GioFX
15-01-2004, 12:56
President Bush unveils new space initiative
President Bush ordered a sharp change of course for NASA today, directing the agency to complete the space station and retire the shuttle by 2010 and to begin development of a new spacecraft to carry astronauts back to the moon by the middle of the next decade.
The plan calls for NASA to begin launching unmanned probes to the moon within just four years to begin mapping resources and refining knowledge about the harsh lunar environment that will face astronauts making long-duration stays.
Space station research will be re-focused almost exclusively on life sciences as part of what amounts to a crash course on learning how to counteract the harmful physiological effects of weightlessness.
Knowledge gained from station research, development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle and the infrastructure needed to support long-duration moon missions, the president said, will pave the way for eventual flights to Mars and beyond.
"Today we set a new course for America's space program," Bush said in a speech at NASA Headquarters. "We will give NASA a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own."
The president plans to ask Congress to boost NASA's budget by an additional $1 billion over the next five years - an average of $200 million per year - to help kick-start the new initiative. Another $11 billion will come from reallocating money already in NASA's projected budgets by restructuring or eliminating programs and initiatives that aren't consistent with deep space exploration.
The president's plan would increase NASA's budget by 5 percent per year over the next three years and then at a modest 1 percent or less per year for the following two years.
"This increase, along with the refocusing of our space agency, is a solid beginning to meet the challenges and the goals we set today," Bush said. "It's only a beginning. Future funding decisions will be guided by the progress we make in achieving our goals."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said the new focus for NASA "is the next giant leap for mankind."
"The president's vision is exactly what NASA needs: a bold, unifying mission that honors America's forty-year legacy of triumph and sacrifice in human space flight," DeLay said in a statement. "I couldn't be happier with the president's vision, nor prouder of the brave and brilliant people of NASA who will make this dream come true."
But Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who flew on the space shuttle in January 1986, said the budget numbers tossed out by Bush today would not come close to funding new vehicles and manned missions to the planets.
"It will be cheap talk unless the president starts putting some real money behind it, immediately," Nelson told CBS News. "And then, everybody will know it's serious."
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said he welcomed a a new focus on exploration, but said "clearly, we are going to need more information on the proposed timetable for achieving the goals, the costs, how the administration proposes to pay for the initiative, and what the impact will be on the rest of NASA's programs."
He said he was concerned other NASA programs will be "cannibalized" to pay for the new initiatives.
"We now have a half-trillion dollar deficit," he said in a statement. "The president is going to have to make the case for why his proposals should be supported in the face of that deficit. His ambitious space agenda has to be seen to be more than simply a re-election sound bite, or it will be dismissed out of hand by both Congress and the American public.
"Having said all that, I think that the president has kicked off a long overdue discussion on the future of NASA, and I look forward to working with him to craft a productive way forward."
To the enthusiastic audience in a packed auditorium at NASA headquarters, Bush's exploration initiative was music to the ears.
"Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system," Bush said. "We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel. We'll make steady progress, one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time."
The first goal, he said, was to complete assembly of the international space station by 2010.
"We will focus our future research aboard the station on the long-term effects of space travel on human biology," the president said. "Research on board the station and here on Earth will help us better understand and overcome the obstacles that limit exploration. Through these efforts we will develop the skills and techniques necessary to sustain further space exploration.
"To meet this goal, we will return the space shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the space shuttle, after nearly 30 years of duty, will be retired from service."
The second goal of the Bush initiative is to develop a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008 with the first manned missions beginning no later than 2014. The new spacecraft will be able to ferry astronauts to and from the space station as well as "beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo command module. "
"Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond," he said. "Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods."
Exploring and utilizing the moon makes sense, the president said, because it could "vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."
"Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive," Bush said. "Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources.
"Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.
Costs aside, some questioned the wisdom of returning to the moon if the real goal is Mars. Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, described using the moon as a staging base for flights to Mars as "patently ridiculous." It doesn't make sense, he said in an interview, to first launch humans, their supplies and equipment from Earth to the moon and then to launch other flights from the moon to Mars.
And Friedman dismissed talk about using lunar resources for on-site manufacturing given the relatively short timetables outlined by the president.
"The lunar resources and lunar launch facilities thing just defies credibility," he said. "The other aspects of the moon, being able to set up a base there and practice excursions like you'd do on Mars, maybe that would make some sense. But the moon is very different. ... You could do a lunar base (as practice for Mars), but I've always thought you could do that in Chicago, too."
Even so, he said, "I think the overall redirection of the program is welcome."
"We applaud the administration for providing a vision for where we are going in human space exploration and for providing clear goals to re-energize an enterprise that has been stuck in Earth orbit for more than 30 years," Planetary Society President Wesley Huntress said in a statement.
During a news conference after Bush's speech, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said the president gave the space agency a clear mandate. "We got support for a set of specific objectives that very clearly identifies exploration and discovery as the central objectives of what this agency is all about."
No details about the nature of the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle are yet available, including how many astronauts it might seat, how it will fly through an atmosphere or even what sort of launcher might be needed to boost it into orbit. It could be a modular system, adaptable to different sorts of missions, or a more monolithic design. O'Keefe stressed that nothing has been ruled out and that multiple systems are on the table.
---
Press release: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/14whitehouse/
---
Editoriali:
- http://www.space.com/news/bush_science_040114.html
- http://www.marsdaily.com/2004/040114230811.z6qktsht.html
---
Altri commenti/articoli:
European Space Agency gives cautious welcome to Bush plans for space travel
PARIS (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
The European Space Agency gave a cautious welcome Thursday to plans by US President George W. Bush to send American astronauts to the Moon as early as 2015 and to build a lunar base as a launch pad for manned missions to Mars.
"This is great and good piece of news for space," ESA chief Jean-Jacques Dordain told a news conference," and added "interest in space is growing everywhere in the world."
But Dordain said that Bush's announcement, made at the headquarters of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in Washington on Wednesday, was "not a surprise".
He refused to comment on Bush's vision of manned flights to Mars, the development of a new space vehicle and a manned lunar base, which contrasts with ESA's traditional emphasis on cheaper unmanned scientific missions.
He noted that ESA had it own plan for robotic missions to the moon, and that a proposal to send European astronuats to Mars by 2030 -- codenamed Aurora -- was approved in 2001.
Dordain said that the partners in the International Space Station, notably NASA, ESA and their Russian and Japanese counterparts, would meet in March to discuss Bush's plans.
--
Japanese agency cautious on Bush call to join space mission
TOKYO (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
Japan's space agency responded cautiously Thursday to US President George W. Bush's invitation for other nations to join in manned space mission programmes, saying more information was needed to make a judgment.
Bush on Wednesday unveiled plans for a US return to the moon as early as 2015, saying a lunar base would be a launch pad for manned missions to Mars and "across our solar system," and calling on other nations to "join us on this journey in the spirit of cooperation and friendship."
The plan calls for completing US obligations to the International Space Station by 2010, and replacing the aging shuttle fleet with a new "Crew Exploration Vehicle" that could carry humans to the moon to maintain "an extended human presence" -- and beyond.
"I think there will be further adjustment in the United States about this plan and after it is finalized I think we will then begin to study it," said Hiroaki Sato, spokesman for the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
With both of Japan's cabinet ministers with responsibilities including science and technology on overseas trips, there was no immediate reaction from central government to Bush's speech.
Japan is already a hefty contributor to the space station project having assumed some 330 billion yen (3.1 billion dollars), or just under one-tenth, of the startup cost.
Japan is also to contribute 40 billion yen a year towards the space station's running costs, Sato said.
While the full costs of Bush's space vision have yet to be spelled out, Japan's own space ambitions have been dogged by technical problems and budget constraints amid its economic slump.
Japan's space budget in the financial year to March 2003 was just 185.6 billion yen (1.8 billion dollars), compared with NASA's current five-year budget of 86 billion dollars.
Hopes of using its domestically-developed H2-A rocket to become a player in the commercial satellite launch market have been thrown into doubt by the failure last November to put two Japanese spy satellites into orbit.
In December Japan's first unmanned Mars probe Nozomi was abandoned after the failure of attempts to repair electronic circuitry damaged by a solar flare.
Solar flares were also believed to have caused a 640 million-dollar Japanese satellite, which had been collecting data on global warming, to stop sending signals last October, just 10 months after its launch.
--
Americans welcome space goals, but skepticism over cost
WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
The scientific community and the aerospace industry were understandably upbeat about President George W. Bush's vision for the future of US space exploration on Thursday, but critics saw the drive for the Moon and Mars as an expensive adventure at a time when the country should have more down-to-earth priorities.
Although members of Bush's Republican Party were enthusiastic about Bush's vision -- outlined as the country enters an election year -- the opposition Democrats were skeptical, notably regarding the cost.
"While I'm encouraged by the administration's renewed interest in the space program, their interest doesn't reflect an honest assessment of the fiscal and organizational realities facing NASA and the financial realities facing the country," said Senator Ernest Hollings.
"Disregarding these concerns will only further jeopardize the safety of our astronauts, the integrity and viability of our broad American agenda for space and the nation's fiscal health," added the South Carolina Democrat.
The Washington Post newspaper agreed: "The nation faces a yawning budget deficit, educational and health needs, and an international terrorist threat. That makes this an odd moment to embark on a dispensable project of great expense," it said in an opinion article.
The New York Times said space exploration "has some commendable aspects," but cautioned Congress to "carefully consider whether the reallocation of funds within NASA will cause serious harm to important science programs, robotic explorations or climate-related studies."
On the Republican side, House of Representatives majority leader Tom DeLay, who was present at Bush's announcment and whose home state of Texas stands to reap a good deal of space development if Bush's program is approved by Congress, saw few problems in financing the adventure.
"There's lots of different ways to carry this out," he said.
Space scientists were also upbeat. "The plan, just taken as a plan for the future of human space flight, is actually pretty good," said Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
"A moon base as a first step makes sense because if things go wrong, you're not so far from home."
"It's about the capacity, the capability, the technology to get anywhere," said National Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrator Sean O'Keefe, speaking hours before Bush made his announcement Wednesday at NASA headquarters in Washington.
"Obviously, we are excited to hear the White House issuing this policy, which is likely to strengthen the space market," said Kimberly Campbell, marketing director at Spacehab, which furnishes resupply modules for the orbiting International Space Station (ISS).
Bush called for phasing out the US space shuttle fleet by 2010, sending another manned mission to the moon by 2020 at the latest, and using the moon as a base for human habitation and possible stepping-stone to Mars and beyond.
Bush said reallocating NASA's five-year, 86-billion-dollar budget would finance most of the new programs, but that he would seek an additional one billion dollars over that period.
A NASA document distributed after Bush's speech showed estimated that the mission to the monn and Mars and other programs would cost around 170 billion dollars by 2020.
Former NASA cost estimating expert Humbert Mandell was skeptical about the figure, saying the US space agence was notorious for its massive cost overruns in the past. He recalled that the cost of the ISS mushroomed from an initial estimate of eight billion dollars to 32 billion.
"You should never give anybody a blank check," said Mandell who now works ad the University of Texas' Center For Space Research. He agreed however that a mission to the moon and beyond was important.
"The belief is that if you really tell people what your honest estimates are, they're not going to approve it," said Roger Launius, a former NASA chief historian.
For many Americans, the new expansive vision of the future was a source both of national pride and financial concerns.
"It shows the strength of our country. It takes a lot of determination," said 35-year-old mother of two Jennifer Cantu, who was admiring space artifacts at Washington's Air and Space Museum.
"It's a benefit for us" and will help erase the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's troubles after the explosion of the Columbia shuttle on February 1 last year, said Dave Gardner, 34.
"There are better ways to spend money at this time," said Daniel Mazzone,
Perhaps the most offbeat comment came from Eugene Cernan, 69, the last US astronaut to leave the Moon, who was on hand when Bush made his announcement:
"I want somebody dearly to take that dubious honor of being the last man on the Moon off my shoulder," said the 69-year-old former commander of Apollo 17, which left the moon in 1972.
--
After Bush speech, Russia mulls missions to Moon and Mars
MOSCOW (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
In an echo of the Cold War space race, Russia said Thursday that it had the knowhow to relaunch its space exploration programs, a day after Washington laid out ambitious plans to return to the Moon and press on to Mars.
"We have many initiatives from researchers on organizing expeditions to the Moon and Mars," said Nikolai Moiseyev, a deputy director of the Russian Rosaviakosmos space agency.
"Before the end of the year, we intend to develop a federal space program until 2015 and it is possible that such projects would be included," the ITAR-TASS news agency quoted him as saying.
On Wednesday, US President George W. Bush unveiled ambitious plans for the United States to return to the Moon as early as 2015, saying a lunar base would serve as a jumping-off point for manned missions to Mars and "across our solar system."
During the Cold War Washington and Moscow competed fiercely in space exploration, and many Russians are still intensely proud of Soviet achievements in that field.
The Soviet Union scored a major victory in April 1961, when cosmonaut Yury Gagarin became the first man in space. The Americans turned the tables eight years later, when Neil Armstrong became the first man to step on the Moon in July 1969.
Moscow's space programs had to be considerably scaled back in 1991, when the Soviet Union fell apart and state financing dried up.
But as Washington outlined its plans this week, officials here emphasized that though Russia may be short of financial resources for ambitious space programs, it could hold its own in the field of technology and skills.
An official with the institute that developed the Soviet "Lunokhod" (Moonwalker) robot said that scientists have maintained their research and development efforts and could quickly resume construction.
"If Russia decides to revive its lunar program, we would need a year to create a prototype of a new Lunokhod and two to three years to construct the apparatus," Roald Kremnyev, deputy director of the Lavochkin institute, told
His comments came a day after a top Russian space official said that Moscow is capable of placing a man on Mars within 10 years at one tenth of the cost of reported US plans.
"Technically, the first flight to Mars could be made in 2014. It would cost around 15 billion dollars (11.7 billion euros) to do it, compared with the American estimate for their project of 150 billion dollars," said Leonid Gorshkov, chief designer with Energia, the Russian space constructor.
And an unnamed official at Energia on Thursday suggested that the US and Russia should join forces in Mars exploration.
"It would be much more profitable to pool efforts in a manned flight to Mars and the planetary development instead of holding the project independently," the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.
"We should unite in the international project and cut the costs," the official said.
Russia and the United States have been cooperating in work aboard the International Space Station (ISS), particularly since the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster as Russian rockets offered the only way to ferry people and supplies to and from the orbiting station.
The ISS was launched in 1998 as a collaborative venture among 16 partners including the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan and Canada.
----
New NASA Spaceflight Vision FAQ:
The Big Questions
What will Bush's space vision cost?
There is no set price tag. After the shuttle fleet is retired and the space station completed in 2010, about $6 billion of NASA's current annual budget of $15.5 billion will be diverted to the new program. Meanwhile, Bush has asked for an additional $1 billion spread over the next five years.
Other funds could come from curtailing other space agency activities, but no details were provided.
Can America afford this?
That depends of course on whom you ask. Lost in much of the discussion on this point is the fact that America already spends $15.5 billion per year on space exploration, less than 1 percent of the overall federal budget. The vast bulk of the new project's financing, at least over the next decade, will come from shifting some of these funds.
The increase Bush asked for amounts to, on average, $200 million per year for each of the next five years. That is a key number that should be considered in any water cooler debates about the merits of space exploration.
Critics argue that not enough money will be available to accomplish what Bush envisions. "It's never going to happen," said Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland and director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society. "The price tag will scare Congress off and the robots are doing so well it's going to be hard to justify sending a human."
Other scientists said the gradual approach to increased funding is sensible.
"I think this is the best thing that has happened to the space program in decades," said Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), whose district comprises much of Florida's Space Coast. "When you really look back over the last 30 years we've had a lack of clarity, purpose and direction. George W. Bush laid out a plan that I think is doable from a financial and political side as well."
There's also a lot of wait-and-see. The White House stresses that other NASA programs will be adjusted and better aligned towards long-term exploration. Astronomers are anxious whether any robotic or telescopic missions will suffer.
Details will come with the President's 2005 budget, to be submitted to Congress next month.
Why not spend this money on social programs instead?
That's a philosophical argument that cannot be answered -- or, rather, each person has his or her own answer. Many scientists (and citizens) see space exploration as an important piece of overall federal spending. Others would prefer NASA's budget be capped or cut, though the latter opinion is not often voiced in debates over space spending.
Among experts, the debate centers on whether whether robots or humans are more efficient at exploring other worlds.
Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland and director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, estimates robotic exploration costs about 1 percent of the price of sending humans.
Ken Edgett, a geologist at Malin Space Science System, uses a robot to explore Mars. He helps operate the orbiting Mars Global Surveyor.
"The only way we're ever going to understand Mars and its history is to have people there doing the work," Edgett says.
Supporters also stress that space exploration inspires the nation, and generates useful medical and industrial spinoff technology. Others see little or no point in human spaceflight, which is more expensive on a per-mission basis, and often these critics instead favor robotic spaceflight and remote observing (as with the Hubble Space Telescope).
Will other NASA programs be cut or employees laid off?
This remains to be seen. The White House's position is that "impact stemming from the Shuttle's retirement and the new focus on exploration will depend on what type of vehicle systems and skills will be needed in the future. It is premature to speculate on specific job impact. In general, the requirements of the new vision will have a very positive impact on the aerospace sector and related sectors, and the vision will help attract talented people to science and engineering fields."
Why should humans go to Mars?
Because humans need new destinations and ever-expanding horizons. That's one argument. Because only humans can unlock the mysteries of the red planet, including whether it does or ever did harbor life. Because going to Mars will inspire the nation's youth. And because the technology developed along the way will benefit all humanity.
Those are the main arguments. Critics don't buy them, of course, at least not if they cost too much.
Do we need to go back to the Moon to get to Mars?
This is perhaps the most contentious point of Bush's plan as far as scientists are concerned. The most enthusiastic supporters of human missions to Mars do not want to stop at the Moon first, as they see it as a possible dead-end detour that will suck up funds and political energy.
Some planetary scientists applauded Bush's step-by-step approach as the sort of reasonable, affordable vision that could get support of Congress and the people.
The Planetary Society, an advocacy group of scientists, favors continued robotic exploration and also putting humans on Mars. The group yesterday issued a statement in general support of Bush's vision but said it had not taken a position on the lunar step.
"Carl Sagan remarked, many years ago, that the Moon could end up a detour, rather than a stepping stone, to Mars. How lunar missions would lead to a Mars landing must be closely examined," said Louis Friedman, the society's executive director. "The essential requirement is to keep the focus on sending humans to Mars -- investigating conditions of life and habitability on that planet."
The White House maintains the Moon missions will be an "important demonstration of our ability to live and work on another world. We will assess technologies and the use of lunar resources, and we will build the skills and gain the experience that will enable us to conduct sustained exploration of other worlds."
Curiously, Bush never uttered the phrase "Moon base" or "permanent colony" in his speech, as many had anticipated. Instead he called for "extended human presence" with the goal of "living and working there for increasing periods of time."
Supporters of going to the Moon argue that solar power collectors there could beam energy back to Earth. There are many other scientific arguments -- most hotly disputed -- for going to the Moon.
Why does NASA need a new vision?
Few scientists, politicians or space analysts would argue that NASA was in a rut. The shuttle Columbia disaster cast a dark cloud over the human spaceflight program. "Why spend $6 billion or so a year to dangerously circle the Earth?" many people wondered.
Some sort of reorganization was inevitable. The question in many minds was whether human spaceflight would ultimately be redirected, curtailed or halted.
The White House's position: "From the Apollo landings on the Moon, to robotic surveys of the Sun and the planets, to the compelling images captured by advanced space telescopes, U.S. achievements in space have revolutionized humanity's view of the universe and have inspired Americans and people around the world. As the world enters the second century of powered flight, it is time to articulate a new vision that will define and guide U.S. space exploration activities for the next several decades."
The Details
When do we get to the Moon?
Under the plan, a robot would go to the Moon around 2008. The first manned flight would occur between 2015 and 2020.
When do we get to Mars?
No timetable was set. But you can bet it won't be before 2020, at least not if Bush's vision is carried out. If the White House and NASA think it'll take at least 12 years to get to the Moon, it seems reasonable to assume at least a few years more would be needed to mount a Mars mission, especially since the president stressed that financial and technological readiness would be evaluated at each step of the process.
Will the International Space Station be completed?
Yes. But its fate is then unclear. The Bush plan calls for retiring the shuttle fleet after the station is completed in 2010.
There will likely be a gap -- perhaps four years -- when America has no space-ready vehicles. Presumably Americans could not then get to the station except aboard Russian ships.
Meantime, Bush said work aboard the space station would be redirected to study medical effects of space flight in support of the vision. Medical research is now part of a host of science activities aboard the station.
What space ship will take us "into the cosmos?"
America's next space ship is not yet designed. Bush called for a vehicle that could take astronauts to the Moon.
Some analysts worried that the shuttle would be replaced by an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) with obvious limitations. The White House's position is that this won't be the case. A new Crew Exploration Vehicle "will have different requirements and will be developed for the exploration mission. It may be able to perform some functions the OSP would have performed, but its design will be centered on exploration."
Bush was clear on this point: "The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired," he said in his speech. "But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."
Will humans visit asteroids, too?
Maybe. Bush said human trips to the Moon would serve to test ways to get beyond it. He was clear that Mars is not the only ultimate destination. "Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system," he said. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: human beings are headed into the cosmos."
Some scientists think asteroid mining (many asteroids are rich in metals) could become commercially profitable.
White House position: "Other potential destinations include asteroids, the moons of Jupiter, and deep space sites suitable for large observatories."
The implication of "large observatories" is that of huge telescopes on the Moon, where there are no clouds or blurring atmosphere.
Will private companies play a role?
Yes. But it is not clear if commercialism of space will extend beyond the supportive roles that aerospace companies have always played in human spaceflight (by getting NASA funding to build the machines).
The White House position: "NASA will vigorously pursue commercial and private sector participation in exploration."
Some analysts think space needs to be opened up to exploration led by private industry and supported by NASA, from advertising to lunar hotels and perhaps even space reality television. No such plans were mentioned by Bush.
Will other countries play a role?
The president hopes so, as do scientists and space analysts who see shared space missions as an opportunity to bring nations together.
"We'll invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of this new era of discovery," Bush said. "The vision I outline today is a journey, not a race, and I call on other nations to join us on this journey, in a spirit of cooperation and friendship."
Is this proposal like Bush's fathers' vision for space?
No. Bush the senior laid out a vision of sending humans to Mars, then a huge price tag was applied -- $500 billion. The reasons for the vision were not laid out as well as with Bush the junior. And the cost this time around was, perhaps wisely, not presented as a lump sum.
The White House position: "This vision sets the nation on a sustainable course of long-term exploration. It is not predicated on getting to a particular destination by a particular date, nor is it solely focused on human exploration."
There are several ideas for getting to Mars with less than $250 billion nowadays, even as cheaply as $30 billion by one account. But many critics think it will cost much more.
Is this Apollo all over again?
No. The Apollo program was a race. Bush said this is not a race but is a journey. Apollo was driven partly by fear and in the interest of national security and was given a comparatively huge budget for the era. The new vision is driven by exploration and a desire to achieve and, as Bush presented it, with only incremental increases for space agency funding.
The White House position: "The new vision shares the same spirit of opening a new frontier that inspired the Apollo program. But this initiative will be based on the sustainable allocation of a reasonable resource level over the long-term. It will involve both humans and robots and will advance our knowledge of multiple destinations in parallel, including the Moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, asteroids, and planets around other solar systems. The vision is not driven by a single destination or a particular timeline."
The Apollo program is estimated to have cost about $150 billion to $175 billion in today's dollars, all crammed into a few years.
President Bush ordered a sharp change of course for NASA today, directing the agency to complete the space station and retire the shuttle by 2010 and to begin development of a new spacecraft to carry astronauts back to the moon by the middle of the next decade.
The plan calls for NASA to begin launching unmanned probes to the moon within just four years to begin mapping resources and refining knowledge about the harsh lunar environment that will face astronauts making long-duration stays.
Space station research will be re-focused almost exclusively on life sciences as part of what amounts to a crash course on learning how to counteract the harmful physiological effects of weightlessness.
Knowledge gained from station research, development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle and the infrastructure needed to support long-duration moon missions, the president said, will pave the way for eventual flights to Mars and beyond.
"Today we set a new course for America's space program," Bush said in a speech at NASA Headquarters. "We will give NASA a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon, and to prepare for new journeys to worlds beyond our own."
The president plans to ask Congress to boost NASA's budget by an additional $1 billion over the next five years - an average of $200 million per year - to help kick-start the new initiative. Another $11 billion will come from reallocating money already in NASA's projected budgets by restructuring or eliminating programs and initiatives that aren't consistent with deep space exploration.
The president's plan would increase NASA's budget by 5 percent per year over the next three years and then at a modest 1 percent or less per year for the following two years.
"This increase, along with the refocusing of our space agency, is a solid beginning to meet the challenges and the goals we set today," Bush said. "It's only a beginning. Future funding decisions will be guided by the progress we make in achieving our goals."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said the new focus for NASA "is the next giant leap for mankind."
"The president's vision is exactly what NASA needs: a bold, unifying mission that honors America's forty-year legacy of triumph and sacrifice in human space flight," DeLay said in a statement. "I couldn't be happier with the president's vision, nor prouder of the brave and brilliant people of NASA who will make this dream come true."
But Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who flew on the space shuttle in January 1986, said the budget numbers tossed out by Bush today would not come close to funding new vehicles and manned missions to the planets.
"It will be cheap talk unless the president starts putting some real money behind it, immediately," Nelson told CBS News. "And then, everybody will know it's serious."
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said he welcomed a a new focus on exploration, but said "clearly, we are going to need more information on the proposed timetable for achieving the goals, the costs, how the administration proposes to pay for the initiative, and what the impact will be on the rest of NASA's programs."
He said he was concerned other NASA programs will be "cannibalized" to pay for the new initiatives.
"We now have a half-trillion dollar deficit," he said in a statement. "The president is going to have to make the case for why his proposals should be supported in the face of that deficit. His ambitious space agenda has to be seen to be more than simply a re-election sound bite, or it will be dismissed out of hand by both Congress and the American public.
"Having said all that, I think that the president has kicked off a long overdue discussion on the future of NASA, and I look forward to working with him to craft a productive way forward."
To the enthusiastic audience in a packed auditorium at NASA headquarters, Bush's exploration initiative was music to the ears.
"Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system," Bush said. "We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel. We'll make steady progress, one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time."
The first goal, he said, was to complete assembly of the international space station by 2010.
"We will focus our future research aboard the station on the long-term effects of space travel on human biology," the president said. "Research on board the station and here on Earth will help us better understand and overcome the obstacles that limit exploration. Through these efforts we will develop the skills and techniques necessary to sustain further space exploration.
"To meet this goal, we will return the space shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the space shuttle, after nearly 30 years of duty, will be retired from service."
The second goal of the Bush initiative is to develop a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008 with the first manned missions beginning no later than 2014. The new spacecraft will be able to ferry astronauts to and from the space station as well as "beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo command module. "
"Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond," he said. "Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods."
Exploring and utilizing the moon makes sense, the president said, because it could "vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions."
"Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive," Bush said. "Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources.
"Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.
Costs aside, some questioned the wisdom of returning to the moon if the real goal is Mars. Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, described using the moon as a staging base for flights to Mars as "patently ridiculous." It doesn't make sense, he said in an interview, to first launch humans, their supplies and equipment from Earth to the moon and then to launch other flights from the moon to Mars.
And Friedman dismissed talk about using lunar resources for on-site manufacturing given the relatively short timetables outlined by the president.
"The lunar resources and lunar launch facilities thing just defies credibility," he said. "The other aspects of the moon, being able to set up a base there and practice excursions like you'd do on Mars, maybe that would make some sense. But the moon is very different. ... You could do a lunar base (as practice for Mars), but I've always thought you could do that in Chicago, too."
Even so, he said, "I think the overall redirection of the program is welcome."
"We applaud the administration for providing a vision for where we are going in human space exploration and for providing clear goals to re-energize an enterprise that has been stuck in Earth orbit for more than 30 years," Planetary Society President Wesley Huntress said in a statement.
During a news conference after Bush's speech, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said the president gave the space agency a clear mandate. "We got support for a set of specific objectives that very clearly identifies exploration and discovery as the central objectives of what this agency is all about."
No details about the nature of the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle are yet available, including how many astronauts it might seat, how it will fly through an atmosphere or even what sort of launcher might be needed to boost it into orbit. It could be a modular system, adaptable to different sorts of missions, or a more monolithic design. O'Keefe stressed that nothing has been ruled out and that multiple systems are on the table.
---
Press release: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/14whitehouse/
---
Editoriali:
- http://www.space.com/news/bush_science_040114.html
- http://www.marsdaily.com/2004/040114230811.z6qktsht.html
---
Altri commenti/articoli:
European Space Agency gives cautious welcome to Bush plans for space travel
PARIS (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
The European Space Agency gave a cautious welcome Thursday to plans by US President George W. Bush to send American astronauts to the Moon as early as 2015 and to build a lunar base as a launch pad for manned missions to Mars.
"This is great and good piece of news for space," ESA chief Jean-Jacques Dordain told a news conference," and added "interest in space is growing everywhere in the world."
But Dordain said that Bush's announcement, made at the headquarters of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in Washington on Wednesday, was "not a surprise".
He refused to comment on Bush's vision of manned flights to Mars, the development of a new space vehicle and a manned lunar base, which contrasts with ESA's traditional emphasis on cheaper unmanned scientific missions.
He noted that ESA had it own plan for robotic missions to the moon, and that a proposal to send European astronuats to Mars by 2030 -- codenamed Aurora -- was approved in 2001.
Dordain said that the partners in the International Space Station, notably NASA, ESA and their Russian and Japanese counterparts, would meet in March to discuss Bush's plans.
--
Japanese agency cautious on Bush call to join space mission
TOKYO (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
Japan's space agency responded cautiously Thursday to US President George W. Bush's invitation for other nations to join in manned space mission programmes, saying more information was needed to make a judgment.
Bush on Wednesday unveiled plans for a US return to the moon as early as 2015, saying a lunar base would be a launch pad for manned missions to Mars and "across our solar system," and calling on other nations to "join us on this journey in the spirit of cooperation and friendship."
The plan calls for completing US obligations to the International Space Station by 2010, and replacing the aging shuttle fleet with a new "Crew Exploration Vehicle" that could carry humans to the moon to maintain "an extended human presence" -- and beyond.
"I think there will be further adjustment in the United States about this plan and after it is finalized I think we will then begin to study it," said Hiroaki Sato, spokesman for the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
With both of Japan's cabinet ministers with responsibilities including science and technology on overseas trips, there was no immediate reaction from central government to Bush's speech.
Japan is already a hefty contributor to the space station project having assumed some 330 billion yen (3.1 billion dollars), or just under one-tenth, of the startup cost.
Japan is also to contribute 40 billion yen a year towards the space station's running costs, Sato said.
While the full costs of Bush's space vision have yet to be spelled out, Japan's own space ambitions have been dogged by technical problems and budget constraints amid its economic slump.
Japan's space budget in the financial year to March 2003 was just 185.6 billion yen (1.8 billion dollars), compared with NASA's current five-year budget of 86 billion dollars.
Hopes of using its domestically-developed H2-A rocket to become a player in the commercial satellite launch market have been thrown into doubt by the failure last November to put two Japanese spy satellites into orbit.
In December Japan's first unmanned Mars probe Nozomi was abandoned after the failure of attempts to repair electronic circuitry damaged by a solar flare.
Solar flares were also believed to have caused a 640 million-dollar Japanese satellite, which had been collecting data on global warming, to stop sending signals last October, just 10 months after its launch.
--
Americans welcome space goals, but skepticism over cost
WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
The scientific community and the aerospace industry were understandably upbeat about President George W. Bush's vision for the future of US space exploration on Thursday, but critics saw the drive for the Moon and Mars as an expensive adventure at a time when the country should have more down-to-earth priorities.
Although members of Bush's Republican Party were enthusiastic about Bush's vision -- outlined as the country enters an election year -- the opposition Democrats were skeptical, notably regarding the cost.
"While I'm encouraged by the administration's renewed interest in the space program, their interest doesn't reflect an honest assessment of the fiscal and organizational realities facing NASA and the financial realities facing the country," said Senator Ernest Hollings.
"Disregarding these concerns will only further jeopardize the safety of our astronauts, the integrity and viability of our broad American agenda for space and the nation's fiscal health," added the South Carolina Democrat.
The Washington Post newspaper agreed: "The nation faces a yawning budget deficit, educational and health needs, and an international terrorist threat. That makes this an odd moment to embark on a dispensable project of great expense," it said in an opinion article.
The New York Times said space exploration "has some commendable aspects," but cautioned Congress to "carefully consider whether the reallocation of funds within NASA will cause serious harm to important science programs, robotic explorations or climate-related studies."
On the Republican side, House of Representatives majority leader Tom DeLay, who was present at Bush's announcment and whose home state of Texas stands to reap a good deal of space development if Bush's program is approved by Congress, saw few problems in financing the adventure.
"There's lots of different ways to carry this out," he said.
Space scientists were also upbeat. "The plan, just taken as a plan for the future of human space flight, is actually pretty good," said Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
"A moon base as a first step makes sense because if things go wrong, you're not so far from home."
"It's about the capacity, the capability, the technology to get anywhere," said National Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrator Sean O'Keefe, speaking hours before Bush made his announcement Wednesday at NASA headquarters in Washington.
"Obviously, we are excited to hear the White House issuing this policy, which is likely to strengthen the space market," said Kimberly Campbell, marketing director at Spacehab, which furnishes resupply modules for the orbiting International Space Station (ISS).
Bush called for phasing out the US space shuttle fleet by 2010, sending another manned mission to the moon by 2020 at the latest, and using the moon as a base for human habitation and possible stepping-stone to Mars and beyond.
Bush said reallocating NASA's five-year, 86-billion-dollar budget would finance most of the new programs, but that he would seek an additional one billion dollars over that period.
A NASA document distributed after Bush's speech showed estimated that the mission to the monn and Mars and other programs would cost around 170 billion dollars by 2020.
Former NASA cost estimating expert Humbert Mandell was skeptical about the figure, saying the US space agence was notorious for its massive cost overruns in the past. He recalled that the cost of the ISS mushroomed from an initial estimate of eight billion dollars to 32 billion.
"You should never give anybody a blank check," said Mandell who now works ad the University of Texas' Center For Space Research. He agreed however that a mission to the moon and beyond was important.
"The belief is that if you really tell people what your honest estimates are, they're not going to approve it," said Roger Launius, a former NASA chief historian.
For many Americans, the new expansive vision of the future was a source both of national pride and financial concerns.
"It shows the strength of our country. It takes a lot of determination," said 35-year-old mother of two Jennifer Cantu, who was admiring space artifacts at Washington's Air and Space Museum.
"It's a benefit for us" and will help erase the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's troubles after the explosion of the Columbia shuttle on February 1 last year, said Dave Gardner, 34.
"There are better ways to spend money at this time," said Daniel Mazzone,
Perhaps the most offbeat comment came from Eugene Cernan, 69, the last US astronaut to leave the Moon, who was on hand when Bush made his announcement:
"I want somebody dearly to take that dubious honor of being the last man on the Moon off my shoulder," said the 69-year-old former commander of Apollo 17, which left the moon in 1972.
--
After Bush speech, Russia mulls missions to Moon and Mars
MOSCOW (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
In an echo of the Cold War space race, Russia said Thursday that it had the knowhow to relaunch its space exploration programs, a day after Washington laid out ambitious plans to return to the Moon and press on to Mars.
"We have many initiatives from researchers on organizing expeditions to the Moon and Mars," said Nikolai Moiseyev, a deputy director of the Russian Rosaviakosmos space agency.
"Before the end of the year, we intend to develop a federal space program until 2015 and it is possible that such projects would be included," the ITAR-TASS news agency quoted him as saying.
On Wednesday, US President George W. Bush unveiled ambitious plans for the United States to return to the Moon as early as 2015, saying a lunar base would serve as a jumping-off point for manned missions to Mars and "across our solar system."
During the Cold War Washington and Moscow competed fiercely in space exploration, and many Russians are still intensely proud of Soviet achievements in that field.
The Soviet Union scored a major victory in April 1961, when cosmonaut Yury Gagarin became the first man in space. The Americans turned the tables eight years later, when Neil Armstrong became the first man to step on the Moon in July 1969.
Moscow's space programs had to be considerably scaled back in 1991, when the Soviet Union fell apart and state financing dried up.
But as Washington outlined its plans this week, officials here emphasized that though Russia may be short of financial resources for ambitious space programs, it could hold its own in the field of technology and skills.
An official with the institute that developed the Soviet "Lunokhod" (Moonwalker) robot said that scientists have maintained their research and development efforts and could quickly resume construction.
"If Russia decides to revive its lunar program, we would need a year to create a prototype of a new Lunokhod and two to three years to construct the apparatus," Roald Kremnyev, deputy director of the Lavochkin institute, told
His comments came a day after a top Russian space official said that Moscow is capable of placing a man on Mars within 10 years at one tenth of the cost of reported US plans.
"Technically, the first flight to Mars could be made in 2014. It would cost around 15 billion dollars (11.7 billion euros) to do it, compared with the American estimate for their project of 150 billion dollars," said Leonid Gorshkov, chief designer with Energia, the Russian space constructor.
And an unnamed official at Energia on Thursday suggested that the US and Russia should join forces in Mars exploration.
"It would be much more profitable to pool efforts in a manned flight to Mars and the planetary development instead of holding the project independently," the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.
"We should unite in the international project and cut the costs," the official said.
Russia and the United States have been cooperating in work aboard the International Space Station (ISS), particularly since the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster as Russian rockets offered the only way to ferry people and supplies to and from the orbiting station.
The ISS was launched in 1998 as a collaborative venture among 16 partners including the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan and Canada.
----
New NASA Spaceflight Vision FAQ:
The Big Questions
What will Bush's space vision cost?
There is no set price tag. After the shuttle fleet is retired and the space station completed in 2010, about $6 billion of NASA's current annual budget of $15.5 billion will be diverted to the new program. Meanwhile, Bush has asked for an additional $1 billion spread over the next five years.
Other funds could come from curtailing other space agency activities, but no details were provided.
Can America afford this?
That depends of course on whom you ask. Lost in much of the discussion on this point is the fact that America already spends $15.5 billion per year on space exploration, less than 1 percent of the overall federal budget. The vast bulk of the new project's financing, at least over the next decade, will come from shifting some of these funds.
The increase Bush asked for amounts to, on average, $200 million per year for each of the next five years. That is a key number that should be considered in any water cooler debates about the merits of space exploration.
Critics argue that not enough money will be available to accomplish what Bush envisions. "It's never going to happen," said Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland and director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society. "The price tag will scare Congress off and the robots are doing so well it's going to be hard to justify sending a human."
Other scientists said the gradual approach to increased funding is sensible.
"I think this is the best thing that has happened to the space program in decades," said Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), whose district comprises much of Florida's Space Coast. "When you really look back over the last 30 years we've had a lack of clarity, purpose and direction. George W. Bush laid out a plan that I think is doable from a financial and political side as well."
There's also a lot of wait-and-see. The White House stresses that other NASA programs will be adjusted and better aligned towards long-term exploration. Astronomers are anxious whether any robotic or telescopic missions will suffer.
Details will come with the President's 2005 budget, to be submitted to Congress next month.
Why not spend this money on social programs instead?
That's a philosophical argument that cannot be answered -- or, rather, each person has his or her own answer. Many scientists (and citizens) see space exploration as an important piece of overall federal spending. Others would prefer NASA's budget be capped or cut, though the latter opinion is not often voiced in debates over space spending.
Among experts, the debate centers on whether whether robots or humans are more efficient at exploring other worlds.
Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland and director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, estimates robotic exploration costs about 1 percent of the price of sending humans.
Ken Edgett, a geologist at Malin Space Science System, uses a robot to explore Mars. He helps operate the orbiting Mars Global Surveyor.
"The only way we're ever going to understand Mars and its history is to have people there doing the work," Edgett says.
Supporters also stress that space exploration inspires the nation, and generates useful medical and industrial spinoff technology. Others see little or no point in human spaceflight, which is more expensive on a per-mission basis, and often these critics instead favor robotic spaceflight and remote observing (as with the Hubble Space Telescope).
Will other NASA programs be cut or employees laid off?
This remains to be seen. The White House's position is that "impact stemming from the Shuttle's retirement and the new focus on exploration will depend on what type of vehicle systems and skills will be needed in the future. It is premature to speculate on specific job impact. In general, the requirements of the new vision will have a very positive impact on the aerospace sector and related sectors, and the vision will help attract talented people to science and engineering fields."
Why should humans go to Mars?
Because humans need new destinations and ever-expanding horizons. That's one argument. Because only humans can unlock the mysteries of the red planet, including whether it does or ever did harbor life. Because going to Mars will inspire the nation's youth. And because the technology developed along the way will benefit all humanity.
Those are the main arguments. Critics don't buy them, of course, at least not if they cost too much.
Do we need to go back to the Moon to get to Mars?
This is perhaps the most contentious point of Bush's plan as far as scientists are concerned. The most enthusiastic supporters of human missions to Mars do not want to stop at the Moon first, as they see it as a possible dead-end detour that will suck up funds and political energy.
Some planetary scientists applauded Bush's step-by-step approach as the sort of reasonable, affordable vision that could get support of Congress and the people.
The Planetary Society, an advocacy group of scientists, favors continued robotic exploration and also putting humans on Mars. The group yesterday issued a statement in general support of Bush's vision but said it had not taken a position on the lunar step.
"Carl Sagan remarked, many years ago, that the Moon could end up a detour, rather than a stepping stone, to Mars. How lunar missions would lead to a Mars landing must be closely examined," said Louis Friedman, the society's executive director. "The essential requirement is to keep the focus on sending humans to Mars -- investigating conditions of life and habitability on that planet."
The White House maintains the Moon missions will be an "important demonstration of our ability to live and work on another world. We will assess technologies and the use of lunar resources, and we will build the skills and gain the experience that will enable us to conduct sustained exploration of other worlds."
Curiously, Bush never uttered the phrase "Moon base" or "permanent colony" in his speech, as many had anticipated. Instead he called for "extended human presence" with the goal of "living and working there for increasing periods of time."
Supporters of going to the Moon argue that solar power collectors there could beam energy back to Earth. There are many other scientific arguments -- most hotly disputed -- for going to the Moon.
Why does NASA need a new vision?
Few scientists, politicians or space analysts would argue that NASA was in a rut. The shuttle Columbia disaster cast a dark cloud over the human spaceflight program. "Why spend $6 billion or so a year to dangerously circle the Earth?" many people wondered.
Some sort of reorganization was inevitable. The question in many minds was whether human spaceflight would ultimately be redirected, curtailed or halted.
The White House's position: "From the Apollo landings on the Moon, to robotic surveys of the Sun and the planets, to the compelling images captured by advanced space telescopes, U.S. achievements in space have revolutionized humanity's view of the universe and have inspired Americans and people around the world. As the world enters the second century of powered flight, it is time to articulate a new vision that will define and guide U.S. space exploration activities for the next several decades."
The Details
When do we get to the Moon?
Under the plan, a robot would go to the Moon around 2008. The first manned flight would occur between 2015 and 2020.
When do we get to Mars?
No timetable was set. But you can bet it won't be before 2020, at least not if Bush's vision is carried out. If the White House and NASA think it'll take at least 12 years to get to the Moon, it seems reasonable to assume at least a few years more would be needed to mount a Mars mission, especially since the president stressed that financial and technological readiness would be evaluated at each step of the process.
Will the International Space Station be completed?
Yes. But its fate is then unclear. The Bush plan calls for retiring the shuttle fleet after the station is completed in 2010.
There will likely be a gap -- perhaps four years -- when America has no space-ready vehicles. Presumably Americans could not then get to the station except aboard Russian ships.
Meantime, Bush said work aboard the space station would be redirected to study medical effects of space flight in support of the vision. Medical research is now part of a host of science activities aboard the station.
What space ship will take us "into the cosmos?"
America's next space ship is not yet designed. Bush called for a vehicle that could take astronauts to the Moon.
Some analysts worried that the shuttle would be replaced by an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) with obvious limitations. The White House's position is that this won't be the case. A new Crew Exploration Vehicle "will have different requirements and will be developed for the exploration mission. It may be able to perform some functions the OSP would have performed, but its design will be centered on exploration."
Bush was clear on this point: "The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired," he said in his speech. "But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."
Will humans visit asteroids, too?
Maybe. Bush said human trips to the Moon would serve to test ways to get beyond it. He was clear that Mars is not the only ultimate destination. "Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system," he said. "We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this: human beings are headed into the cosmos."
Some scientists think asteroid mining (many asteroids are rich in metals) could become commercially profitable.
White House position: "Other potential destinations include asteroids, the moons of Jupiter, and deep space sites suitable for large observatories."
The implication of "large observatories" is that of huge telescopes on the Moon, where there are no clouds or blurring atmosphere.
Will private companies play a role?
Yes. But it is not clear if commercialism of space will extend beyond the supportive roles that aerospace companies have always played in human spaceflight (by getting NASA funding to build the machines).
The White House position: "NASA will vigorously pursue commercial and private sector participation in exploration."
Some analysts think space needs to be opened up to exploration led by private industry and supported by NASA, from advertising to lunar hotels and perhaps even space reality television. No such plans were mentioned by Bush.
Will other countries play a role?
The president hopes so, as do scientists and space analysts who see shared space missions as an opportunity to bring nations together.
"We'll invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of this new era of discovery," Bush said. "The vision I outline today is a journey, not a race, and I call on other nations to join us on this journey, in a spirit of cooperation and friendship."
Is this proposal like Bush's fathers' vision for space?
No. Bush the senior laid out a vision of sending humans to Mars, then a huge price tag was applied -- $500 billion. The reasons for the vision were not laid out as well as with Bush the junior. And the cost this time around was, perhaps wisely, not presented as a lump sum.
The White House position: "This vision sets the nation on a sustainable course of long-term exploration. It is not predicated on getting to a particular destination by a particular date, nor is it solely focused on human exploration."
There are several ideas for getting to Mars with less than $250 billion nowadays, even as cheaply as $30 billion by one account. But many critics think it will cost much more.
Is this Apollo all over again?
No. The Apollo program was a race. Bush said this is not a race but is a journey. Apollo was driven partly by fear and in the interest of national security and was given a comparatively huge budget for the era. The new vision is driven by exploration and a desire to achieve and, as Bush presented it, with only incremental increases for space agency funding.
The White House position: "The new vision shares the same spirit of opening a new frontier that inspired the Apollo program. But this initiative will be based on the sustainable allocation of a reasonable resource level over the long-term. It will involve both humans and robots and will advance our knowledge of multiple destinations in parallel, including the Moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, asteroids, and planets around other solar systems. The vision is not driven by a single destination or a particular timeline."
The Apollo program is estimated to have cost about $150 billion to $175 billion in today's dollars, all crammed into a few years.