond?
Writing the Act. This is pretty well taken care of , but the
more help, the better. Your ideas on how to make the bill more
passable are welcome.
Getting congresspersons to co-sponsor the bill. We believe that
congresspersons will be happy to co-sponsor the Act, but they
won't know about the bill unless their constituents bring it to
their attention.
Although it is expected that private companies will bid, it
is also possible that non-profit corporations such as Lunar
Exploration, Inc., AMSAT, Space Studies Institute, or
universities may participate. The final bill may allow for many
winning bids, on an ongoing basis.
One key point is that winning bidders will be required to
supply NASA with only the specified data; any other data
generated by the spacecraft instrumentation will be the property
of the bidders, and may be sold to third parties.
The most exciting aspect of this effort is that it does
not require the majority of American citizens to get behind the
space program; it does not require a mass movement of space
activists to galvanize NASA; the people reading this are all
that are needed to get America back to the Moon.
Once this effort succeeds, future efforts are contemplated:
the Lunar Soil Purchase Act, the Mercury Resources Data Purchase
Act, etc. All will entail a relatively tiny Federal expenditure
to provide key knowledge about the Solar System that could
provoke the politicians to actually create a space program that
gets beyond low earth orbit.
Can space activists actually get a bill passed through
Congress? The best evidence is the Launch Services Purchase Act,
written by space activists, introduced in Congress through the
efforts of space activists, and passed by Congress and signed by
the President, largely through the efforts of space activists.
This far-reaching bill has had a dramatic impact on the nation's
space program (it prohibits NASA from launching satellites into
space, with few exceptions; Mars Observer was launched to Mars
under the auspices of the LSPA).We have done it before, and we
can do it again.
For more information on this project, please call David
Anderman at 714/524-1674, or contact: San Diego L5, P.O. Box
4636, San Diego, CA 92164, 619/295-3690.
--- Maximus 2.00
|
| 548.56 | House of Reps Kills Lunar Missions Appropriation | CXDOCS::J_BUTLER | E pur, si muove... | Wed Jul 07 1993 18:57 | 40 |
|
If anyone would like to respond to this and you don't have access to USENET
I'd be glad to post it or forward it (E-mail) to David. If you do respond,
please remember to include a disclaimer that the opinions are yours and
do not necessarily represent that of Digital Equipment Corporation.
Regards,
John B.
Message follows:
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: NASA lunar program dead
In a very quiet development last week, the House of Representatives killed
NASA's proposed lunar missions, one that would orbit the Moon, and a second
that would land. This represents the end of NASA's plans to explore the Moon.
As the Chair of the NSS Chapters Assembly Return to the Moon campaign, I would
be interested
to see your comments about the end of America's lunar exploration program. Are
you:
-
apathetic?
-
slightly dismayed?
-
unhappy, ready to complain, but unwilling to *do anything* to get the program
back on track, or
-
mad as hell and ready to show the politicians that people still do care about
the goals of the Apollo program - the exploration of the Moon. -
{If you're apathetic, no need to respond to this message}
--- Maximus 2.01wb
|
| 548.57 | Save the U.S. lunar program from extinction | VERGA::KLAES | Quo vadimus? | Tue Jul 20 1993 13:50 | 109 |
| Article: 3489
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Lunar campaign update
Date: 17 Jul 93 14:42:14
Return to the Moon Campaign Update - July 16, 1993
With the recent cancellation of the NASA Lunar Scout
program,the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act now stands as the only
means of generating a real U.S. lunar exploration program. Sources at
Johnson Space Center say that all work on a lunar orbiter is halted,
with the exception of studies by a handful of civil servants (work on
Artemis, a lunar lander is continuing at a low level). The BMDO
Clementine program is on schedule for a January, 1994 launch from
Vandenberg AFB, but this is a military sensor test, rather than a real
lunar science mission.
Twenty four years ago, Apollo 11 left the Cape on its voyage
of exploration and discovery. Today, the lunar program is dead, due to
political gridlock. Conversely, the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act
has enjoyed broad support from those politicians who have been briefed
by activists; the key to success is to brief as many Congresspersons
as possible over the remainder of the summer, in preparation for the
Fall session of the 103rd Congress.
There is little or no opposition to the Return to the Moon bill;
rather, the enemy is not Congress, not NASA, not the Mars community, but
apathy. If the space activist community lets this bill die, the lunar
program will die for the foreseeable future. It's up to you!
Since it is unlikely that the Clinton Administration will
support manned Mars missions, this leaves us with the probability that
we will remain locked into low Earth orbit for a very long time. The
Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act would begin the process of turning
America outward again, towards the stars. The choice of whether this
will happen is up to you -your congressperson could be the key to
restarting America's exploration program.
Where is the bill now? Congressman Robert Walker of
Pennsylvania reportedly plans to introduce a version of the LRDPA in a
future Omnibus Commercial Space Act later this year. For the full
Return to the Moon bill to be passed by Congress,the space activist
community needs to do the following things:
1) If your congressperson is a Democrat or a Republican,
please have at least 15 of their constituents send a signed letter to
them urging their support for the introduction of the Return to the
Moon bill. If you should have any questions about how to identify your
congressperson and their district, or need a sample letter, please
contact the Return to the Moon campaign. If you need help with
generating the letters, please contact your closest National Space
Society chapter for assistance.
2) If you belong to an NSS chapter, have the chapter send
letters to all local congresspersons in support of the Return to the
Moon bill. Also, send a copy to the Return to the Moon campaign to let
us know of your chapter's support.
3) Once this is accomplished, call your congressperson's
office, and ask to speak with the staffer responsible for science,
space and technology issues. If there is no such staffer, ask to speak
with any district representative. Let them know that you wish to
discuss pending legislation.
4) Set up a 15 minute meeting with the congressperson's
representative. Plan to invite, if possible, up to 5 other
constituents to the meeting. Try to avoid filling your group's ranks
with non-constituents.
5) At the meeting, give the district representative a sheet of
paper with the names and addresses of the attendees (job information
is optional). Also, immediately hand them a clean copy of the Lunar
Resources Data Purchase Act.
6) If you are speaking with the district representative of a
Republican, ask them to mention to Robert Walker's office that their
constituents support the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, and that
Congressman Walker should include the full text of the bill in his
upcoming Omnibus Commercial Space Act.
7) If you are speaking with district representative of a
Democrat, ask them to pass on to George Brown's office your
congressperson's support for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act,
and that George Brown should introduce the full bill in the House of
Representatives.
That's it - The above has been done over a dozen times in the
last few weeks around the country (the San Diego NSS chapter met with
two congressional offices in one day, recently).
When you are finished, please let the Return to the Moon
campaign know about your progress. We are tallying the meetings to
determine the amount of pressure we are applying on George Brown and
Robert Walker (actually, both congresspersons are pro-space, and would
be interested to have other congresspersons let them know their
support of lunar exploration).
No more excuses: all of the above represents a total of
perhaps one hour's worth of your time over the next few weeks. The
future of America's lunar exploration should be worth that level of
effort to you.
Again, please contact us at 714/524-1674, or via E-mail with
any questions, or to let us know the progress of your, or your
chapter's efforts to pass the Return to the Moon bill.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
|
| 548.58 | Lunar Millennium | VERGA::KLAES | Quo vadimus? | Wed Feb 02 1994 12:34 | 161 |
| Article: 614
From: George William Herbert <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Lunar Millennium: A Manned Moon Program
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 17:44:46 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Lunar Millennium, or
How to get Manned Missions back to the Moon by the year 2000
A Mission Architecture Proposal
George William Herbert
Retro Aerospace
Goal
----
It shall be the goal of this program to establish a permanent manned
presence on the Moon by the year 2000 within realistic budgetary constraints.
Methodology
-----------
Manned exploration programs proposed or actual have shared the
problem of very high cost, due to having to build all the components of
the mission essentially from the ground up. Lunar Millennium (LM) shall
strive to avoid high costs by having as a methodology requirement the
use of existing hardware in any role practical, to minimize development
costs of new hardware items.
Mission Architecture Summary
----------------------------
The Lunar Millinnium program consists of a number of two-launch
missions. Two development missions are projected (unmanned) in 1998
followed by three operational missions in 1999.
Each mission consists of two Energia HLV (RUS) launches, carrying
a Centaur kick stage (US) to provide a total payload of 40 tons
on Lunar Transfer Orbit. The two mission payloads are a manned capsule
(specifically, the 2-man Lunar Soyuz (RUS) ) with a descent and ascent stage,
and a 18 ton base station and rover package with the same descent stage.
While cryogenic propellants are used in the launch vehicle and kick stage,
both lunar stages use only hypergolic storable propellants in high
performance motors.
Launched approxomately 1 day earlier, the base station lands
automatically at a predetermined location and then the manned capsule sets
down nearby (order 100 meters). The astronauts walk across the surface to
the base and spend the remainder of their 120 day stay operating from it
or the rover.
Their first task is to deploy in a nearby small crater (or excavated
hole) a low power nuclear reactor. While much mission power can come
from solar cells, the 14-day lunar nights require nuclear power for practical
solutions to life support and systems power overnight. The second task is
to place a light covering of lunar soil over the base to protect from
any Solar Flares during the stay. The remainder of the stay is spent in
science and engineering work.
Upon the completion of their stay, the astronauts return to the
capsule which then lifts off on its ascent stage and returns directly
to the Earth, using a direct aerocapture re-entry.
Vehicle Components
------------------
The following vehicles are parts of the LM flight program:
* Energia HLV (Russian) - late flight development status
* Centaur (USA) - operational
* Lunar Soyuz (Russian) - developed, based on well-proven operational vehicle
* Descent stage (?) - new
* Ascent stage (?) - new
* Lunar Base (?) - new or use existing space-qualified (Mir) hardware
* Rover (?) - new
Development Program
-------------------
A number of items have to be developed, and the whole package in
addition integrated, for LM to succeed. Lunar Soyuz needs some work to
become fully operational, but is developed and prototyped (if not flown).
The Descent and Ascent stages will both be new hardware, though existing
motors and tankage may be used if appropriate. The Rover will have to
be new development, and the base will probably be mostly new (though
some components from other programs may be used).
The Descent and Ascent stages are of only moderate development
difficulty. There is no push for extreme lightweight construction,
and the only difficulty is that the Ascent stage will have to operate
after about 135 days in space (including 3-4 lunar nights). This is
within the state of the art, so no new technology need be developed.
Development cost is estimated at about $1 billion for the two stages.
The Rover will have to be all-new, and will be moderately
expensive to develop. Development cost is estimated at $650 million.
The Base may use existing Mir-type life support systems and
structural elements, or may be all-new. A more detailed tradeoff
of the base's cost versus capabilities is in progress. The total
base development is estimated at $1.66 billion including science
mission hardware.
Completing development of the Lunar Soyuz is estimated at
$250 million.
Integration of the Energia, Centaur, and vehicle components
is estimated at about $300 million (not including test flights).
In addition, two full test missions (two flights each for
the capsule and base hardware) in the development program will
cost about $650 million each. It is prudent to assume two
additional full sets of Lunar hardware for ground development
and one set for flight-ready spare, or about $1 billion total
spare/development hardware.
Total development and startup costs are therefore in
the $5.5 billion range. These costs would come due from 1995
through 1998, at a maximum rate of about $1.65 billion per
year (1998). Perhaps another billion dollars should be spent
on science preparations for the operational phase.
Costing & International Cooperation
-----------------------------------
The cost of the LM program depends quite a bit on the economic
situation within Russia, as a number of critical components (including
launches) are purchased from Russia. It is possible that instead of
purchasing these components from Russia, a cooperative program in
which some of these costs are absorbed by Russia might be feasible.
That would reduce the US contributions appropriately.
The current market price of Energia launches is about
$100 million. It is assumed that this will rise at least 50% over
the life of the program, perhaps going as high as $250 million per
flight. Higher costs are unlikely, as at western labor costs the
Energia should cost only about $300 million per flight.
Soyuz capsules are assumed to be between $25 and $50 million.
This is based on existing pricing studies and similar cost assumptions.
The two new rocket stages will probably cost about $40 million
and $20 million each (Descent and ascent respectively).
The base is estimated at $200 million per flight, though this
is the most speculative of the line items.
The total cost thus ranges from $525 million per mission (1 ea
base and capsule) to $650 million per mission. At 3 missions per year
the program flight costs are between $1.575 and $1.95 billion, and
assuming 20% additional costs for management and science support,
a total of roughly $1.9 to $2.4 billion.
If the Russians contribute the launch services (in exchange
for perhaps half the personel positions etc.) the cost to the US
would be about half to two thirds of that.
Policy Considerations
---------------------
The costs of this program are substantial, but nowhere near the
overwhelming cost incurred by the Shuttle program in the US Space budget.
Despite that, there is currently no slack in the $15-16 billion/yr space
program budget for Lunar Millennium. An expansion of about 10% of the
NASA budget would be required.
From FY 89 through FY 92, it was obvious that neither the
executive branch nor congress were really interested in any additional
funds for NASA. The Space Station, lacking as it does a clearly defined
goal and returns, has failed to change that situation. However, the overall
budget of the US is more flexible now than in the earlier period, and
Lunar Millennium has the potential to attract the support to make such
a change. LM is relatively low-cost for a manned space mission
(one-fifth of estimated low cost Mars missions), has a short timeline
and low buy-in costs, and results in a tangible "feel-good" return in
the form of continuous (or approxomately) manned presence on the Moon.
By the end of the fifth year of operation (2003), thirty astronauts
would have spent a total of ten man-years on the lunar surface,
for a grand total cost in the $15-18 billion range.
Conclusion
----------
Lunar Millennium can provide solid scientific returns and
solidify man's knowledge of the Moon at a reasonable cost.
|