5 ms·

Obama axes NASA moon plan in new budget

28 points by J3L2404 17y ago

seldo 17y ago
As a pretty die-hard Obama supporter and also a huge geek, this is a tough one for me. The change in funding priorities gives us another 5 years of funding for the ISS of course, which is by far the greater achievement than landing on the mood yet again. And the greater funding for private space flight is also an excellent idea. Still: it would have been nice to go to the moon.
- DannoHung 17y ago
  Maybe this is just me, but I was never terribly keen on another Moon landing. In general, I'm not interested in further manned space exploration unless it contributes to establishing an industrial presence in space. Probes and robots are doing a pretty damned good job at exploratory science.
  - poutine 17y ago
    Not just you, give me more Spirit/Opportunity and Cassini-Huygens please.
holograham 17y ago
going to the moon was the first step in a potential Mars mission...this pushes back Mars by a decade at least
- ajross 17y ago
  You have a cite for that decade number? Seems silly to me, given that we've already been to the moon, and over 40 years ago at that. Surely we should be at Neptune at least by now, no? :) More seriously: what is the value of a Mars mission that we should be paying for it? There's no meaningful science to be done there (vs. what can be done via much cheaper means, anyway), just lots of eye candy and fantasy material for wannabe astronauts.
  - holograham 17y ago
    yes.... http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/orion_announcement.html http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/orion_announcement.html The orion crew capsule was part of the Constellation program. Same technology and innovations to bring the astronauts to the moon.
- gamble 17y ago
  The moon has never made any sense as a stepping stone to Mars. Why truck fuel and materiel down a gravity well, only to bring it right back out again? Nor would the Apollo-redux spacecraft suitable to a moon mission be useful for a trip to Mars. A realistic Mars mission would consist of a spacecraft assembled in earth orbit, then flown directly to Mars. However, the technology required to get a human crew to Mars and bring them back alive is so far beyond what we have now that the moon-as-a-stepping-stone plan is more of a way to avoid confronting the problems than a way to solve them.
motters 17y ago
Obama deserves kudos for this. Lowering the cost of access to space by introducing commercial rocketry is a step in the right direction, which will facilitate many other things in future. Going back to the moon in a craft almost identical to Apollo would have represented neither a science nor an engineering advance. This could be the beginning of the end of grandstanding "national prestige" space projects, and the start of an expansion in human activities in space.
sailormoon 17y ago
$3 billion a week to occupy Iraq - no problem! $8 billion over four years to go to the frickin' moon - too expensive! Go figure.
- briansmith 17y ago
  We shouldn't be wasting $3 billion a week in Iraq. But, we shouldn't be wasting $2 billion a year to go to the moon either. AFAICT, there's no significant scientific justification for people to go to the moon or to Mars at this time. Robots can go instead. Previous robot-based Mars missions have been very successful--except for the ones that would have killed everybody on board if they were manned.
  - ajross 17y ago
    Absolutely. This was dumb, and quite frankly a cynical bread-and-circus idea in the first place. There was never any meaningful scientific justification for the project (nor the Mars one that was announced simultaneously). Although the grandparent post is right: relative to other wastes in our government (the Iraq war being by far the biggest discretionary one), this is small potatoes. But $8B is $8B, and it means it doesn't have to be cut elsewhere.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      quite frankly a cynical bread-and-circus idea That may well be the truth. But at least it's a circus founded on science and engineering. The Chinese will be on the moon in a decade minimum, two maximum. When you're sitting at home with the rest of the world watching a large chinese flag being placed on the moon in hi-def colour, what thoughts do you think will be going through your head? I bet it's not "boy, I'm glad we didn't waste that $8 billion back in the day!".
      - briansmith 17y ago
        You are implying that the Chinese going to the moon will harm us. How so? Maybe instead of thinking "Damn, there's a Chinese person on the moon!" we should think "Wow, there's a person on the moon!" and then maybe "But why?"
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- ajross 17y ago
  Because they're cutting something dumb in favor of funding good science? FWIW, from numbers (the stuff you skipped, I suspect) in the article: a $6B increase over a $19B budget over 5 years comes to about a 5.6% increase per year. That's just barely above the overall (typical) yearly change in federal revenue. All budgets increase over time, because federal revenue increases due to inflation and GDP growth (itself due to fundamental population increase). So increasing funding by itself is never news; the news is about changes in what kinds of things are funded. Thus the headline.
maxklein 17y ago
Humans should not be going to the moon at this point in time for exploration. We should focus on robots going to the moon - spending that money on developing robots will have a much larger benefit than spending the money trying to keep a human safe. We'll develop advanced controlling and communication systems for this. You can send a robot to the moon and leave him there - a human has to come back. That's an uneccessary expense. When we have enough robots on the moon they can build the structures neccessary to support human life there.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Indeed this is the logical choice. But the beauty of humanity is we prefer to reach for extraordinary things. I bet a large number of people would still love to send manned missions to the Moon.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Everyone loves the idea of it, just not the cost.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Robots are not better at exploration, they are just cheaper. Those are different things.
  - maxklein 17y ago
    A human controlled robot on the moon is much better at exploration than a human. Humans have to do things like eat and shit.
    - waterlesscloud 17y ago
      If we'd had a human on Mars for the last 5 years, they would have covered many, many, many times as much territory as the robots have, and in far more detail. Yes, it would have been incredibly expensive, but it would have been infinitely better from a science perspective. Which is my point.
thegrossman 17y ago
Just to be clear: This announcement kills the entire Constellation program including Orion, the spacecraft meant to replace the Space Shuttle. In other words, after the last few shuttle missions this year, the United States will no longer have a manned space program. Right or wrong, this is devastating news to me.
- Empact 17y ago
  We're just as well without it. Absent accountability via serious attention from higher-ups or the constituents themselves, bureaucracies tend to devolve into inefficient, unproductive jobs programs, and NASA is no exception: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=770268 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=770268 The future of space travel will come from organizations with the accountability to properly motivate them to succeed. I, for one, welcome a future of private space flight.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  The budget is also increasing NASA support for (or dependence on) private spaceflight companies for their rocketry needs. SpaceX's Dragon space capsule has a manned configuration, and the Falcon 9 rocket is due to make its first orbital launch in the next one to three months. Manned spaceflight is not dying.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    Why does everyone assume that NASA will turn to the small startup companies? History indicates it's the Lockheeds of the country that NASA will turning to.
    - arfrank 17y ago
      Lockheed was once a startup to: http://steveblank.com/2010/01/07/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-part-13-lockheed-the-startup-with-nuclear-missiles/ http://steveblank.com/2010/01/07/the-secret-history-of-silic... I'd agree that recent history has shown they turn to the Lockheeds
    - 17y ago
designtofly 17y ago
I certainly consider this bad news. I know there's a lot of people on here who poo-poo manned spaceflight as needlessly expensive and unnecessary. But let me say this, manned flight (both air and space) as inspiration is the number one reason that I'm an aerospace engineer today. I know I'm not alone in this. While moves like these make economic sense in the short term, I have no doubt that in the long term, they will rob this industry of talented and inspired people... in some ways, the lack of progress in aerospace in the last 30 years already has shown this to be true. I'd rather the administration issue grand challenges in all fields (especially aerospace) in order to inspire us today and future generations. Having an inspired workforce is the most critical challenge and essential to continued success and growth in any field. edited to add: In case it wasn't clear, my point is that there is no way I'd be an aerospace engineer today if the aerospace vehicles and missions in my youth were unmanned/robotic. Yes, robotics is "cool"... but it's not even in the same league as manned flight when it comes to inspiration for me.

28 points by J3L2404 17y ago

seldo 17y ago

As a pretty die-hard Obama supporter and also a huge geek, this is a tough one for me. The change in funding priorities gives us another 5 years of funding for the ISS of course, which is by far the greater achievement than landing on the mood yet again. And the greater funding for private space flight is also an excellent idea. Still: it would have been nice to go to the moon.

DannoHung 17y ago
Maybe this is just me, but I was never terribly keen on another Moon landing. In general, I'm not interested in further manned space exploration unless it contributes to establishing an industrial presence in space. Probes and robots are doing a pretty damned good job at exploratory science.
- poutine 17y ago
  Not just you, give me more Spirit/Opportunity and Cassini-Huygens please.

holograham 17y ago

going to the moon was the first step in a potential Mars mission...this pushes back Mars by a decade at least

ajross 17y ago
You have a cite for that decade number? Seems silly to me, given that we've already been to the moon, and over 40 years ago at that. Surely we should be at Neptune at least by now, no? :) More seriously: what is the value of a Mars mission that we should be paying for it? There's no meaningful science to be done there (vs. what can be done via much cheaper means, anyway), just lots of eye candy and fantasy material for wannabe astronauts.
- holograham 17y ago
  yes.... http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/orion_announcement.html http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/orion_announcement.html The orion crew capsule was part of the Constellation program. Same technology and innovations to bring the astronauts to the moon.
gamble 17y ago
The moon has never made any sense as a stepping stone to Mars. Why truck fuel and materiel down a gravity well, only to bring it right back out again? Nor would the Apollo-redux spacecraft suitable to a moon mission be useful for a trip to Mars. A realistic Mars mission would consist of a spacecraft assembled in earth orbit, then flown directly to Mars. However, the technology required to get a human crew to Mars and bring them back alive is so far beyond what we have now that the moon-as-a-stepping-stone plan is more of a way to avoid confronting the problems than a way to solve them.

motters 17y ago

Obama deserves kudos for this. Lowering the cost of access to space by introducing commercial rocketry is a step in the right direction, which will facilitate many other things in future. Going back to the moon in a craft almost identical to Apollo would have represented neither a science nor an engineering advance. This could be the beginning of the end of grandstanding "national prestige" space projects, and the start of an expansion in human activities in space.

sailormoon 17y ago

$3 billion a week to occupy Iraq - no problem! $8 billion over four years to go to the frickin' moon - too expensive! Go figure.

briansmith 17y ago
We shouldn't be wasting $3 billion a week in Iraq. But, we shouldn't be wasting $2 billion a year to go to the moon either. AFAICT, there's no significant scientific justification for people to go to the moon or to Mars at this time. Robots can go instead. Previous robot-based Mars missions have been very successful--except for the ones that would have killed everybody on board if they were manned.
- ajross 17y ago
  Absolutely. This was dumb, and quite frankly a cynical bread-and-circus idea in the first place. There was never any meaningful scientific justification for the project (nor the Mars one that was announced simultaneously). Although the grandparent post is right: relative to other wastes in our government (the Iraq war being by far the biggest discretionary one), this is small potatoes. But $8B is $8B, and it means it doesn't have to be cut elsewhere.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    quite frankly a cynical bread-and-circus idea That may well be the truth. But at least it's a circus founded on science and engineering. The Chinese will be on the moon in a decade minimum, two maximum. When you're sitting at home with the rest of the world watching a large chinese flag being placed on the moon in hi-def colour, what thoughts do you think will be going through your head? I bet it's not "boy, I'm glad we didn't waste that $8 billion back in the day!".
    - briansmith 17y ago
      You are implying that the Chinese going to the moon will harm us. How so? Maybe instead of thinking "Damn, there's a Chinese person on the moon!" we should think "Wow, there's a person on the moon!" and then maybe "But why?"

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

ajross 17y ago
Because they're cutting something dumb in favor of funding good science? FWIW, from numbers (the stuff you skipped, I suspect) in the article: a $6B increase over a $19B budget over 5 years comes to about a 5.6% increase per year. That's just barely above the overall (typical) yearly change in federal revenue. All budgets increase over time, because federal revenue increases due to inflation and GDP growth (itself due to fundamental population increase). So increasing funding by itself is never news; the news is about changes in what kinds of things are funded. Thus the headline.

maxklein 17y ago

Humans should not be going to the moon at this point in time for exploration. We should focus on robots going to the moon - spending that money on developing robots will have a much larger benefit than spending the money trying to keep a human safe. We'll develop advanced controlling and communication systems for this. You can send a robot to the moon and leave him there - a human has to come back. That's an uneccessary expense. When we have enough robots on the moon they can build the structures neccessary to support human life there.

ErrantX 17y ago
Indeed this is the logical choice. But the beauty of humanity is we prefer to reach for extraordinary things. I bet a large number of people would still love to send manned missions to the Moon.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Everyone loves the idea of it, just not the cost.
waterlesscloud 17y ago
Robots are not better at exploration, they are just cheaper. Those are different things.
- maxklein 17y ago
  A human controlled robot on the moon is much better at exploration than a human. Humans have to do things like eat and shit.
  - waterlesscloud 17y ago
    If we'd had a human on Mars for the last 5 years, they would have covered many, many, many times as much territory as the robots have, and in far more detail. Yes, it would have been incredibly expensive, but it would have been infinitely better from a science perspective. Which is my point.

thegrossman 17y ago

Just to be clear: This announcement kills the entire Constellation program including Orion, the spacecraft meant to replace the Space Shuttle. In other words, after the last few shuttle missions this year, the United States will no longer have a manned space program. Right or wrong, this is devastating news to me.

Empact 17y ago
We're just as well without it. Absent accountability via serious attention from higher-ups or the constituents themselves, bureaucracies tend to devolve into inefficient, unproductive jobs programs, and NASA is no exception: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=770268 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=770268 The future of space travel will come from organizations with the accountability to properly motivate them to succeed. I, for one, welcome a future of private space flight.
sketerpot 17y ago
The budget is also increasing NASA support for (or dependence on) private spaceflight companies for their rocketry needs. SpaceX's Dragon space capsule has a manned configuration, and the Falcon 9 rocket is due to make its first orbital launch in the next one to three months. Manned spaceflight is not dying.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Why does everyone assume that NASA will turn to the small startup companies? History indicates it's the Lockheeds of the country that NASA will turning to.
  - arfrank 17y ago
    Lockheed was once a startup to: http://steveblank.com/2010/01/07/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-part-13-lockheed-the-startup-with-nuclear-missiles/ http://steveblank.com/2010/01/07/the-secret-history-of-silic... I'd agree that recent history has shown they turn to the Lockheeds
  - 17y ago

designtofly 17y ago

I certainly consider this bad news. I know there's a lot of people on here who poo-poo manned spaceflight as needlessly expensive and unnecessary. But let me say this, manned flight (both air and space) as inspiration is the number one reason that I'm an aerospace engineer today. I know I'm not alone in this. While moves like these make economic sense in the short term, I have no doubt that in the long term, they will rob this industry of talented and inspired people... in some ways, the lack of progress in aerospace in the last 30 years already has shown this to be true. I'd rather the administration issue grand challenges in all fields (especially aerospace) in order to inspire us today and future generations. Having an inspired workforce is the most critical challenge and essential to continued success and growth in any field. edited to add: In case it wasn't clear, my point is that there is no way I'd be an aerospace engineer today if the aerospace vehicles and missions in my youth were unmanned/robotic. Yes, robotics is "cool"... but it's not even in the same league as manned flight when it comes to inspiration for me.