How can it be possible for George Bush Sr's Space Exploration Initiative to achieve at least a return to the Moon by 2005?
WI: Successful SEI?
- Thread starter Polish Eagle
- Start date
You don't need to go with that "90-Day Study" that got that price. You can go as cheap as you like for this.
The first thing that has to happen is that the 90 Day Study comes up with something a little less pricey, something perhaps along the lines of Zubrin's Mars Direct, along with a cheaper return to the Moon.
Then one has to give the Bush 41 people a little more spine when Congress tries to deep six the program the following year. Bush 41 would likely have to offer a veto threat and do a full court campaign to get SEI funded.
Then one has to give Clinton, when he gets into office, a motive for continuing SEI. That might be the toughest of all.
Then one has to give the Bush 41 people a little more spine when Congress tries to deep six the program the following year. Bush 41 would likely have to offer a veto threat and do a full court campaign to get SEI funded.
Then one has to give Clinton, when he gets into office, a motive for continuing SEI. That might be the toughest of all.
Archibald
Banned
There were many obstacles on the way to SEI.
The first was NASA comitments.
The shuttle
It was ten years old only, too young to be scrapped.
But the shuttle can't go to the Moon.
And NASA budget couldn't support another manned spaceship.
Space station Freedom.
It did not even existed, but it couldn't be cancelled either, because of Europe, Canada and Japan comitments into the projects.
Next obstacle: NASA planning and architectures.
The Johnson Space Flight Center
The 90 days study was designed at Johnson. Johnson SFC boss Aaron Cohen was a good man, but, being an Apollo veteran, he thought like Apollo > unlimited budgets, unlimited goals.
Next obstacle: as Mark Whittington noted, clinton comes in 1993. Frankly, he slahed NASA budget. Bush had raised it to near 1% of the Federal expense; Clinton cut it to 0.6 %. Yes, that's a big difference. It represents some billion dollar less.
I think that, to make the SEI works, you really need to have a POD much earlier, around 1972; a different post-Apollo program.
Once NASA committed to the shuttle in 1972, no one can't stop it. Not even Walter Mondale as vice-president !
Once the shuttle fly in 1981, you can't really scrap it. It was too big an investment to stop it after Challenger.
Once the shuttle returned to flight in 1988, you have to wait the late 90's to talk about a replacement - when the shuttle is twenty years old, Ie after 2001.
The first was NASA comitments.
The shuttle
It was ten years old only, too young to be scrapped.
But the shuttle can't go to the Moon.
And NASA budget couldn't support another manned spaceship.
Space station Freedom.
It did not even existed, but it couldn't be cancelled either, because of Europe, Canada and Japan comitments into the projects.
Next obstacle: NASA planning and architectures.
The Johnson Space Flight Center
The 90 days study was designed at Johnson. Johnson SFC boss Aaron Cohen was a good man, but, being an Apollo veteran, he thought like Apollo > unlimited budgets, unlimited goals.
Next obstacle: as Mark Whittington noted, clinton comes in 1993. Frankly, he slahed NASA budget. Bush had raised it to near 1% of the Federal expense; Clinton cut it to 0.6 %. Yes, that's a big difference. It represents some billion dollar less.
I think that, to make the SEI works, you really need to have a POD much earlier, around 1972; a different post-Apollo program.
Once NASA committed to the shuttle in 1972, no one can't stop it. Not even Walter Mondale as vice-president !
Once the shuttle fly in 1981, you can't really scrap it. It was too big an investment to stop it after Challenger.
Once the shuttle returned to flight in 1988, you have to wait the late 90's to talk about a replacement - when the shuttle is twenty years old, Ie after 2001.
Thande
Donor
How about if Shuttle-C was developed by 1990 (not that improbable) to serve as a heavy lifter to help assemble Freedom; then Freedom falls through for whatever reason, and instead Shuttle-C is used to lift an Earth Departure Stage and Apollo-style capsule?
Maybe make this second moonshot an international affair analogous to the ISS instead - have the Russians make the capsule and the Europeans/Japanese make the lander or something like that.
The Shuttles first big problem was the United States Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office. The cargo bay on the Shuttle is as large as it is because it had to big enough to carry the KH series of spy satilites to orbit. And do it from Vandenburg Air Force Base. All of which made the vehicle larger. IIRC what NASA really wanted was a smaller vehicle mainly just for carrying people.
But NASA's biggest single problem is that it has to function at the whim of politicians in DC. Plans made under one Congress or Administration can be undone the next election cycle
But NASA's biggest single problem is that it has to function at the whim of politicians in DC. Plans made under one Congress or Administration can be undone the next election cycle