I haven't commented publicly on Bush's speech at NASA the other day; I wanted to analyze this information for a while. I have come to a few conclusions:

No matter how you slice it, NASA has to reprioritize missions and cut those of low priority. The planned increases in its budget will exceed inflation for two years and then fall below inflation, to 1% per year, for the forseeable future. This means that NASA won't be sending any probes to Pluto anytime soon, and that the Hubble telescope may need to be retired. A few other things will have to be cancelled or merged with other programs, but program cuts are inevitable.

The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) proposed in the speech amounts to a scaled-up version of the Apollo capsule, carrying perhaps a dozen people to orbit at a time. The technology base for this design is very deep, and materials science (particularly for reentry heat shield material) has improved dramatically. This also implies a common design for manned modules, with the associated service modules being one of several different varieties. These could be launched with an Atlas or Delta rocket, or perhaps on a Proton or something from Arianespace. Perhaps for added safety a new hybrid motor powered rocket will be developed to launch the CEV; at any rate there are various different possibilities that exist for getting a CEV into orbit.

The launchers mentioned above could also be used to lift heavy cargo into orbit, with no manned module. This divides the duties of launching cargo from those of launching people, and avoids the unnecessary complication inherent in the design of the shuttle. It also represents the biggest shift at NASA spaceship design, from a reusable launch vehicle design to an expendable launch vehicle design.

For the CEV, capsule recovery in the ocean would likely be a logisitical nightmare. With the Apollo capsule recovery missions, the US Navy made available several dozen ships for recovery purposes, an enormous expenditure. Parachute technology has advanced, and the Russians have been landing their cosmonauts on the ground for decades, which costs much less. Other reentry and recovery ideas such as the Ballute and rotary rocket should be explored. This needs to be addressed in the CEV design.

Also, while the CEV would have some sort of docking port that would enable it to connect to the American side of the space station, a small adaptor ought to be built to enable connection to the Russian hatch as well. This was demonstrated in the Apollo-Soyuz missions in the 70s, and is known technology; it makes sense to have alternate docking capability. A mirror image of this adaptor would need to be build so that Russian ships could dock to the American side as well. Both adaptor modules would be stowed on exterior equipment racks on the space station to be used as needed.

The space shuttle fleet will be kept going on a wing and a prayer until the space station is complete, and will likely be used only for that purpose. Hubble is an obvious victim; only four of six gyros are currently operational, and its orbit is decaying. There is talk of sending an unmanned vehicle to attach to the Hubble, allowing for a controlled reentry. However, if such a mission could be done, then it would be just as easy to attach a secondary vehicle which has six gyros of its own, and which can boost the Hubble to a higher orbit, giving us a few more years of service before a later controlled descent.

There are futher missions to send robots to the moon by 2008 and to establish a moon base by 2020 or so, using a special service module to carry the CEV to the moon. This is to lead to a Mars base later on. The idea is to break up space craft into functional modules which can be mixed and matched (crew, service, supply, fuel and propulsion, heavy cargo) instead of an all-at-once craft like the shuttle. Missions could be assembled in orbit from multiple launches if necessary.

One of the Mars manned missions currently being suggested is a manned Mars orbiting mission prior to a manned Mars landing. At first glance, this idea doesn't seem to have a lot of merit. However, the first glance misses two tiny points of light: Phobos and Deimos, moons of Mars that are probably asteroids that Mars has captured over time.

A mission to either or both moons would prove human beings could survive a trip anywhere in the solar system outside of Earth's orbit. Also, since they are asteroids, direct evaluation of these moons would allow for the calibration of remote-sensing satellites and autonomous or teleoperated rovers, and allow for control of the teleoperated ones with no appreciable time lag. Asteroid mining technology could also be tested on either moon. Finally, instead of having to fight Mars gravity, the mission could use a moon's orbit and Mars mass for a gravitational slingshot to return it to earth, using only a minor amount of fuel compared to lifting off from the surface of Mars and returning.

The timeline expressed in the speech, that the ISS would be finished and the shuttle fleet retired by 2010, and that the CEV wouldn't be fully operational until 2014, at a time when private companies are endeavoring suborbital flight, suggests that the gauntlet has been thrown down in front of private industry. The X prize expires at the end of this year, but at least three companies look poised to win it - Scaled Composites is the current leader but others are progressing faster, and Scaled doesn't have the X prize locked up yet. Once these companies achieve suborbital space, it is only a matter of time before they reach for orbital flights. And other companies are shooting for the moon, well ahead of NASA's new timeline of robots by 2008 and people by 2015. The first CEV mission to the moon might be greeted by people who have already established a lunar base. They might speak Chinese, or they might speak English if private missions pan out.

The new space race is on - private companies versus Government space agencies.