Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Space Policy Pushes Manned Flights, Nuclear Power  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

(Moderators, because of political ramifications involved, I thought I would post this message here. However, should you decide that it should be in the Military Aviation & Space Forum, I would ask that you kindly move it there. Thank you.)

An unclassified version of the Bush Administration's new position paper on space exploration and exploitation was released earlier this month, reports say. The policy replaces a previous version released ten years ago.

Highlights of the new policy include the following:

- A renewed emphasis on extending human presence throughout the Solar System, replacing older terminology seeking only to pursue alternatives toward the same goal;

- Concurrent support for exploration of our Solar System using unmanned probes;

- Substantial discussion of the role of the use of nuclear power in the U.S. space vehicles;

- Rejection of any limitation on the unilateral right of the United States to utilize space for national purposes;

- Support for the commercialization of space; and,

- Acknowledgment of the role of national space assets consistent with the peaceful uses of space by all nations and assertion of the need for their defense.

The position paper also mentions that the U.S. will pursue cooperative efforts with other nations consistent with other U.S. policy objectives.

The new policy has received praise from the Space Foundation but has been criticized by others as part of a "neoconservative" agenda.

For more information, please see, e.g.:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...-09-bush-space-policy_x.htm?csp=34

http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20Nation...arch='national%20space%20policy'

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...The_National_Space_Policy_999.html

For a critical review of this policy, please see:

http://www.cdi.org/program/document....mentID=3692&from_page=../index.cfm

[Edited 2006-10-17 22:01:07]

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

This definately belongs in Mil/Space. Unless there was going to be research on sex in space or some other taboo shattering space related idea; Non-Av is not going to care.


That being said I don't see anything 'revolutionary' here


This by itself is interesting:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Rejection of any limitation on the unilateral right of the United States to utilize space for national purposes;

But then you read:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Acknowledgment of the role of national space assets consistent with the peaceful uses of space by all nations and assertion of the need for their defense.

And it's bed time for bonzo


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1):
And it's bed time for bonzo

What do you mean by that?

Relatedly, the CDI seems fairly critical of the implication, I think, that the U.S. will do everything it can to defend space assets to the extent that it actually involves something more than protection of our own assets:

(Excerpt)

Quote:
While the new policy stops short of endorsing a strategy of warfighting “in, from and through” space as advocated by U.S. Air Force Space Command, it does show a clear emphasis on military action not only to protect U.S. space assets, but also to “deny” enemy use of space. Once again, the concept of a “space control” strategy that includes offensive action against space systems being used in a hostile manner is not new; such language appears in the Clinton policy as well. Both NSPs could be read as endorsing the potential use of anti-satellite weapons. Again, however, the difference in tone and emphasis is apparent:



Clinton NSP: “Consistent with treaty obligations, the United States will develop, operate and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries. These capabilities may also be enhanced by diplomatic, legal or military measures to preclude an adversary’s hostile use of space systems and services.” (Emphasis added.)

Bush NSP: “The United States considers space capabilities – including ground and space segments and supporting links – vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.

Op. cit.; notations in original but emphases not reproduced here.

[Edited 2006-10-17 22:36:12]

User currently offlineStrasserB From Singapore, joined Nov 2005, 1541 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1):
And it's bed time for bonzo
What do you mean by that?

Isn't it "Time to go to beddybyes" ?



Still, even in the most arid desert is an airport somewhere ...
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting StrasserB (Reply 3):
Isn't it "Time to go to beddybyes" ?

That's what confused me. Bedtime for Bonzo is the name of a Ronald Reagan picture.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
Bedtime for Bonzo is the name of a Ronald Reagan picture.

It's also what I THINK "Ronnie" says as he is going to sleep at the end of the video for "Land of Confusion".

Either way it is a snooze fest, the most exciting interpretation is that we will defend our shit regardless of what others say (Yawn).

[Edited 2006-10-17 22:43:55]

User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Countries have the right to use space for their purposes.

But this cements my arguments on the complete hypocracy of the Antarctic Treaty. So Space can be used by nations, but a continent on EARTH cannot??

I tell you, the four major southern nations with direct contact with Antarctica should be rolling in their troops yesterday.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2484 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 5):
Either way is a snooze fest, the most exciting interpretation is that we will defend our shit regardless of what others say (Yawn).

Thanks for your response.

Actually, I think that the most exciting part is that our national space policy emphasizes actual manned exploration again, rather than just thinking about it the way that the Clinton policy seemed to espouse.

Ever since President Carter, the Democrats have renounced the need to set forth an inspirational program to lead the way toward manned exploration and eventually colonization of space.

Although Richard Nixon was the one under whose Administration the Shuttle was planned, it was a Democratic Congress that he faced that seemed to acquiesce in the curtailing of the space program.

The Democrats have lost part of what made JFK such an exciting leader, in my view.

[Edited 2006-10-17 22:49:53]

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 6):
But this cements my arguments on the complete hypocracy of the Antarctic Treaty. So Space can be used by nations, but a continent on EARTH cannot??

Perhaps that's because the pristine nature of Antarctica is unique, and easily despoiled. It's uniqueness includes its role in telling us about the natural history of Earth.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

I think that the more controversial issue is whether the new emphasis on using nuclear power may set off alarm bells among environmental groups. I think that to some extent, it already has.

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):
Actually, I think that the most exciting part is that our national space policy emphasizes actual manned exploration again, rather than just thinking about it the way that the Clinton policy seemed to espouse.

Oh yeah, it only took him what 6 years?  Yeah sure At Least Clinton did have a LOCV on his watch  Wink

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 9):
I think that the more controversial issue is whether the new emphasis on using nuclear power may set off alarm bells among environmental groups.

The problem is two fold:
One; Nasa hasn't screwed up a nuclear payload
Two; Nasa hasn't screwed up a nuclear payload YET

I think things have changed enough that they will never let this happen where the environmentalists have anything to worry about.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):

Actually, I think that the most exciting part is that our national space policy emphasizes actual manned exploration again, rather than just thinking about it the way that the Clinton policy seemed to espouse.

Let's not play the administration game...

Had we not lost Columbia and her crew, you can guarantee the Bush Administration would have done nothing to put NASA on the course they are now with the VSE.

It was the Clinton administration after all that got the ISS off the ground, something Regan/Bush could not. It was the Clinton era that NASA retruned to Mars with the spectacular Pathfinder/Sojurner mission, etc, etc.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):
Although Richard Nixon was the one under whose Administration the Shuttle was planned, it was a Democratic Congress that he faced that seemed to acquiesce in the curtailing of the space program.

Nixon was no fan of space exploration. Nixon cut Apollo flights short and forced NASA to drop the very capable Saturn legacy

The Shuttle was only approved because NASA agreed to a devil's bargin with the USAF to build a jack of all trades launch vehicle that promised drastically lower cost. Had Nixon been presented the actual STS program, the Republican party would have swept the Shuttle away during the Vietnam-era budgets.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 9):
I think that the more controversial issue is whether the new emphasis on using nuclear power may set off alarm bells among environmental groups. I think that to some extent, it already has.

To my knowledge, an enviornmental group has *never* successfully lobied NASA to remove a nuclear power supply from a spacecraft they chose to power with radiological sourcse.

NASA uses nuclear power when they need to, and solar when they don't.

As for nuclear propulsion, it's really a mixed bag of capabilities. Some promising concepts like VASIMR require unrealistically light and powerful reactors to provide adaquet delta-V. Unrealistic with anything available today.

There's a pleathora of reasons a nuclear propulsion system hasn't been developed yet. Enviornmental concerns are not at the top of the list: some nuclear engines like the water-salt reactor proposed by Zubrin actually dispose of radiological materials that have accumulated from weapons production. When NASA wants to go nuclear, they will do so, and whale-huggers won't stop them.


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2385 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
It was the Clinton administration after all that got the ISS off the ground, something Regan/Bush could not.

So, the ISS is actually a good thing? It's a money drain that should be decommissioned, or I'd be fine renaming it the ESA Space Station and walking away. But, it does have a nice view from the back porch...

Time for NASA to go manned to Mars and a permanent presence on the moon. From there, outwards.

But since they never did a live flight test of the Linear Aerospike on the SR-71, I have to be happy with what I get (ISS-Please go away!)



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

I'm very happy that manned spaceflight is being given such high priority these days.

I support both government and commercial development of space technology.

One of the greatest events in manned flight in the last several years were the spaceflights of SpaceShipOne. Good show!  Smile


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
Had we not lost Columbia and her crew, you can guarantee the Bush Administration would have done nothing to put NASA on the course they are now with the VSE.

Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Had Columbia not been lost in 2003, there would still be two factors pressing the Bush Administration to make future manned spaceflight decisions.

- Major decline in spending for ISS as Space Station construction ends, freeing up NASA funding for other purposes, or causing major NASA budget cuts.

- Need for Shuttle successor design and development to begin soon if 2015-2020 retirement date is expected (as it was prior to Columbia.)

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
It was the Clinton administration after all that got the ISS off the ground, something Regan/Bush could not.

Well, that's a rather bizarre recollection of Space Station history. When Clinton took office in 1993, Space Station Freedom was essentially design-complete and ready for production (in fact, nearly all of the US segment of ISS today is Freedom design hardware.) Clinton cancelled Freedom and ordered yet another redesign of the Space Station (this after four or five redesigns over the previous 6 years or so.) NASA came back to him with three possible designs. One of these was "Alpha" a minimized Freedom. Clinton ordered NASA to team up with the Russians to build it, and the final result was nicknamed "Alpha with Russia" or "Ralpha". It is today ISS. Russia's participation was intended primarily to give Russian aerospace engineers a source of income other than selling missile technology to Iran. That failed in a very big way. Bringing in Russia was intended to speed up Space Station construction by using existing Russian hardware from its moribund "Mir 2" program. That too failed in a big way, as Russia's first element launch was repeatedly delayed over two years. Bringing in Russia was intended to lower the Space Station's cost to the U.S., but the long delays caused by waiting for Russia to deliver hardware, 40% lower Shuttle payload capability due to the new Russia-compatible orbit, and the need to redesign Freedom hardware to be compatible with Russian hardware drove up costs and in the end ISS was much more expensive than the Freedom project it replaced.

So yeah, Clinton got a Space Station in orbit where Bush 41 didn't. Of course, it was more expensive, even farther behind schedule, put another country in the critical path to completing it, and did nothing to discourage Russia from helping Iran. Yay, Bill!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Space Policy Pushes Manned Flights, Nuclear Power
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Space Flights From United Arab Emirates posted Fri Feb 17 2006 13:00:27 by JoKeR
N.A.S.A Releases Plan For Manned Space posted Mon Sep 19 2005 18:20:39 by SATL382G
Manned Space Flight..too Expensive? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 18:26:24 by Bmacleod
Did Space Ship One Take Off On Its Own Power... posted Thu Dec 16 2004 15:56:35 by Duke
Manned Space Flight To Begin Monday! posted Fri Jun 18 2004 20:54:49 by RaginMav
Space A Travel On Uscg Aircraft posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:40:00 by Reedyreed
Military Flights Into BHX posted Thu Nov 9 2006 14:18:21 by DC10BHX
Orion 13 Might Be First Manned Return To Moon posted Fri Oct 27 2006 08:32:51 by AerospaceFan
Is This AN AA 747 Carrying A Space Shuttle? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 02:25:45 by Fll2993
AFO In A Nuclear Attack posted Sun Oct 8 2006 15:08:44 by A320ajm

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format