Kerry Space Debate

Update from KerrySpace

Published on July 31, 2004 By Robert Guinness In Pure Technology

Copied from KerrySpace

From: kerryspace@yahoogroups.com
To: kerryspace@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [kerryspace] Digest Number 52

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???
From: David Rickman
2. Ground Rules for KerrySpace
From:
3. Re: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From: Jeff Foust
4. Re: Ground Rules for KerrySpace
From: "keithcowing"
5. Re: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From: Timothy Weaver
6. Re: Ground Rules for KerrySpace
From: g scheerbaum
7. Re: John Kerry speaks at KSC
From: "prospacejj"
8. John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration
From: "crusoe242000"
9. Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From:
10. Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From: "Jim Hillhouse"
11. Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From: "Jim Hillhouse"
12. Why no one cares
From: "Robert Oler"
13. Gallup Poll Confirms Strong Support For Vision For Space Exploration
From: "crusoe242000"
14. Re: Why no one cares
From: "keithcowing"
15. Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From: Jeff Foust
16. RE: Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???
From: "Rick Fischer"
17. Re: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration
From: Jeff Foust
18. my comments on what kerry's space policy should be
From: "cebacon2005"
19. Re: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration
From: "keithcowing"
20. Re: Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???
From: "keithcowing"
21. Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From: "keithcowing"
22. Re: my comments on what kerry's space policy should be
From:
23. Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef
From:
24. Re: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration
From: "Robert Oler"
25. A Comment On The ESA & NASA Study Of Mars Direct
From: "crusoe242000"

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rickman
Subject: Re: Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???

1. Bush's plan is a little more than just "hot air". It involves a lot of smoke and mirrors, too! If you go to the archives of "Friends and Partners in Space" (http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/) you'll see that the leading space experts understand that while it would appear Bush is pro space, his plan would ultimately lead to the end of U. S. manned space exploration. This is basically the same atmosphere Bush created in taking us into an unjustified war. If you oppose His view, you could be in danger of being viewed as "unpatriotic".

Lori Garver has realistic views and plans and I'm ready to support her and John Kerry.

2. As Lori Garver is a well educated person of distinction and worthy of respect, you might consider using "spell and grammar check" before posting your comments. This will add a little more credibility to them. Just a thought.

David Rickman

osiris23223 wrote:
"The Bush initiative is simply hot-air and has made it impossible in
an election year for Kerry to say much on space."

Explain why its impossible?

There is hot air alright. Kerry has plenty to say about other Bush
plans. Why is space exploration any different?

You expect to get a pro-space vote by saying that? That he wont say
much? Nuts to that.

Kerry hasnt said much on Space anyways. Why should I or anyone who
is pro-space exploration expect different now? He went to NASA and
talked about health care???? Me thinks he was using NASA as a photo
op to show he is for "science".

And why shouuld I as anyone who breathes space exploration expect
that a
Kerry space program would include human missions returning to
the Moon or going to Mars in the next 10 years.

Just saying the Bush initiative is hot air is NOT going to cut it.
You want a pro-Space Vote? You have to EARN IT.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14178

Leading Space Groups Agree: It's Time For The Moon, Mars And Beyond

In an unprecedented show of unity, thirteen of the nation's premier
space advocacy groups, industry associations and space policy
organizations have teamed up to support the effort to refocus NASA's
human space activities toward exploration, including a return to the
Moon and moving on to Mars and beyond.

The organizations involved include: Aerospace Industries
Association, Aerospace States Association, American Astronautical
Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
California Space Authority, Florida Space Authority, The Mars
Society, National Coalition of Spaceport States, National Space
Society, The Planetary Society, ProSpace, Space Access Society and
Space Frontier Foundation.

Collectively these groups can count almost one million Americans as
members or as employees of member companies. Their first goal as a
group is to work for broad Congressional support of the new national
vision for space exploration outside of low earth orbit, which they
refer to as Moon, Mars and Beyond. To begin they will work to secure
first year funding for the initiative, which they view as a
necessary first step for in-depth planning of the exploration
program to commence in earnest.

In addition they intend to aggressively refute the false impression
that Moon, Mars and Beyond is too expensive for this country to take
on. They will demonstrate how modest but steady growth in our
national expenditures on space can move the nation toward these
important goals, and the benefits those expenditures will provide.

As space activity becomes increasingly integrated with every aspect
of life here on earth, this new focus on exploration will provide
myriad advances in science and technology, untold economic
opportunity and serve as an inspiration to our nation's youth. Given
those benefits and the many more that lie in store, this new program
of human space exploration beyond low earth orbit is a vital link to
the future of the United States and the world.

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kerryspace/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
kerryspace-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:32:27 -0000
From:
Subject: Ground Rules for KerrySpace

Since the membership to this list has more than doubled over the
last few days (I'm not sure why, maybe because of that post to
ProjectConstellation.us, or maybe just because this was Kerry's big
week.), I thought I'd restate a few ground rules.

1. YES, this is a moderated forum. For a certain initial period, new
members will have to have their messages approved before they go out
to everyone. Older members can post freely, but if they break any of
the groundrules, they will be placed on temporary moderation.

2. NO, this forum is NOT to debate whether you will or will not vote
for Kerry (even based on space policy arguments). Everyone has to
make their own individual decision about whether they will vote for
Kerry, based on any number of criteria, and there are plenty of
other forums to discuss one's voting decisions. (As much as I love
and believe in space exploration, I can't believe that someone would
choose a president SOLELY based on his space policy.)

3. NO, this forum is NOT to debate the merits of space exploration.
If you are here, it is assumed you are generally supportive of space
exploration and believe in its merits. Also, debates comparing
different types of exploration, different platforms/systems/etc may
be necessary sometimes, but is not the focus of this forum.

4. YES, this forum IS here to discuss space policy ideas that can be
suggested and promoted for acceptance by the Kerry platform.

5. YES, this forum IS here to share news about what Kerry has said
about his position on space, or what other staffers have shared
about Kerry's space policy.

6. YES, I am open to suggestions, complaints, changes, but there are
reasons for good reasons for all these rules. Given the vast number
of forums to discuss space available on the internet, I doubt I am
depriving anyone of freedom of speech by focusing this forum solely
on discussion of John Kerry's Space Policy.

Thanks for your understanding,

Rob Guinness
KerrySpace Moderator

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 07:46:59 -0400
From: Jeff Foust
Subject: Re: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

> Giving credit where credit is due, Bush seems to be willing to defend
> his exploration
> efforts. As noted in Keith's website nasawatch, according to UPI, Josh
> Bolton, the OMB
> head, has issued a veto threat to Rep. Young's Appropriations
> committee's cut of over
> $1.1 billion from the Administration's request. That is the first time
> an Administration has
> threatened a veto over NASA not getting enough money.

Most people also realize that the veto threat was just that: a threat,
one that the President would be unlikely to actually carry out. (To be
accurate, the President didn't threaten a veto, but instead Bolten
wrote that he and other senior advisors would recommend to the
President that he veto the bill: a subtle, but important, difference.)
NASA's budget is included in a $90-billion budget bill that includes
funding for the VA, HUD, and independent agencies like the NSF and EPA.
Worse, it's likely that this appropriation will be bundled into a
larger omnibus bill that covers a significant part of the federal
government; vetoing that would have a major impact on the overall
government.

One should recognize this letter for what it was: a statement of
displeasure by the Administration about the level of funding for NASA
and other programs (NASA was not the only one mentioned in the letter,
although it was the most prominent) in the bill the appropriations
committee approved. This bill is likely to be changed on the House
floor, particularly given DeLay's comments, and the Senate still has to
start work on its version of the budget.

Jeff Foust
http://www.thespacereview.com/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:11:46 -0000
From: "keithcowing"
Subject: Re: Ground Rules for KerrySpace

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, rob@m... wrote:
> Since the membership to this list has more than doubled over the
> last few days (I'm not sure why, maybe because of that post to
> ProjectConstellation.us, or maybe just because this was Kerry's big
> week.),

Lori's comments are contained in a story on SpaceRef.com that has been linked to
from Drudge Report for 24 hours .... hundreds of thousands of page views ....

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Timothy Weaver
Subject: Re: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

--- Jeff Foust wrote:

> I see little evidence that Kerry is anti-space. He
> is certainly not
> strongly pro-space, in the sense that he is not
> proposing bold new
> initiatives for NASA, but he is also not advocating
> major cuts in the
> agency. His interest in space mirrors the general
> public's: broad but
> fairly shallow. And after "bunnysuitgate", I don't
> see him visiting
> any other NASA centers for the foreseeable future.
>

Go to spaceref.com and read what he said about the ISS
and how he wanted to cut in favor of unmanned probes
and research on earth. While I'm no fan of the ISS in
and of itself, I would rather have that then nothing.
But what was said about the Kerry photo op struck a
cord with me. Kerry has no plan for NASA and wants to
avoid the question. The leak about Kerry's plan, I
believe, is a bait and switch tactic for Kerry to get
votes from the space enthusiasts without actually
having to come up with a plan. I just don't trust the guy.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: g scheerbaum
Subject: Re: Ground Rules for KerrySpace

Hi Rob - Thanks for your message regarding the ground
rules. I wanted to write before, but I couldn't see
who was listed as the moderator. I had a message that
was rejected on 7/5/4 which I was extremely
disappointed about. My message stated that Dennis
Kucinich has a very interesting and exciting sounding
position paper which could ASSIST THE KERRY CAMPAIGN
in seeing that also tree-hugging democrats can support
a space exploration program with goals set higher than
low earth orbit. I included a link to Kucinich's
position statement regarding space exploration, in
hopes that readers could get the message to Kerry.

Even after reading the ground rules, I'm still at a
loss for why or how this positive space-related
message was rejected - especially in light of the
posted message from someone saying that Bush is
surreptitiously planing on "putting weapons of mass
destruction on Mars." I'm afraid that message lost a
lot of the groups readership as one which is not
genuine to its claimed cause. I hope that this group
can still serve positively in influencing the
Democrats' platform with regard to future space
policy. Maybe my message was mistakenly rejected?
Please let me know if I should repost, or if it was
offensive in some way, I'm very interested in knowing
how. Looking forward to hearing back. Thanks!
-Gus Scheerbaum
State Political Coordinator, PA
The Mars Society

--- wrote:

> Since the membership to this list has more than
> doubled over the
> last few days (I'm not sure why, maybe because of
> that post to
> ProjectConstellation.us, or maybe just because this
> was Kerry's big
> week.), I thought I'd restate a few ground rules.
>
> 1. YES, this is a moderated forum. For a certain
> initial period, new
> members will have to have their messages approved
> before they go out
> to everyone. Older members can post freely, but if
> they break any of
> the groundrules, they will be placed on temporary
> moderation.
>
> 2. NO, this forum is NOT to debate whether you will
> or will not vote
> for Kerry (even based on space policy arguments).
> Everyone has to
> make their own individual decision about whether
> they will vote for
> Kerry, based on any number of criteria, and there
> are plenty of
> other forums to discuss one's voting decisions. (As
> much as I love
> and believe in space exploration, I can't believe
> that someone would
> choose a president SOLELY based on his space
> policy.)
>
> 3. NO, this forum is NOT to debate the merits of
> space exploration.
> If you are here, it is assumed you are generally
> supportive of space
> exploration and believe in its merits. Also, debates
> comparing
> different types of exploration, different
> platforms/systems/etc may
> be necessary sometimes, but is not the focus of this
> forum.
>
> 4. YES, this forum IS here to discuss space policy
> ideas that can be
> suggested and promoted for acceptance by the Kerry
> platform.
>
> 5. YES, this forum IS here to share news about what
> Kerry has said
> about his position on space, or what other staffers
> have shared
> about Kerry's space policy.
>
> 6. YES, I am open to suggestions, complaints,
> changes, but there are
> reasons for good reasons for all these rules. Given
> the vast number
> of forums to discuss space available on the
> internet, I doubt I am
> depriving anyone of freedom of speech by focusing
> this forum solely
> on discussion of John Kerry's Space Policy.
>
> Thanks for your understanding,
>
> Rob Guinness
> KerrySpace Moderator
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:17:29 -0000
From: "prospacejj"
Subject: Re: John Kerry speaks at KSC

We cant expect any Space iniative. Do you know that in Pennsylvania
(Battleground State), there is a political ad that runs a lot and
makes fun of President Bush? (www.bushout.tv/archives/694.html) The ad
berates President Bush for wasting money on kooky ideas (The space
initiative) when the money can be spent here on Earth for "jobs,
saving social security". Does he support space exploration while
making fun of us for having kooky ideas?

Jim Garver

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Fischer"
wrote:
> From InsideKSC:
>
> An InsideKSC Exclusive:
>
>
> While Sen. John Kerry speaks at the John F. Kennedy Space Center
> visitors complex, he briefly mentions the accomplishments of humans
> traveling into space, and venturing to the moon and Neil Armstrong. He
> then focused on the economy back here on earth and how his plan will
> create more jobs. Science was also mentioned in general. His vision of
> going to the moon reflects the task of becoming independent on foreign
> oil, which will provide increased security, with the same intensity as
> we did in the early days of the space program. This position has not
> changed since his original quote: "We should return to the moon here on
> earth..."
>
> After speaking, he fielded several questions from a relatively small
> group of supporters. None focused on NASA's current status or new vision
> for space exploration.
>
> Several other of his platform concerns were addressed: Medicare,
> healthcare and jobs. The questions posed where generally anti-current
> administration policies.
>
> The fact that many local residents were looking for a nod from Senator
> Kerry to continue the the current transition from the STS, to the
> re-inventing of exploration beyond low earth orbit, it appeared to me to
> be disappointing. I was also wondering why there seemed to be no space
> workers in his audience, or why a question was not asked concerning the
> current state of the space program.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Fischer
> http://www.InsideKSC.com

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:32:44 -0000
From: "crusoe242000"
Subject: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration

I must take strong issue with Lori Garver's recent comments in
support of John Kerry & space exploration. The bottom line is this:
John Kerry's election will spell the end of any manned lunar &
interplanetary program for at least a generation & maybe for a much
longer time frame. I take this position for the following reasons.
(1). John Kerry has a long history of hostility for manned
spaceflight. As discussed in the SpaceRef.Com article entitled"John
Kerry on Space"(July 26,2004), Kerry has repeatedly attempted to
cancel the ISS program(8 times). He also attempted to cancel the
National Aerospace Plane. The ISS is a critical element of any
manned lunar-Mars program. (2)As mentioned in Aerospace daily &
discussed on the Space Politics web site, Kerry is against the
Vision For Space Exploration Manned Lunar-Mars Program "mainly
because it would cost too much". In the Aerospace Daily article,the
individual discussing Kerry's views on the manned lunar-Mars program
is Jason Furman, Kerry's economic policy director. This view that
manned lunar & interplanetary travel is too costly is riduculous.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the lunar phase of
the program,where the technology & procedures for a manned Mars
mission will be developed,will cost a little over $60 Billion
dollars--hardly the trillion dollar figure that Kerry's & his
advisors keep mentioning. Also, The Mars Society recently published
on their web site(www.marssociety.org) an estimate by ESA & NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center for the manned Mars part of the
program. It estimates a manned Mars program would cost between 26 &
39 billion dollars. Again, hardly the trillion dollar figure Kerry
keeps quoting.(3). Kerry's statements involving the cost of a manned
lunar-Mars program are inconsistent. In AeroSpace Daily he states
that it would cost too much. However in the Space.Com article(June
16,2004) entitled"Kerry Criticizes Bush For Space Vision", Kerry
states. "However, there is little too be gained about a Bush Space
Initiative that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those
goals with realistic funding." Thus, Kerry first says Bush is
spending too much on his space plan & then he says he is spending
too little.Finally, The recent Gallop poll (as reported on the
website www.spacecoalition.com confirms strong public support for
the Vision for Space Exploration. According to the poll, 68% of the
American people support the plan including 60% of the Democrats.
Thus Kerry's ctiticism of the Vision For Space Exploration is not
even supported by the majority of his own party. Sincerely Yours,
Rick L. Sterling-Member-The Mars Society & Contributor To The
Stafford Commission Report(Nuclear Rockets Section) on The Space
Exploration Initiative

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:47:44 -0000
From:
Subject: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

This is not factually correct. The Mir station did have a
regenerative urine processing system.

--- In kerryspacyahoogroups.com, "marsbeyond"
wrote:
> I think we have to grapple with the question of whether he was
> right.
> > Twenty-five billion dollars plus and ten years later, what does
> ISS have to
> > show for itself?. What did we learn that MIR did not learn, or
> that we could
> > have learned by continuing with a MIR-like program?
> >
>
> What did WE learn in the Mir program? They used an open
> environmental control system. So what? That is/was nothing new. I
> just read in Aviation Week that the present ISS/shuttle regime is
> considering an actual regenerative environmental control system on
> the ISS to increase the station's capacity to SIX whole human
> beings! Wow how daring! I'd say that it was decades late, and
> dollars short! I thought that was what we were going to get all
> along! Face it both the democrats and rebumblicans have been lying
> to us space advocates for years! And they will continue to do so
as
> long as we let them get away with it.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:44:49 -0000
From: "Jim Hillhouse"
Subject: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Foust wrote:
> > Giving credit where credit is due, Bush seems to be willing to defend
> > his exploration
> > efforts. As noted in Keith's website nasawatch, according to UPI, Josh
> > Bolton, the OMB
> > head, has issued a veto threat to Rep. Young's Appropriations
> > committee's cut of over
> > $1.1 billion from the Administration's request. That is the first time
> > an Administration has
> > threatened a veto over NASA not getting enough money.
>
> Most people also realize that the veto threat was just that: a threat,
> one that the President would be unlikely to actually carry out. (To be
> accurate, the President didn't threaten a veto, but instead Bolten
> wrote that he and other senior advisors would recommend to the
> President that he veto the bill: a subtle, but important, difference.)
> NASA's budget is included in a $90-billion budget bill that includes
> funding for the VA, HUD, and independent agencies like the NSF and EPA.
> Worse, it's likely that this appropriation will be bundled into a
> larger omnibus bill that covers a significant part of the federal
> government; vetoing that would have a major impact on the overall
> government.
>
> One should recognize this letter for what it was: a statement of
> displeasure by the Administration about the level of funding for NASA
> and other programs (NASA was not the only one mentioned in the letter,
> although it was the most prominent) in the bill the appropriations
> committee approved. This bill is likely to be changed on the House
> floor, particularly given DeLay's comments, and the Senate still has to
> start work on its version of the budget.

Yes, Jeff, a threat is just a threat and is by definition a statement of displeasure. The
reason the Administration issued this threat is that it wants to head off the Committee's
cuts. I'm not sure what your point is.

Certainly, if the House does not reverse these cuts, for Bush to veto the House 2005 VA/
HUD bill in defense of NASA's budget would be a very big deal. Given how closely Bush
works with Bolton and that DeLay is supporting this act, this is about as firm a veto threat
as they come. That's why Bolton's letter made it into the press; that is why this raises the
bar for Kerry.

Bush's people did what his father's and Clinton's Administrations never did, they defended
NASA's budget, something no Administration has done in the last 20 years. The Bush
Administration has made clear its support of the exploration initiative. Now it's time for
Sen. Kerry to put his views down for the nation to see.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:46:47 -0000
From: "Jim Hillhouse"
Subject: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Foust wrote:
>
> > I think you are absolutely right, Kerry has no plans for an agressive
> > human space flight program. But he is going to be forced to make a
> > tough decision, especially if he were to win a second term. The
> > shuttle program is really reaching its limit, and Bush recognizes this =

> > with his plan to phase it out. So Kerry will have to A) Keep out
> > existing expensive, out of date shuttle program up and running

> > Develop a new launch vehicle or C) Cancel Human Spaceflight.
>
> Keep in mind that the new human-rated spacecraft to be developed, the
> Crew Exploration Vehicle, is intended to be launched on existing
> vehicles, the Atlas 5 and/or Delta 4 (either the "single-stick" or the
> heavy variants of these vehicles.) Thus a shuttle successor does not
> require developing a new launch vehicle, simply human-rating existing
> vehicles. Under the current plan the CEV will play little, if any,
> role supporting ISS, but one can imagine a President Kerry turning the
> focus of the program towards the ISS if he decides to put more of an
> emphasis on the station (in essence turning the CEV back into the prior
> Orbital Space Plane effort.)
>
> > I hate to be so bleak, but its a fact. We are supporting an anti-space =

> > candidate.
>
> I see little evidence that Kerry is anti-space. He is certainly not
> strongly pro-space, in the sense that he is not proposing bold new
> initiatives for NASA, but he is also not advocating major cuts in the
> agency. His interest in space mirrors the general public's: broad but
> fairly shallow. And after "bunnysuitgate", I don't see him visiting
> any other NASA centers for the foreseeable future.

Just a few points to clarify, from an engineering perspective, the debate w=

hat launch
system will or could be used to take us back to the Moon. Whether Constella=

tion will be
launched on existing launchers is TBD. Here is why.

The mass of the Apollo Command and Service module, based on Apollo 17 numbe=

rs, was
about 30,300 kg. Including the LM increased that mass to 46,700 kg. Apollo =

11 CM/CSM/
LM mass total was 43,861 kg.

The LEO mass launch capabilities of a Delta IV Heavy is 28,500 kg. So, unle=

ss you are
going to launch 3 Heavies (remember, you also need something to boost you o=

ut of LEO
and an escape system==extra mass), the existing expendable fleet will not d=

o the job.
Materials advances since Apollo are unlikely to cut that mass number down t=

o the point
where one Heavy will do the job.

And then there's man-rating these vehicles. This is not a trivial task beca=

use, from a
systems point of view, other than the tankage and engines, you're designing=

a new
launcher. Some early estimates show that man-rating costs about as much as =

a new
launcher, which is why an STS derived system, that is turning the ET into a=

"normal" rocket,
looks somewhat attractive.

So, to get to the Moon, we're going to need a new launcher--either a STS de=

rived vehicle,
which is already man-rated, or a new one.

So, Kerry is not strongly pro-space. As pro-space people, this is supposed =

to make us feel
good about Kerry? Bush is going increase, albeit slightly, NASA's budget an=

d Kerry is not
going to sharply cut it. But which budget are we talking about? Pre-space e=

xploration
initiative or post?

And why is this whole debate imporant? Yes, the pro-space vote is small. Bu=

t remember
that swing states such as Florida and Ohio, where the margins will be small=

, have NASA
centers. If you go to Titusville area of Florida and do not come strongly o=

ut in favor of
NASA, the locals are much less likely to vote for you and that could be the=

margin that
costs you Florida. The same could happen in Ohio in the Glenn area.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:17:16 -0000
From: "Robert Oler"
Subject: Why no one cares

Hello All:

Tom Matula has brought up some good points on space policy. This is
my take on some issues he raises. Tom ask why space policy is not
more important to space activist and politicians in general. I have
a couple of reasons. (and I am referring to human spaceflight).

First space policy right now does not create "wealth". Yes there are
salaries and stock options. But in the end if you are an
entrepreneur there is really no there there. With very few
exceptions no person such as Dennis Wingo can come up with a new
product that requires human spaceflight or human intervention in
space and have really a chance that it is going to survive
NASA "interface". The same is true when selling a product to NASA
for its use.

Second space policy right now does not create jobs that address the
nations jobs issues. OK no steelworker from PA is going to leave
Allentown and come to Houston and find a space job…but the
job "requirements" have accelerated not decreased. Where it is most
obvious is the astronaut corp. Very few of the original 7 would even
make the first cut today. The advanced degree requirements, the
flying experience all are the results of simply "boosting" the
requirements to run for the upper level pool, not to push the job
downward. What does that mean?

It is interesting to look at the airline pilot (forget
Stewardess/Flight attendant) requirements from say 40 years ago and
compare them to entry level requirements today. There is no
comparison. Most of the people who routinely fly folks around in
enormously complex airplanes (much more complex than 40 years ago)
would not have had a chance of being hired 40 years ago. The same is
true for people who maintain nuclear reactors on Navy ships or work
as medical technicians or do the countless other "semi skill" jobs
that have become the new middle class.

If NASA had a nuclear reactor in space that interfaced with human
spaceflight, there is almost zero chance that they would take the
same route to the requirement level or the training of folks who
operate them on nuclear submarines.

Third the goals for human spaceflight don't effect the rest of the
country. Space advocates may be longing for exploration but that
desire doesn't beat all that hard in the chest of most Americans.
Most Americans right now don't care that there is one American in
space…and after the first ones go back to the Moon no one would care
either. Most here forget that the Gemini flights interruptions
of "Hedi" were a prime concern at the networks and the Apollo
landings were dropped like a dude after 12. That was not a political
statement; it was a statement of the popular interest.

There is not a chance that the Interstate Road system would have been
built if only military vehicles had been allowed to drive on it.
That's what we have in human spaceflight today.

The point is that until human spaceflight gets into a position to
affect the country in some "continental" way then really the policies
of it are not going to be very high on the list of politicians…or the
American people.

Robert G. Oler

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:49:17 -0000
From: "crusoe242000"
Subject: Gallup Poll Confirms Strong Support For Vision For Space Exploration

A recent Gallup poll confirms strong support for President Bush's
Vision For Space Exploration manned lunar-Mars plan. The poll states
that 68% of the American people support the plan. The poll also
states that 60% of the Democrats & 79% of the Republicans support
the plan. You can read the poll by going to www.spacecoalition.com
John Kerry, who has been critical of Bush's Space Initiative, should
realize the the vast majority of his own party supports the plan.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:59:20 -0000
From: "keithcowing"
Subject: Re: Why no one cares

Are you going to tell all the Kerry supporters here how you have been advis=

ing the
Kerry campaign on space issues?

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Oler" wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> Tom Matula has brought up some good points on space policy. This is
> my take on some issues he raises. Tom ask why space policy is not
> more important to space activist and politicians in general. I have
> a couple of reasons. (and I am referring to human spaceflight).
>
> First space policy right now does not create "wealth". Yes there are
> salaries and stock options. But in the end if you are an
> entrepreneur there is really no there there. With very few
> exceptions no person such as Dennis Wingo can come up with a new
> product that requires human spaceflight or human intervention in
> space and have really a chance that it is going to survive
> NASA "interface". The same is true when selling a product to NASA
> for its use.
>
> Second space policy right now does not create jobs that address the
> nations jobs issues. OK no steelworker from PA is going to leave
> Allentown and come to Houston and find a space job…but the
> job "requirements" have accelerated not decreased. Where it is most
> obvious is the astronaut corp. Very few of the original 7 would even
> make the first cut today. The advanced degree requirements, the
> flying experience all are the results of simply "boosting" the
> requirements to run for the upper level pool, not to push the job
> downward. What does that mean?
>
> It is interesting to look at the airline pilot (forget
> Stewardess/Flight attendant) requirements from say 40 years ago and
> compare them to entry level requirements today. There is no
> comparison. Most of the people who routinely fly folks around in
> enormously complex airplanes (much more complex than 40 years ago)
> would not have had a chance of being hired 40 years ago. The same is
> true for people who maintain nuclear reactors on Navy ships or work
> as medical technicians or do the countless other "semi skill" jobs
> that have become the new middle class.
>
> If NASA had a nuclear reactor in space that interfaced with human
> spaceflight, there is almost zero chance that they would take the
> same route to the requirement level or the training of folks who
> operate them on nuclear submarines.
>
> Third the goals for human spaceflight don't effect the rest of the
> country. Space advocates may be longing for exploration but that
> desire doesn't beat all that hard in the chest of most Americans.
> Most Americans right now don't care that there is one American in
> space…and after the first ones go back to the Moon no one would care
> either. Most here forget that the Gemini flights interruptions
> of "Hedi" were a prime concern at the networks and the Apollo
> landings were dropped like a dude after 12. That was not a political
> statement; it was a statement of the popular interest.
>
> There is not a chance that the Interstate Road system would have been
> built if only military vehicles had been allowed to drive on it.
> That's what we have in human spaceflight today.
>
> The point is that until human spaceflight gets into a position to
> affect the country in some "continental" way then really the policies
> of it are not going to be very high on the list of politicians…or the
> American people.
>
> Robert G. Oler

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:30:49 -0400
From: Jeff Foust
Subject: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

> Go to spaceref.com and read what he said about the ISS
> and how he wanted to cut in favor of unmanned probes
> and research on earth.

If you're referring to the except from Sietzen and Cowing's excellent
"New Moon Rising" book:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=965

then yes, Kerry has said some positive things about space and NASA, and
also some negative things about the exploration vision and the ISS in
particular. (It seems that the campaign have backed off the
trillion-dollar cost estimate of late; perhaps they realized how
ridiculous it is.)

I did find it interesting, though, that the voting record on Kerry
stopped in 1996. It turns out there were two additional roll call
votes on the Senate floor regarding the ISS, in 1997 and 1998. In 1997
there was a vote to table an amendment by Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR) to
kill the ISS. Kerry voted in favor of the motion to table:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?
vote_id=1409&can_id=S0421103

In 1998 Sen. Bumpers introduced another amendment to the VA-HUD
appropriations bill to kill the ISS. Kerry voted against the
amendment:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?
vote_id=1839&can_id=S0421103

I did not find any other, more recent, roll call votes on the ISS, most
likely because Sen. Bumpers, the staunchest opponent to the ISS in the
Senate, decided not to run for re-election in 1998. I have not found
any information regarding why Kerry changed his mind about the ISS
between 1996 and 1997.

(Source: http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000150.html, April 17,
2004)

> The leak about Kerry's plan, I
> believe, is a bait and switch tactic for Kerry to get
> votes from the space enthusiasts without actually
> having to come up with a plan.

Well, if Kerry is really trying to recruit the "space vote", then he is
doing a poor job of it. However, as I previously noted, the space vote
is so small that Kerry's campaign will most likely focus little
attention trying to court it.

Cheers,
Jeff Foust
http://www.thespacereview.com/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:17:23 -0400
From: "Rick Fischer"
Subject: RE: Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???

David, your politics are getting in the way.

Please feel free to ask me what actually is going on in the real space
world.

Below are actualities and not conjecture or biased assumptions regarding
the new Vision for Space Exploration.

Rick Fischer
Kennedy Space Center Worker
http://www.InsideKSC.com

Start----

The New Vision For Space Exploration continues:

UPI July 29, 2004

Planners in NASA's Exploration Directorate recently gave United Press
International an exclusive briefing on the steps they envision to
fulfill President Bush's new vision for space exploration. These steps
include designing the vehicle to fly back to the moon as well as the new
fleet of atomic-powered spacecraft that may open up astronaut visits to
deeper in space. In Part 1, NASA explains the different approach it is
researching to achieve the first human visits to the moon since Apollo
17 in December 1972. When American astronauts make their return, some of
their missions will resemble the old Apollo voyages and some will be far
more advanced.

Inside NASA, planners have begun to assemble teams that are looking
deep inside President George W. Bush's new vision of space exploration.
Their goal: define the characteristics of the first new piloted
spaceship since the space shuttle, and establish the initial steps and
stages by which these new craft will attempt a series of moon landings.

Inside NASA's Exploration Mission Directorate, a requirements group is
busily working to put substance into the new assault on the moon.

What are NASA's requirements for the new moonship? According to Mike
Lembeck, who heads the requirements group, they compose a soup-to-nuts
catalog of everything moonwalking astronauts will need on their initial
forays: How big will the ships be? How many astronauts will they carry?
How will their launching rockets get them there? When they get to the
moon, what will be the profiles of their explorations, and what science
will they seek?

Soon, the planners will call upon industry to start designing the ships.

"We hope to get an RFP (request for proposal) out by January on the CEV
(crew exploration vehicle), and have a fly-off of two teams in 2008,"
Lembeck said.

The fly-off, a staple of contracting for military aircraft, will be new
to NASA's manned space efforts.

Lembeck described a process by which the space agency will choose a pair
of teams, each with a complete design for the CEV, its booster rocket,
and the method by which it would achieve Earth orbit and become part of
a manned moon flotilla.

Each contractor-led team would include subcontractors that would provide
the moonbound astronauts with equipment, life support, rocket thrusters
and onboard navigation systems. The Earth orbit fly-offs would pit one
complete design against another, with NASA choosing the winner, who
would build the final ships.

Reusability is likely to be a valuable component, but initially not
essential, Lembeck said. Rather, it is what makes the most sense in
designing the 21st century lunar craft.

Lembeck's group released an initial study request last month to begin
gathering issues and potential needs for the spaceships, clearing the
path so the actual contract request in January can be more focused. They
want the moon version of the CEV to contain systems that can be evolved
to sustain deeper trips into space, such as voyages to asteroids or
manned flights to Mars.

Right now, however, the shape of the craft is not a main priority.

"We aren't focused on the mouldline," Lembeck said, only what needs to
be inside. Current thinking, he said, is the lunar CEV might be sized
for four astronauts -- the Mars ship for six.

"We are thinking in terms of two-person teams for EVAs," he explained.
EVAs, or spacewalks, would be designed around a minimum of two
astronauts outside at a time. Studies will also determine by the end of
this year if the CEV and the lunar lander will be separate spacecraft,
or if they can be combined into a single ship. The current thinking by
mission planners is attempting a single lunar landing per year, starting
no later than 2020, but perhaps as early as 2017.

Lembeck said NASA is planning to have the fly-off winner design the CEV
ships in a series of "spirals," or complete packages of spacecraft
systems and subsystems:

-- Spiral one would comprise the early CEV capable of carrying crews
into orbit for testing flights.

-- Spiral two would consist of true moonships, able to stay on the moon
from a few days to a week.

-- Spiral three would be the most capable ships, which could extend
human presence on the moon up to three months, basically establishing an
initial lunar base.

NASA planners currently are focusing on a three-part plan to return to
the moon that they call trade studies.

During Project Apollo in the 1960s and '70s, astronauts flew into Earth
orbit aboard a giant Saturn V rocket carrying an Apollo command ship and
a separate landing craft. The top stage of the rocket blasted the lunar
duo to the moon, where the lander detached from the capsule mothership
and descended to the surface, remaining there for up to nearly three
days.

The first return flights under the new plan would strongly resemble the
most advanced Apollo missions.

"These first missions would follow a minimalist approach," Lembeck said.
They might employ separate transfer and landing systems, carrying the
spaceship elements together until moon orbit, as did Apollo, then
detaching for landing at relatively safe locations along the moon's
equator. Astronauts would then stay on the surface for up to a week's
duration.

The second wave of flights would be more complex. The elements for the
flight actually might be assembled at the L-1 point -- the Lagrange
point, about 930,000 miles up, at which the gravitational influences of
the Earth and the moon cancel each other out.

Following assembly at L-1, the craft then would embark toward the moon,
following a flight path that would cover virtually all of the moon's
regions and allowing landings in more scientifically interesting, but
more potentially hazardous, locales. Stay times would also average as
long as a week.

The third wave would consist of the most ambitious missions currently
being considered. These would require the most capable CEVs and landers,
with their components assembled either in low Earth orbit or at L-1. The
ships would land at the moon's poles, establish base camps, and stay 45
days and longer. These outposts then would become the first U.S. lunar
bases.

Lembeck noted that astronauts on these later missions would bring
equipment and tools that would be needed on a Mars outpost, making the
first moon bases the testing grounds for the Mars assault.

While planners already are addressing CEV and moon-mission designs, a
team of researchers at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center in Greenbelt,
Md., is completing an initial review of the scientific objectives of the
landings. For the return to Earth, the directorate is studying various
types of configurations, including a rocket-assisted setdown on land,
like the Russians use on their Soyuz capsules. Another option involves
descending directly to Earth from moon orbit, as did the Apollo
astronauts. The teams are studying the moonship's launching rockets as
well.

Lembeck said these reviews include the size of the boosters, the methods
by which the astronauts could escape a launching accident, and whether
an engine loss could be sustained and still allow the flight to
continue.

The planners also are reviewing the entire suite of space equipment,
including new designs for spacesuits, habitats that could be built on
the surface, what crews would need to construct them and the kinds of
robots they would need to accompany them on their traverses across the
moon's rocky terrain.

For longer journeys into space, however, future astronauts will need a
whole new kind of rocket power -- and the means to generate power as
well.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Rickman
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 7:12 AM
To: kerryspace@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [kerryspace] Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???

1. Bush's plan is a little more than just "hot air". It involves a lot
of smoke and mirrors, too! If you go to the archives of "Friends and
Partners in Space" (http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/)
you'll see that the leading space experts understand that while it would
appear Bush is pro space, his plan would ultimately lead to the end of
U. S. manned space exploration. This is basically the same atmosphere
Bush created in taking us into an unjustified war. If you oppose His
view, you could be in danger of being viewed as "unpatriotic".

Lori Garver has realistic views and plans and I'm ready to support her
and John Kerry.

2. As Lori Garver is a well educated person of distinction and worthy of
respect, you might consider using "spell and grammar check" before
posting your comments. This will add a little more credibility to them.
Just a thought.

David Rickman

osiris23223 wrote:

"The Bush initiative is simply hot-air and has made it impossible in
an election year for Kerry to say much on space."

Explain why its impossible?

There is hot air alright. Kerry has plenty to say about other Bush
plans. Why is space exploration any different?

You expect to get a pro-space vote by saying that? That he wont say
much? Nuts to that.

Kerry hasnt said much on Space anyways. Why should I or anyone who
is pro-space exploration expect different now? He went to NASA and
talked about health care???? Me thinks he was using NASA as a photo
op to show he is for "science".

And why shouuld I as anyone who breathes space exploration expect
that a
Kerry space program would include human missions returning to
the Moon or going to Mars in the next 10 years.

Just saying the Bush initiative! is hot air is NOT going to cut it.
You want a pro-Space Vote? You have to EARN IT.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14178

Leading Space Groups Agree: It's Time For The Moon, Mars And Beyond

In an unprecedented show of unity, thirteen of the nation's premier
space advocacy groups, industry associations and space policy
organizations have teamed up to support the effort to refocus NASA's
human space activities toward exploration, including a return to the
Moon and moving on to Mars and beyond.

The organizations involved include: Aerospace Industries
Association, Aerospace States Association, American Astronautical
Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
California Space Authority, Florida Space Authority, The Mars
Society, National Coalition of Spaceport States, National Space
Society, The Planetary Society, ProSp! ace, Space Access Society and
Space Frontier Foundation.

Collectively these groups can count almost one million Americans as
members or as employees of member companies. Their first goal as a
group is to work for broad Congressional support of the new national
vision for space exploration outside of low earth orbit, which they
refer to as Moon, Mars and Beyond. To begin they will work to secure
first year funding for the initiative, which they view as a
necessary first step for in-depth planning of the exploration
program to commence in earnest.

In addition they intend to aggressively refute the false impression
that Moon, Mars and Beyond is too expensive for this country to take
on. They will demonstrate how modest but steady growth in our
national expenditures on space can move the nation toward these
important goals, and the benefits those expenditures will provide.

As space activity becomes increasingly integrated with every aspect
of life here on earth, this new focus on exploration will provide
myriad advances in science and technology, untold economic
opportunity and serve as an inspiration to our nation's youth. Given
those benefits and the many more that lie in store, this new program
of human space exploration beyond low earth orbit is a vital link to
the future of the United States and the world.

_____

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
m/new_mail/static/ease.html> Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
finish.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

D=groups/S=1713686374:HM/EXP=1091276059/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*htt
p://companion.yahoo.com> click here

s/S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=861712597>

_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kerryspace/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
kerryspace-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service .

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:05:56 -0400
From: Jeff Foust
Subject: Re: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration

> The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the lunar phase of
> the program,where the technology & procedures for a manned Mars
> mission will be developed,will cost a little over $60 Billion
> dollars--hardly the trillion dollar figure that Kerry's & his
> advisors keep mentioning.

While I think we all agree that the trillion-dollar estimate is
nonsensical, it should be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, the
CBO has not performed a study of the cost of a Moon or Mars mission
since the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration. Mr.
Sterling may be referring to a Congressional Research Service report
from a few months ago, which relied on NASA's own estimate that
returning humans to the Moon (not Mars) by 2020 would cost $64 billion.
I don't believe that either CRS nor CBO have performed an independent
assessment, which would be difficult in any case since there is no
defined architecture for such a mission.

> Also, The Mars Society recently published
> on their web site(www.marssociety.org) an estimate by ESA & NASA's
> Marshall Space Flight Center for the manned Mars part of the
> program. It estimates a manned Mars program would cost between 26 &
> 39 billion dollars.

It should also be noted that this is not an ESA-NASA study, but instead
a study by one researcher employed by ESA and one employed by
NASA/MSFC. Neither agency has officially endorsed this study, to my
recollection.

I believe space advocates can make a case that a human return to the
Moon can be affordable. However, they will face two key obstacles with
convincing the Kerry campaign of that: skepticism about NASA budget
estimates in general, and creating a compelling case for returning to
the Moon regardless of the cost issues.

Jeff Foust

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:36:22 -0000
From: "cebacon2005"
Subject: my comments on what kerry's space policy should be

As I watched Senator Kerry's speech last night to the DNC, i notcied
a common throughout: unity. Unity in the United States among all
people. And I believe this idea of unity should extend to all
people of the world. Nothing would help this dream prosper more
than space exploration.

Even during this war on terror, there are many people who are
brought together under a common goal, to defeat the terrorists.
These are people who probably wouldnt have united before 9/11. But
we are already starting to see these bonds fade, and it will come to
be that they eventually diminsh once this fight is won.

But space exploration is something that keep those bonds there, and
make them stronger and bigger to include so many people. As a race,
the need to explore and to discover new things has always been part
of our nature. I find it sad that this trait has not extended to
get us into space more, but I know that it can. Much like the space
race of the 60's, all we need is a leader to unite us. John F.
Kennedy knew that, and it was because of his leadership that we made
probably the most acceleratd technological advances ever in order to
put a man on the moon. Some part of it may have been the desire to
beat the soviets, and some will say that the lack of competition now
will not give us the same effect even with a strong leader to lead
us to the next frontier. But isnt that competition there? And (of
course) doesnt it lie in Russia?

Arent the Russians working on putting anyone in space who wants to
be there? But why should that be? As the capitalist nation that we
are, I would think many companies would see the profit in offering
trips to space who want it. AND, if the private sector could be
willing to offer it to them, shouldnt the government want to stay
right along with them so things dont grow out of control?

I believe in John Kerry. I believe he has the ability to help turn
this country around. As an about to be graduated aerospace student,
I am well aware of the new technolgies and hopes that lie in the
field, and I know that if John Kerry truly wants to unite this
country, space exploration, given the current situation, would not
be at all a bad place to start. Rather, it would be a great one. I
urge the democratic party and John Kerry to realize the oppurtunity
that is here and to seize it now. We know George Bush SAID he
believed in this, though as far as I can tell, little action has
been taken towards it. Use that against him by picking up where he
never did. I know it can be done, and I believe John Kerry can do
it.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:31:42 -0000
From: "keithcowing"
Subject: Re: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Foust wrote:
> > The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the lunar phase of
> > the program,where the technology & procedures for a manned Mars
> > mission will be developed,will cost a little over $60 Billion
> > dollars--hardly the trillion dollar figure that Kerry's & his
> > advisors keep mentioning.
>
> While I think we all agree that the trillion-dollar estimate is
> nonsensical, it should be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, the
> CBO has not performed a study of the cost of a Moon or Mars mission
> since the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration. Mr.
> Sterling may be referring to a Congressional Research Service report
> from a few months ago, which relied on NASA's own estimate that
> returning humans to the Moon (not Mars) by 2020 would cost $64 billion.
> I don't believe that either CRS nor CBO have performed an independent
> assessment, which would be difficult in any case since there is no
> defined architecture for such a mission.
>
>
> > Also, The Mars Society recently published
> > on their web site(www.marssociety.org) an estimate by ESA & NASA's
> > Marshall Space Flight Center for the manned Mars part of the
> > program. It estimates a manned Mars program would cost between 26 &
> > 39 billion dollars.
>
> It should also be noted that this is not an ESA-NASA study, but instead
> a study by one researcher employed by ESA and one employed by
> NASA/MSFC. Neither agency has officially endorsed this study, to my
> recollection.
>
> I believe space advocates can make a case that a human return to the
> Moon can be affordable. However, they will face two key obstacles with
> convincing the Kerry campaign of that: skepticism about NASA budget
> estimates in general, and creating a compelling case for returning to
> the Moon regardless of the cost issues.

Jeff:

What many people - most notably the Mars Society zealots - seem to forget amidst
all of their armwaving - or chose to ignore - is the every last paragraph in the paper
i.e. "These values are presented only for the purpose of exposing findings in cost
estimating practices. Whether the cost estimates are realistic is directly linked with
the credibility of the baseline Mars Direct assumptions from a technical,
programmatics and safety point of view. A study on this was not part of the exercise
described in this paper."

In other words the costs of what Zubrin proposed were deemed to be credible. No
one analyzed whether the plan would actually work - or make any sense.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 20
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:33:56 -0000
From: "keithcowing"
Subject: Re: Yo Lori, Why cant Kerry talk about space???

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, David Rickman wrote:
> 1. Bush's plan is a little more than just "hot air". It involves a lot of smoke and
mirrors, too! If you go to the archives of "Friends and Partners in Space" (http://
www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/) you'll see that the leading space
experts understand that while it would appear Bush is pro space, his plan would
ultimately lead to the end of U. S. manned space exploration. This is basically the
same atmosphere Bush created in taking us into an unjustified war. If you oppose His
view, you could be in danger of being viewed as "unpatriotic".
>
> Lori Garver has realistic views and plans and I'm ready to support her and John
Kerry.
>
> 2. As Lori Garver is a well educated person of distinction and worthy of respect, you
might consider using "spell and grammar check" before posting your comments. This
will add a little more credibility to them. Just a thought.
>
> David Rickman

I will take bad grammar over unsubstantiated arm waving any day. Please tell me why
Bush's space policy "would ultimately lead to the end of U. S. manned space
exploration"?

Or is this just a case of saying something often enough hoping that it will become
true?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 21
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:39:24 -0000
From: "keithcowing"
Subject: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

--- In kerryspace@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Foust wrote:
> > Go to spaceref.com and read what he said about the ISS
> > and how he wanted to cut in favor of unmanned probes
> > and research on earth.
>
> If you're referring to the except from Sietzen and Cowing's excellent
> "New Moon Rising" book:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=965
>
> then yes, Kerry has said some positive things about space and NASA, and
> also some negative things about the exploration vision and the ISS in
> particular. (It seems that the campaign have backed off the
> trillion-dollar cost estimate of late; perhaps they realized how
> ridiculous it is.)
>
> I did find it interesting, though, that the voting record on Kerry
> stopped in 1996. It turns out there were two additional roll call
> votes on the Senate floor regarding the ISS, in 1997 and 1998. In 1997
> there was a vote to table an amendment by Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR) to
> kill the ISS. Kerry voted in favor of the motion to table:
>
> http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?
> vote_id=1409&can_id=S0421103
>
> In 1998 Sen. Bumpers introduced another amendment to the VA-HUD
> appropriations bill to kill the ISS. Kerry voted against the
> amendment:
>
> http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?
> vote_id=1839&can_id=S0421103
>
> I did not find any other, more recent, roll call votes on the ISS, most
> likely because Sen. Bumpers, the staunchest opponent to the ISS in the
> Senate, decided not to run for re-election in 1998. I have not found
> any information regarding why Kerry changed his mind about the ISS
> between 1996 and 1997.

Thanks fo the kind words, Jeff.

Yes, looking back we missed several votes .... but looking at the trend - and Kerry's
propensity to flip flop only makes his stance on space even more questionable and
hard to pin down. Just where does he stand *today* and where will he stand
*tomorrow*? Especially given that his space advisor Lori Garver says one thing in
public and another thing here on this website.

We will be putting an addendum online at our publsiher's website - and will add these
two votes. We are also contemplating an additional chapter or two - online as well -
to cover what has happened since the book was printed.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 22
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:33:39 EDT
From:
Subject: Re: my comments on what kerry's space policy should be

to cebacon

I think you are whistling in the wind. If you believe in Kerry vote for him.
But do not do it on the basis of space. With the exception of two votes
taken in the late 90's he has been consistantly antispace. That has continued
through this campagn.

Bush on the other hand put forward the best proposal for space i have seen
since kennedy, and in reality possibly including that, as it has continuity. In
addition, he is willing to veto or at least threaten to veto a veterans bill
to get his program out. His program is by no means perfect, but it is out
there with several important concepts, modularity, pay as you go, continuity. I
am not a Bushie,but from the point of view of space there is no comparison
between Bush and Kerry.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 23
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:04:57 EDT
From:
Subject: Re: John Kerry on Space 2004, SpaceRef

Given the Florida phenomenon of the last Presidential election, one would
hope that Kerry would not dismiss the "space vote" and the numbers employed in
aerospace on the "Space Coast" as being so small as to be irrelevant.

I think the Bush plan probably gets mixed reviews down there. Recent
proposals vis-a-vis the Aldridge Commission, etc., have numerous features that have
turned off many NASA and aerospace industry workers, including closing of NASA
centers and turning the remaining ones into FFRCs, as if these are magical
solutions. There is no evidence that Kerry is poised to do great things for
space, but a lot of the Bush plan is indeed the same tired old dogma under the
surface: government is bad regardless of what it's trying to achieve, etc. Seems
like Kerry really wouldn't have to do all that much to make himself
competitive in going after this vote. He's already talking about increasing R&D and
one must assume that this would include a modest increase in the NASA budget.
If Bush claims we can implement the Vision with the programmatic changes and
modest increases he is talking about, Kerry ought to be able to borrow from his
own "We can do better" mantra and articulate how he would implement a new
vision for space with modest budget increases and without draconian reforms.

I largely rejected the standard "pro-space" (NSS, Spacecause, etc.) line
since 1984, always believing that the ISS would do little but guarantee that we
would remain mired in LEO for 20 or 30 years. Viewed in this context, it is
interesting to note that in hindsight Kerry's anti-station votes might have been
correct.

At any rate, this administration deserves at least some credit for finally
saying "Let's stop the madness." We all know the shuttle can't fly for 20+ more
years and we can't continue down the old path.

In a message dated 7/30/2004 7:12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:
Well, if Kerry is really trying to recruit the "space vote", then he is
doing a poor job of it. However, as I previously noted, the space vote
is so small that Kerry's campaign will most likely focus little
attention trying to court it.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 24
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:59:21 -0000
From: "Robert Oler"
Subject: Re: John Kerry's Election Would Be A Disaster For Space Exploration

>
> I believe space advocates can make a case that a human return to
the
> Moon can be affordable. However, they will face two key obstacles
with
> convincing the Kerry campaign of that: skepticism about NASA budget
> estimates in general, and creating a compelling case for returning
to
> the Moon regardless of the cost issues.
>
>
> Jeff Foust

Hello Jeff. There are two questions to answer. Why return to the
Moon? What purpose does it serve? The second is at what cost? NASA
has once again vastly underestimated the cost of returning the
shuttle to flight.

It seems hard to imagine that they would get something of those cost
magnitude and effort wrong and not have multiple errors in something
much larger.

Robert G. Oler

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 25
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:55:41 -0000
From: "crusoe242000"
Subject: A Comment On The ESA & NASA Study Of Mars Direct

On page 1 of the ESA-NASA study of Mars Direct it states that cost
engineers from ESA & NASA carried out the cost analysis of Mars
Direct. In other words a lot more that just too people carried out
the cost analysis. The Mars Direct approach was used by NASA to
formulate their Mars Reference Mission. In other words, NASA feels
the concept works. The Mars Reference Mission cost was about $50
billion. Finally, your right. It was the Congressional Reseach
Service not the CBO that estimated the cost of the lunar section of
The Vision For Space Exploration.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kerryspace/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
kerryspace-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Whitelist | Message Source | Save as | Print Back to INBOX
Move | Copy This message to ---- New Folder ---- Change of Email Emails Delivery F... Notification drafts Junk sent-mail Trash Who are You?

Comments

No one has commented on this article. Be the first!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!