1/I 2004 [1-3]1)
Howard Dean: Making the solar system safe for Republicans (and most Democrats)by Taylor Dinerman Monday, January 5, 2004
Howard Dean has talked about mounting a human mission to Mars; would such a move make it easier for other candidates to propose more modest ventures? (credit: Dean for America)The big choice of 2004 is obviously going to be made in November. Will George Bush be reelected or will he be a one-term wonder like his father? Everything he does—or does not do—will be judged as part of the campaign. There is no way to avoid this. So any decisions made by this administration concerning the space industry and future plans for the US space program will be made in an intense electoral context. So far, the only intrusion space has made into the campaign is Howard Dean’s promise to dismantle Bush’s missile defense program. He also has indicated during a radio talk show that he wants to fund a manned mission to Mars.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/79/12)
The lessons we (should have) learned in 2003by Jeff Foust Monday, January 5, 2004
The Columbia accident put greater emphasis on the Orbital Space Plane, but also greater scrutiny given the high costs to develop a vehicle that, like this Boeing concept above, may be nothing more than a simple capsule. (credit: Boeing)It’s customary around New Years for publications to trot out their year-in-review stories, summarizing the events of the past year in several hundred words and perhaps a few photos. It’s a natural thing to do: people are usually reflective this time of year, wanting to take one final look back at the past year before moving ahead with the new one. (They’re also useful for publications from a practical standpoint: they can fill a new hole during a time of year that is relatively slow, and they can be largely written in advance, allowing staffers to take the holidays off.)
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/80/13)
Christmas on Marsby Daniel Fischer Monday, January 5, 2004
A view of the Mars Express mission control room at ESOC during the Mars Express orbital insertion maneuver. (credit: Georg Dittie) With ESA at mission control as Mars Express slips into orbitSo, where was the crucial, bending yellow line that had been promised to us as the visual proof that Europe’s first Martian visitor was slipping into orbit? It was already past the expected time, and yet the huge projection screen in front of us was empty! Numerous scientists, dignitaries and journalists had gathered in the wee hours of December 25, 2003, at the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany, in a festively decorated hall, just across from the actual control room of the European Space Agency where the Mars Express was commanded and where all information collected by antennae around the world was coming in as well. Earlier we had even been allowed to briefly crowd into a tiny VIP room overlooking the actual computer terminals and huge data displays on the walls.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/81/12/I 2004 [4-6]4)
Return to the Moon: for the right reasons, in the right wayby Rick Tumlinson Monday, January 12, 2004
The answers to how and why we should return to the Moon will determine the success of any Moonbase venture, according to Tumlinson. (credit: NASA)Any discussion of a permanent return to the Moon (RTM) must be centered on two overriding questions: “why?” and “how?” The answers to each of those questions are interrelated. If we go for the wrong reasons we will fail. If we go for the right reasons and do it the wrong way, we will fail. And if we don’t go at all, then we will have failed in a way that will send ripples down through the ages.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/82/15)
Urgent national needs: then and now?by Jeff M. Bingham Monday, January 12, 2004
Kennedy’s call to land a man on the Moon was actually part of a broader speech on “urgent national needs”. (credit: NASA)Among space enthusiasts and historians who have written of our nation’s space program, one of the most-quoted passages is from President John F. Kennedy’s address to a joint session of the Congress on “Urgent National Needs,” on May 25, 1961:
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.Occasionally, the next sentence is also quoted:
No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.https://www.thespacereview.com/article/83/16)
Democratic presidential candidates and space: a primerby Jeff Foust Monday, January 12, 2004
Howard Dean has previously expressed an interest in human missions to Mars, but is critical of the President's upcoming plan. (credit: Dean for America)Two of the most common words used to describe the US presidential election process are “marathon” and “circus”. Marathon because of the extended nature of the election process: the first party primaries and caucuses are this month, although the general election is not until November. Moreover, most of the candidates announce their intention to run many months—sometimes years—before the first primaries and causes, and those announcements are preceded by longer periods of exploratory committees and other preparatory work. Circus comes from the byzantine and sometimes bizarre election process, one that gives undue weight to voters in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire that are home to the early stages of the election process. (Growing up in Iowa, I can recall being bombarded with TV ads and candidate visits in the months leading up to the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses—the image of Jesse Jackson speaking in my high school’s cafeteria is burned in my mind—only to be ignored for the remainder of the election.)
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/84/13/I 2004 [7-10]7)
Let’s add a wrinkle…by Tom Hill Monday, January 19, 2004
Creating orbital supply depots, like the one pictured here in this 1970s-vintage illustration, and supplying them commercially, might be a key step towards creating a true “spacefaring species”. (credit: NASA)The announcement made by President Bush on Wednesday has many people excited—this author included—about the possibilities of exploring beyond Earth orbit in the next years. Returning to the Moon to prepare for trips beyond is definitely the right idea for getting humans on the move again, taking us to where we could have gone years ago. The multi-decade pause has given us time to think, though, about perhaps abandoning unsustainable sprint efforts in favor of a more reasoned expansion.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/85/18 )
Promising the Moonby Greg Zsidisin Monday, January 19, 2004
NASA should consider dusting off the plans for Shuttle-C, a cargo-only version of the shuttle, to carry heavy payloads needed for the new space initiative. (credit: NASA)I truly want to be optimistic about President Bush’s daring new space policy, but the only realistically assured items in it are the exit strategy for the shuttle, perhaps that for the International Space Station, and near-term robotic exploration of the Moon. That is, should Bush be elected to a second term.
As for the rest of the plan, there is at this writing a significant lack of detail, and questionable constituency to support it.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/86/19)
Can Bush really do it?by Taylor Dinerman Monday, January 19, 2004
President Bush meets with astronauts at NASA Headquarters the day of his announcement. (credit: White House)President Bush’s Moon and Mars project announced on Wednesday does not break any laws of physics. However, at first glance, it seems to contradict the laws of politics. With only a single billion in new money for NASA it would seem that a whole slew of existing programs would have to be killed in order to fund the new exploration program. Yet, upon careful examination, one sees that the money that is to be reallocated was actually part of an increase in NASA’s budget that had been planned long ago. Thus, NASA will get roughly $18 billion a year in FY 2007 and 2008. This limited increase is just barely enough for NASA to avoid underfunding the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) development program in its early stages the way the shuttle was starved in the early seventies.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/87/110)
Looking beyond visionby Jeff Foust Monday, January 19, 2004
President George W. Bush speaks at NASA Headquarters last week. How do we move from simply articulating a vision to achieving it? (credit: White House)For much of 2003, one of the biggest complaints about NASA, and national space policy in general, was a lack of “vision”. That term, widely used but rarely clearly defined, was meant to suggest that NASA lacked a clear mandate and a set of goals beyond operating the shuttle, assembling the space station, and carrying out a potpourri of other science and technology programs. By late 2003 there was no shortage of suggested visions, but also no consensus on what that vision should be: a return to the Moon, human exploration of Mars, or something else entirely. (See “The vision thing”, November 10, 2003, and “Vision revision”, December 1, 2003.)
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/88/14/I 2004 [11-14]11)
The European (French) response to Bush’s space strategyby Taylor Dinerman Monday, January 26, 2004
ESA has shown some interest in human exploration beyond Earth; what role—if any—should they play in a US-led program? (credit: ESA)The initial response of the French chattering classes to the news that the Americans were headed back to the Moon and then to Mars was bon debarras, “good riddance.” Once they realized that most of the US population was not going to move off the planet, their enthusiasm for the project was somewhat diminished. In any event, the head of the European Space Agency (ESA), Jean-Jacques Dordain, said that he “dreamed of the day when the President of Europe would come to ESA headquarters and make a similar policy declaration.”
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/89/112)
Near Earth asteroids: the third optionby Jeff Foust Monday, January 26, 2004
Sending humans to near Earth asteroids offers an alternative to going back to the Moon or directly to Mars. (credit: NASA)For years, the debate about the future of human spaceflight has focused on two destinations: the Moon and Mars. Proponents of a human return to the Moon have argued that such a mission is far more feasible than sending people to Mars and could have numerous scientific and even commercial benefits. However, they have also had to fight against the “been there, done that” mindset that argues that since we went to the Moon over three decades ago, a return would not be that effective in stimulating the public’s interest in space exploration. Mars advocates, usually marching under the banner of the Mars Society, have tried to point out that a human mission could be done for far less than what was proposed in the old Space Exploration Initiative and could answer fundamental questions, such as whether life ever existed on the planet. The mixed track record of robotic Mars missions, though, makes it difficult to shake the perception that a human mission would be extremely risky. (See “Choosing our destination” in this issue.)
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/90/113)
Choosing our destinationby David Boswell Monday, January 26, 2004
Mars may stack up as a more compelling destination for humans than the Moon. (credit: NASA)NASA’s new vision for space exploration is focused on sending crews back to the Moon and then on to Mars. There is general agreement that moving beyond Earth orbit again is a worthwhile goal for our space program, but finding agreement about which destination should come first has proven to be more difficult. Some believe a Moon mission should have priority and others think a Mars mission shouldn’t wait.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/91/114)
The President’s plan will not workby Phil Smith Monday, January 26, 2004
Is the President taking the wrong approach to space by developing a long-term program of exploration rather than promoting the commercialization of space? (credit: White House)The recent announcement by the President to commence human exploration of the Moon in preparation for human excursions to Mars by mid-century will not work. It will not work because it is based on the flawed assumption that the government will somehow sustain a thirty-year program of high technology and high risk for reasons not at all clear to the taxpayer. The program, assuming it gets started at all, will suffer annual budget challenges by Congress and the political whims of elected and appointed officials. The program will also be vulnerable to changes in policy due to national security, such as another major terrorist attack on the homeland.
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/92/1
Wątek: The Space Review (Przeczytany 179432 razy)