From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: lunar flight
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:48:39 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Byx4rs.Gw8.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>First of all, by "manned space exploration", I presume you mean travel by 
>humans beyond LEO - astronauts sitting in SSF wouldn't count, for instance.

Astronauts sitting in SSF count exactly as much as astronauts sitting on
terra firma:  they may be doing useful work of a number of kinds, but one
thing they aren't doing is exploring anywhere.

>#... Although we cannot yet commit major resources to
>#these goals, they should be among the considerations that guide our
>#science and engineering. 
>
>Of course you can quibble over the level of support implied by this
>statement, but I don't think you can reasonably expect to show that
>the above statement represents total opposition to any manned spaceflight
>beyond LEO, "or any preliminary steps towards it, no matter how cheap".

I can't prove it mathematically, no.  But that sure is the way it looks
to me.  The last time I saw wording like that -- "we can't do anything
about it, but we promise we'll remember it fondly" -- was the so-called
"space policy" of the Carter administration.

Let me turn it around:  given that policy statement, what *initiatives*
do you expect from the Clinton administration on manned exploration?
It's rare for new programs to make much progress without active backing
from the administration; the few exceptions have involved strong support
from Congress, also conspicuous by its absence in this case.

>... does not rule out the longer-term goals of coming up
>with a more affordable and sustainable approach, such as developing cheaper
>launch systems, increasing the knowledge base of the life sciences through 
>continued microgravity research (Spacelab and SSF), and sending preliminary
>unmanned probes thoughout the solar system - Clinton has spoken in favor
>of all of these...

In other words, he's spoken in favor of continuing existing efforts which
already have political constituencies, some of which happen to provide some
long-term benefit for manned exploration.  As I recall, he also said that
NASA was already taking on too much.

Prediction:  "throughout the solar system" will not include the Moon unless
it is forced on the administration, even though the Moon is the most urgent
candidate for further unmanned exploration in any plan that envisions manned
space exploration resuming in the next couple of decades.

>[queried re men to Mars,] Goldin replied that right now NASA has some
>serious credibility problems regarding technical ability to do ambitious
>projects, to meet timelines, and to stay within budget. He said that before
>NASA can effectively sell new ambitious projects, these problems must be
>addressed convincingly, and he projects that it will take perhaps five
>years to do so...

I have my doubts that he'll be allowed to try resuming exploration even
then.  Griffin offered to prove *his* ability to address these things on
a small scale, gradually working up to larger things as track record and
budget permitted... and Congress wouldn't give him $30M to try.  Never
mind ambitious projects; even tiny ones aimed in that direction haven't
gotten anywhere.

I don't see this changing without the White House pushing.  And I don't
see Clinton or Gore pushing.  "...we cannot yet commit...", with no
hint about when or how this might change, means "shelve it".  Which is
exactly what Goldin has said NASA will do.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space