Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

A strange decision - even if there will be no more Shuttle flights. NASA could just pay Russians to do it.

That about sums it up. Back when the Bush Baby's daddy was President he also proposed a Mars mission. The cost was estimated at around $400 billion, which makes sense, as the Apollo program cost us over $110 billion in today's dollars. A manned Mars mission would be far more complex and expensive. As a result, the proposal never got anywhere - Congress shrugged it off, and NASA went for the ISS, which began life as Reagan's $8 billion "Freedom" station before shrinking and mutating into the $100 billion + ISS. Which kind of makes you wonder how much the estimated $400 billion Mars mission would really end up costing . . .

Now Bush has proposed two outlandish missions - a lunar base to be followed by a manned Mars mission - but he's only proposed adding an additional $1 billion to NASA's budget. $1 billion would barely cover the cost of the research needed to formulate a plan, let alone build anything, and we're committed to the ISS until around the end of the decade. The combined cost of a moonbase and the Mars mission could easily hit $1 trillion - more if the Fed keeps printing money and/or the value of the dollar continues to crumble under the burden of our $25 trillion of Federal debt (including the shortfalls in the Social Security and Federal Pension funds). Even if NASA's entire annual budget were devoted to both projects, they'd take decades to complete. It certainly isn't going to hit any 2020 deadline, unless the "moonbase" is a LEM.

Methinks this is a bait-and-switch and a publicity stunt. Bush has made his big pie-in-the-sky moon/Mars announcement - which is totally unfunded - to provide cover for gutting NASA. Hubble just got the axe, the ISS will be immediately defunded around the end of the decade once our obligation to our foreign partners has expired, the Shuttles are being grounded and my guess is any planned unmanned probes will be scaled back or eliminated in the not to distant future. The rationale utilized will be variations on the theme that we have to, "save money for the moon/Mars missions", except of course the money saved won't amount to squat compared to the cost of either undertaking (let alone both).

With the Shuttle, ISS and the unmanned probes out of the way and a moon/Mars program underfunded by several hundred billion dollars, the way will be cleared to defund NASA almost entirely, because there's no way Congress will cough up a trillion for a manned Mars mission or a shack on the moon. Not when the government is borrowing trillions from China to make up for the empty Social Security Trust Fund in 10 years.

On the Friday of a holiday weekend, they kill Hubble and appoint Pickering. A "Jo Moore" day indeed.

With all the money the chinese have, perhaps they could buy the hubble, and the replacement parts, if it is to be abandoned, for a knock down price, and take the lead again in astronomy.

I've traded email with people who should know, and the choice to send a mission to extend Hubble's life has been 'iffy' since Columbia blew up. Odds are it would have been cancelled for reasons unrelated to the new iniative.

Leopold, The Russians can push Hubble to a higher orbit, but they lack the hardware to dock with Hubble and replace the bits needed. Without the new bits (gyroscopes) Hubble will reach ESL no matter what orbit it's in.

C'mon folks, it's not _always_ a plot by the evil neo-cons - sometimes life just happens.

The deceit, meanness, and stupidity of these radical Republicans is astonishing. Always weekend deceit and outrage, last week ending strip mining protections in Appalachia, now the Hubble and Pickering.

I don't see anywhere in the story where this is attributed to Dubya's two day old announcement of his druthers. Are we just making this up to enjoy a little gratuitious Bush bashing and some "evil Rove" invoking?

Well, NASA's people explicitly say "the new Bush space initiative ... was not a concern" so I guess we are. But you forgot to invoke Ashcroft's name too! ;-)

NASA says the cancellation was "almost purely for reasons of Shuttle safety".
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11540
... so if we're really going to credit Karl Rove with directing NASA science missions, don't we have to praise his concern about astronaut safety as well?

Anyhow, elsewhere NASA people are saying that though funds had been budgeted for the mission, budget contraints were nevertheless a concern ... (e.g.):
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=60EB1594-2CB9-46A6-975E75D667DA9D8D
... because the shuttle would have to have been outfitted for this mission differently from the way it is for servicing the space station, which is its job from now on -- distracting from that task in a costly manner.

So NASA has an unsafe shuttle fleet (what is left of it) combined with a science budget that is being sucked dry by the cost of keeping aloft that monstrous white elephant, the International Space Station, which is doing such precious little science.

Now if we *really* want to blame Presidential policy decisions for this state of affairs, it's hard for me to see how we can blame Dubya for any of it.

But we *might* remember the Clinton Administration's decision to drive the cost of the ISS up and its science performing capacity down by shifting it to an inferior orbital inclination, solely for the earthbound political purpose of providing pork to the Russians. Which has proved a costly decision indeed, making the ISS even *more* of a white elephant and leaving even *less* for the science budget and for distractions from the ISS such as Hubble.

Perhaps we'd want to give the Clinton/Gore team it's fair share of recognition and responsibility for the current situation?

To me, the only surprise is that the announcement comes so hard on the heels of the announced Moon/Mars initiative. You'd think they'd wait a few weeks--wait for people to be distracted by some other set of events--before admitting that the best thing NASA's done in 20 years is being abandoned.

I chuckled when I saw John Bahcall's quote in an article about Bush's speech. He was "optimistic" that the science budget wouldn't be harmed. "Optimistic" is the word you use when you know that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell. I imagine the Webb will be shelved this spring.

I'll also wager that a host of Earth-observing satellites get defunded, too. It's easier to argue away global warming when there's no data to contradict you.

And at the end of the day, there won't be any moon base, either. This whole deal smells of the anti-science agenda, one that can't be made explicit since it would rile between 10 and 40 percent of the population (enough to tip the balance, electorally).

Instead, you bait and switch. God, I hate those people.

Gee, Jim aeems puzzled that people seem to take the most nefarious explanation regarding Bush....hmm....wonder how that could be?.....how come he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt?.......let me see, must be a reason.....hmm.....wonder how that is........

Jim Glass writes: But we *might* remember the Clinton Administration's decision to drive the cost of the ISS up and its science performing capacity down by shifting it to an inferior orbital inclination, solely for the earthbound political purpose of providing pork to the Russians.

And without Russians we would get to that cheaper and more efficient ISS ... how? Diversity pays.

Brian writes: Leopold, The Russians can push Hubble to a higher orbit, but they lack the hardware to dock with Hubble and replace the bits needed.

I understand the gyros already exist and just need to be delivered and mounted. Docking I understand to be a prob but why not ask if they can make changes to their docking equipment. If they can fly some asshole up for $20M maybe they could be hired to save Hubble.

By the by, the idea of now starting to build a manned lunar ship strikes me as financial lunacy. But, there are already a host of corporations waiting for contracts and determined to hold and expand them come what may. This is not Kennedy or Clinton, who knew what fiscal soundness was, this is lunacy. Any and every thing for the corporate base and a presidential photo opportunity.

>>I've traded email with people who should know, and the choice to send a mission to extend Hubble's life has been 'iffy' since Columbia blew up. Odds are it would have been cancelled for reasons unrelated to the new initiative<<

Even though a Hubble-extension mission has the highest benefit-cost ratio of anything that involves sending a human into space?

big al: Re chinese buying Hubble

I think we should mark his words. Not literally, but it appears that the US (through this administration and big companies) is seriously undercutting its scientific and technological capability. Even if it will still be holding up for maybe a decade or more living off of today's research, at some point the strain will show.

Another example that I'm usually quoting in this kind of context is how companies that used to have important research organizations are cutting them into irrelevance slowly but surely -- Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, IBM's Watson Research Center, DEC research (?), etc. I'm biased by my profession, but I suspect outside the computer field it is similar. I also note that the very same companies often failed to even try to bring the research of their own facilities to the market, although I'm not sure how this is related. It appears so on the surface, but then it may not.

Jim Glass: No offense please, but I fail to see how your post is more fact-based than the "Bush bashing" that you allege. You are also speculating quite a bit, albeit in a different direction. (And of course you're welcome to do it, we are all filling in the blanks, are we not?) But please don't speculate and be righteous at the same time.

I frankly believe that the Bush bashing that you often see here is only at the surface; people are venting steam, but they have valid concerns about the future of this nation. And by appearances this administration and other agencies have performed in such a consistent way for years now that it is hard not to suspect a certain agenda. (Which is in my view _not_ to systematically destroy the scientific, economic, and cultural base of this country, but ideology-based pandering to interest groups and willful neglect and/or failure to recognize negative consequences, which unfortunately often yields similar results.)

Regarding the often-heard Clinton references, failings of previous administrations, which certainly existed, cannot excuse this one. It's like in kindergarten where Johnny who is caught doing something points and screams "but Jimmy did it as well".

"the ISS will be immediately defunded around the end of the decade once our obligation to our foreign partners has expired, the Shuttles are being grounded"

What's wrong with that, exactly? Both the ISS and the space shuttle are tremendous wastes of money. Hubble on the other hand ...

And, to repeat what I wrote in another thread, when I heard the Hubble thing, I was shocked, and my first thought was, "they started gutting their top projects for this Mars baloney". It is hard not to suspect some causality/correlation, but even without suspicion it looks very unwise to abandon this huge investment that has proven its usefulness. Scrambling for a poor analogy, when (say) your trusty Honda's performance starts to deteriorate slightly, would you rather spend $500 to fix and tune it, or dump the car, walk, and plan to buy the $100000 top-line Mercedes in five years? It's penny-wise, pound-foolish.

While definitely a Bush-basher myself, one must be careful in the analysis of this development. As I recall NASA has been thinking of letting Hubble go because there's a newer, more powerful telescope they want to launch, and (so the claim goes) there might be a perfectly reasonable cost-benefit calculation that has nothing to do with the idiotic mission-to-Mars program.

As I recall NASA has been thinking of letting Hubble go because there's a newer, more powerful telescope they want to launch . . . .

If I remember correctly, the Webb Space Telescope will operate at longer wavelengths than the Hubble. Some astronomers hoped to be able to train both on the same object simultaneously to get multiwavelength observations. Not gonna happen.

Of course, the Webb isn't scheduled to launch for another seven years, so it might never fly at all.

the first line of my post quotes Stephen J. Fromm

Brad DeLong "Even though a Hubble-extension mission has the highest benefit-cost ratio of anything that involves sending a human into space?"

For a number of reaons, some going back to the 70s, we lack the means. Short answer - we're running out of Shuttles and there won't .. ever .. be any more.

Less short answer: The mission was iffy because of concerns over crew safety and public opinion following Columbia, among other reasons. As well, all of the remaining (pre Columbia) flights are _booked_ - Columbia, lacking the ability to reach ISS, was slated for the mission. Something would have to give.

Side Answer: Hubble isn't going to last forever - this was a life extention project, the last one planned. After this, there would be no more missions, come what may. Hubble would go inop in a decade or so.

crm "Scrambling for a poor analogy, when (say) your trusty Honda's performance starts to deteriorate slightly, would you rather spend $500 to fix and tune it, or dump the car, walk, and plan to buy the $100000 top-line Mercedes in five years? It's penny-wise, pound-foolish."

As stated above, crm, we lack the means to fix Hubble, really. To continue your analogy, we don't have the $500 to spend. Our only real choice is to walk, and earn the money for a new Honda.

It _is_ penny-wise and pound-foolish and I'm beyond irritated that it must be so

Brian writes: " To continue your analogy, we don't have the $500 to spend. Our only real choice is to walk, and earn the money for a new Honda."

This would be far more persuasive if Bush weren't proposing what is likely to be a trillion dollar endeavor.

"Sorry, I can't afford to get my Honda fixed, I've got to start making payments on an Aston Martin that will be delivered in 20 years."

Stephen J Fromm writes: ... newer, more powerful telescope they want to launch ...

Yes, JWST. However it was planned for 2011 and with NASA roadmap changing towards the manned flight (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_budget_chart_14jan04.pdf ) it is not coming any time soon (if ever).

I've heard radio stories that explicitly cite the Bush moon-mars initiative's funding needs as *the reason* for the cancellation. I've also read stories with the NASA line that another mission is not cost-effective and too risky. So it seems like there are mixed messages being delivered out there.

I have read in several places that Bush does want to reduce other exploration and research efforts to pay for the moon-mars thing. If that is true, then I'd prefer that moon-mars bases, and their high-tech tourists, wait until we can pay for them in addition to more important and productive projects, not in place of.

Hubble wasn't much use to the 2004 relection campaign, so out with it. NASA is going to find itself the victim of Bush bait-and-switch, and come out of it damaged. In return for an insincere and unfunded mandate to go to Mars, they give up Hubble, Shuttle, other good things as well.

One question for the poster who seemed to be accusing Clinton of being worse than Bush in terms of political pandering -because of the decision to modify the space station orbit to accomodate the Russians.

Why was that so outrageous? Do we have any back up vehicle that can reach the station other than the the shuttle, with its safety problems? Is there any country other than Russia that does?

If that was Clinton's decision (and was it his alone?), what was so blatently poltical about it? It seems like commmon sense to me, if we felt we needed cooperation for the project to fly.

Jim Glass- Where do you find your revisionist history??? Your post about changes to the space station and the reasons is just WRONG. For a review of the ISS history try this.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intation.htm

Yes compromises were made but the Russians were far ahead of us in technology because they had already built MIR. Your post is sour grapes because the Reagan vision of "Space Station Freedom" a MIR competitor was never built.

Bloody morons. Bloody grunting, knuckle-dragging monkeys on crack. God created the world in six days, shut up, or we'll kill you.

Given the problems with the shuttle from the beginning, it was a poor choice to make Hubble, the ISS etc so dependent on the shuttle. It is less dangerous to recover tin cans out of the ocean than to fly a plane from space into earth's atmosphere. It is silly to keep relaunching a massive object such as the shuttle when people could go up and down in a much smaller vehicle that could dock with other modules.

It is silly to send humans into space to do the job a robot could do as well for far less cost. The most cost effective use of resources would be to send humans into space close by and use unmanned fights to the moon, mars etc. What would humans do on the moon that robots could not? Why the expense of transporting, oxygen, food and other life support for humans to the moon, when energy could be supplied to machines for much cheaper? I think it would be a shame to let Hubble die prematurely. It should be possible to come up with a non-shuttle fix for Hubble if changing the parts does not require the use of the shuttle arm.

The bottom line on Hubble is it is becoming out-dated. It was launched in 90 and planned years before that. Just compare a 1990 computer to a 2004 version and you get the idea of how much has changed. At some point you quit upgrading the old Mac Plus and buy a G5. The savings from retiring Hubble is supposed to go to a new telescope. I would rather see a new telescope get a higher priority than Moon Base Bush or Mission to Mars. The goodbye Hubble announcement would be of less concern if its replacement were already planned.

People are actually going to travel through space in a tin can for half a decade or longer? Get real. Send a robot.

I think man will eventually set foot on Mars. It's a nice goal, just not one we should be trying to reach at this time.
Too many basic questions about the nature of the Universe remain unanswered.
I would rather have science determining the direction for NASA rather than politicians.
I can't help but think one of the main political goals of the US should be to become self-sufficient in energy. Mars will be there later.

Quoting John H
"Brian writes: " To continue your analogy, we don't have the $500 to spend. Our only real choice is to walk, and earn the money for a new Honda."

This would be far more persuasive if Bush weren't proposing what is likely to be a trillion dollar endeavor.

"Sorry, I can't afford to get my Honda fixed, I've got to start making payments on an Aston Martin that will be delivered in 20 years."

Hardware, my friend, hardware. What is going to _fly_ the mission to Hubble? Bush is proposing to spend money in the future, but the topic of discussion (Hubble) needs hardware that was designed and funded decades ago.

Given the administration's history of bait-and-switch tactics, timing of announcements and complete politicization of science, it's hard to believe that "To the Moon and Beyond!" isn't just intended to distract voters while throwing a few billion to contractors to draw up plans for vehicles and systems that will never be used.

The real problem with the Hubble is that it isn't drilling for a resource traded on the commodities market.

$200 million in equipment awaiting installation by the Shuttle is a pretty big pile of pork.

Actually I am OK with the decision to terminate Hubble if the next generation will be ready to go in 5-6 years. That is what I don't hear and where this argument should be directed. What will replace Hubble and how soon? Since the shuttle is being retired, Hubble will not be serviceable anyway. So even if they got a fix in 2005, there would be nothing after that. Reagan's totally unworkable "Space Station Freedom" finally morphed into something workable under Clinton.

bakho: Human space flight vs. robots

Don't underestimate the challenges with robotic devices, and the amount of cognitive ability and ingenuity it takes to perform even seemingly simple tasks. I don't see robots that can act by themselves anytime soon. They would necessarily have to be remote-controlled, which poses large obstacles with the communication bandwidth and energy available to transmit, for example, visual and other telemetric data, the delays in the control loops, and visibility problems (orbiting communication devices being shadowed by the planet, operation on the far side). Round-trip path delays to the moon are 2-3 sec, to Mars several minutes. Also reacting to minor problems becomes challenging when devices are not "universally" equipped, as evidenced by the recent Mars probe not being able to leave the lander as an airbag obstructed the main ramp. In earth orbit of course most of those problems are absent. Beyond earth orbit I would be more skeptical.

This is not to say it's impossible, but a lot of research into robotics is required. On the other hand, much of this would be useful (and maybe much more so) to non-space uses as well, like remote-controlled devices that can be used to do jobs in environments that are hazardous or hostile to life. Some of this already exists, like mini submarines for underwater exploration and repair, pipe cleaning, or mine-sweeping equipment. As always it comes down to who should do the R&D and how to come up with the financing.

And of course, the research results stay with us, whereas life-saving equipment and procedures carry a cost every time.

I haven't read the thread yet. Did someone say "As always, you using this as a pretext to bash Bush" yet?

This thread is likely dead, but I'd like to quote the always quoteable Jerry Pournelle on Hubble - agree or disagree with his politics, he's worth reading.

"Hubble's Death Sentence

I see NASA will let Hubble die. At a billion dollars a shuttle launch they can't service Hubble any longer. Hubble needs a manned mission: there is no robot that can do that work. And there is no manned spacecraft but Shuttle. And Shuttle requires 22,000 people to operate and launch, in addition to another half billion per mission incremental cost above the cost of the standing army.

The standing army will be paid whether there are any Shuttle launches at all, but they can't come up with the other half billion to go rescue Hubble.

You may remember back in 1989 Max Hunter, Dan Graham, and I persuaded then Chairman of the National Space Council Dan Quayle to foster an experimental spacecraft, SSX, a scale model of which was built and flown as DC/X. Most of that story is here on this web site. Had that development continued, we would now have a ship capable of sending two people to the Hubble for a cost of a few tens of millions per mission; but of course that wasn't continued because it was a threat to the standing army of NASA which needs the Shuttle.

Welcome to the wide world of bureaucracy."

found at http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view292.html

Its amaizing that the Shuttle flight is $500M. If the Russians fly a tourist for $20M, how expensive can be their flight - surely less than $50M? Seriously, maybe we can ask them to modify their docking equipment, go and save Hubble.

>>They would necessarily have to be remote-controlled, which poses large obstacles with the communication bandwidth and energy available to transmit, for example, visual and other telemetric data, the delays in the control loops, and visibility problems (orbiting communication devices being shadowed by the planet, operation on the far side). Round-trip path delays to the moon are 2-3 sec, to Mars several minutes.<<

My impression was that these are big problems in Venus or Mars orbit, not big problems in or inside Lunar orbit. Am I wrong?

Brad
"My impression was that these (light speed delay) are big problems in Venus or Mars orbit, not big problems in or inside Lunar orbit. Am I wrong?"

Depends on the application. If you're tele-operating construction equipment, a 2-3 second delay can be signifigant - 2 seconds for the 'oops' input to get to the operator, X seconds to grasp the problem and input corrective action, 2 seconds for the 'save me' signal to get back to the equipment. By that time 4+X seconds have passed. That's a long time in that scenario.

Other applications, say a drone or robot doing survey work would have fewer problems with a 2-3 second lag.

I don't overestimate the ability of robots. But don't overestimate the abilities of humans in space, the orders of magnitude increases for transporting humans compared to robots and exactly what humans could accomplish by going to Mars with the limited resources we could send with them. What is the point of going? Would it be anything more than a high tech stunt? Was putting men on the moon ever more than a technological stunt? The only transforming paradigm from the moon visits was turning the cameras on earth to display a lonely fragile planet. Everything else was just rocks that could have been collected by robots. I don't know how to classify hitting a golf ball other than humans can act goofier than robots.

Brad: Signal round-trip delays of 2-3 sec from the moon are of course manageable, but present challenges nonetheless. Delays limit the speed of activities that require interactive remote control. For example, it limits the speed at which remote-controlled vehicles can be driven.

bakho: I don't disagree with you. Yes, the moon landings were mostly a series of shows, and let's not even talk about a Mars landing.

My response was not directed just at you, and perhaps I shouldn't have quoted your name. But saying that robots can do the job is too cheap. With today's technology, "robots" (either in the form of remote-controlled self-acting devices) do not even come close to what humans can do. So currently missions that require a human (like repairing hubble or construction of the ISS) cannot be done with robots at comparable or perhaps even any cost. The Mars lander's activities need to be planned meticulously in advance, and then it is constructed such that it can do just that. On the other hand, it can do it over some time, whereas with human landings time is constrained, so that effectively they will not be able to do much more.

Now that's today, but of course with more research into robotic (or remote-controlled mechanized) technology we can most likely have something that can be used for those purposes within a decade. But that would require focusing on less glamorous substance instead of a cool show.

Back in high school debate, we had a space exploration topic. My partner and I proposed to send up a second Hubble. At first, we used this case because it was virtually immune to attack. Later we decided it was actually a good idea.

While researching, we discovered that a second Hubble telescope mirror had been made which probably did not have the optical problems of the first. At the time, this mirror was stored in a warehouse somewhere (Jersey?).

When will NASA begin enjoying the benefits of mass production? I bet they could send a second Hubble up for a fraction of the cost.

Brian: "The Russians can push Hubble to a higher orbit, but they lack the hardware to dock with Hubble and replace the bits needed....."
Since when can anything dock with Hubble? It hasn't got living quarters. I understood that repairs were EVA on a long tether with a spanner. If the Russians can get there, they can fix it.

I have meditated on the highest hillock outside of our town, in the cold driving rain, before a burning bush when my campfire got away, and here it is. No tablets, and sorry, only Two Laws.

I. Privatize Space. Make it for profit. Call it an SMO, Space Management Organization. Only it has to make a profit off those much ballyhooed
"spin-offs" from space research. No tax teat.
Let them sell 'spin-off' to the bandwidth folks. Employ all the laid-off rocket scientists doing lightbulb changeouts, higher efficiency furnace changeout, building and installing solar panels and solar heaters where practical, wind farms, tidal power, and building electrical bicycles and bicycle-lanes. Cut US dependence on foreign oil by 2020. Completely. Forget Mars. F&*k Mars!

II. Nationalize the Internet. Make it public access. No commercials. No popups, banners, no jiggidy-jaggidy's. No spam. Three spams, you're out. Slammer. Minimum sentencing guidelines.
E-commerce pays for it all through tax credits based on public service website competitions. Universal bandwidth with every passbook account. Education online. Archives online. Transparent government online. Voting online. Free wild places audio and video 24x7, the sound of the jungle piped into your study, the sound of the ocean piped into your bedroom. Call it Happy Net.

2020 arrives. Everyone is blissed out on Happy Net, wireless ubiquitousness. Cape Canaveral is now an amusement park and a high-tech center. Vandenberg is buried under an old-tech landfill. Cars are passe, now you can get to work on your bike in 15 minutes, and let the battery pedal you back home to your solar-lighted/heated straw-insulated funkily chic house on stilts beside a tranquil wetlands stocked with rice and fish. Besides, now you only have to work 4 hours a day since you're not locked into this interest rate real estate breakneck race bulls&*t anymore.

NASA and DoD are history. All those siphoned off monies applied to national debt. Medicare has leveraged its power to cut pharmaceuticals by 50%, although few people rely on them now with the advent of universal preventative care and homeopathic medicine. More savings against the debt. Debt paydown finally ends. Taxes drop 50% overnight. 2020 is a belly, belly good year.

Am I right!?

James
"Since when can anything dock with Hubble? It hasn't got living quarters. I understood that repairs were EVA on a long tether with a spanner. If the Russians can get there, they can fix it."

I was confusing the issues - on another list it was pointed out that pushing Hubble to a higher orbit would extend it's service life, but that it would take a docking mech. Yes, if the Russians can get there (a big 'if' I recall) and if they are allowed by law to fix Hubble (which IIRC they aren't at the moment) they could fix Hubble.

Which would only give it another five years of life, at best.