5 ms·

Obama Nasa plans 'catastrophic' say Moon astronauts

motters 17y ago
Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes. If you want to see real activity in space that means that getting stuff out of the Earth's atmosphere has to be significantly cheaper, and the only way that's going to happen is if space becomes a bigger industry than it is today - which means commercialization.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  > Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes And military spending is about a lot of silly things too. But it drives development in the technological field, and we have reaped huge benefits because of all the funding the US poured into arms and space There's not just one way. Commercialization brings prices for the same goods down, but innovation and progress brings prices down too. The government is useful for a situation where something is still vastly unprofitable; they continue to attack the problem, and somewhere down the line it gets close enough to having business potential that companies start getting involved. 'putting a man on the moon' may not be the best goal, but that's a different discussion imho. (Although I already know planning for a Hubble 2 is something I could really get behind)
- ericd 17y ago
  Getting stuff out of the atmosphere with chemical rockets will always be extremely expensive. The only way it's going to get significantly cheaper is with alternative lifting methods, such as an electric powered space elevator.
  - motters 17y ago
    One of the biggest expenses in current space operations is ground crew, which typically numbers in the thousands. Under the status quo there is simply no incentive to reduce this number, and there are often incentives to increase it to create new jobs. In the original space shuttle concept the ground crew was supposed to be no larger than a few hundred, but it didn't work out that way. Commercializing rocketry should mean that ground crew size and turnaround times can be minimized, since there is a direct financial incentive to control costs.
    - ericd 17y ago
      Fair, but even if it were extremely efficiently run, even the fuel costs of lifting large masses into orbit and the associated size of the vehicles required, as well as the resultant complexity of such a thing would be prohibitively expensive. Much cheaper, but still not where it needs to be. In order to do anything serious in space, it needs to become MUCH CHEAPER to put things into orbit. That is what a space elevator could accomplish. Not to say that we're ready technologically... we need to become a whole lot better at producing long carbon nanotubes.
avar 17y ago
As wasteful as the proposed Constellation program was at least it would have gotten humans out Low Earth Orbit again. Is Obama's plan for increased commercialization anything more than moving around the pieces that are already there? Most of the parts for the space vehicles are already made by subcontractors, aren't they just changing how the oversight is done? Even with those rules changed NASA is still going to be responsible for the astronauts. It'll take years and billions of dollars to man-rate vehicles that we wouldn't have thought twice about using back in the 70s as long as they didn't explode on the first couple of test flights. Maybe money flowing out of the Space Shuttle program will get us there sooner, but with the US rebooting its space program every time time a new president takes office I'm starting to think the Chinese are our best hope for getting to the stars.
- jordanb 17y ago
  Nearly 50% of the money NASA sends to contractors goes to three organizations: Lockheed Martin, The JPL at Caltech, and Boeing. The rest goes to other Military-Industrial "Usual Suspects," like Grumman and Raytheon.[1] These organizations are principally interested in maintaining their cushy position and soaking up tax money. They are not particularly driven to push the envelope. Obama's plan is a "shifting" around of the contracts, yes, but it's shifting away from organizations like Lockheed Martin to organizations like Scaled Composites. Away from fat lazy organizations to ones with some hunger and drive. That's also the reason why it's probably DOA in Congress. [1] http://www.govexec.com/features/0808-15/0808-15s13s1.htm http://www.govexec.com/features/0808-15/0808-15s13s1.htm
  - mturmon 17y ago
    Lumping JPL/Caltech in with LockMart and Boeing does not make sense. The first is a research lab mainly concerned with conceiving and building robotic (unmanned) missions. The second two are mainly involved with operating manned flight systems. No comparison.
gamble 17y ago
NASA has two options: 1. Massive budget increases to fund missions to the moon and Mars. 2. Realign its goals to match the budget they have now. The Bush-era plan to return to the moon without actually paying for it was the worst of all worlds. Obama's plans may not be inspiring to those who want to relive '69, but I respect that he's willing to tackle problem realistically. We've also got to face the fact that human spaceflight is a prestige project with no scientific value. It's time to force NASA to focus on science. If people want to fart around in free fall, then that's something for private industry to concern itself with.
- ericd 17y ago
  >We've also got to face the fact that human spaceflight is a prestige project with no scientific value. It's time to force NASA to focus on science. What about the scientific value and long-term species survival value of trying to make it so humans can survive in space long term? Learning how to colonize the moon and other planets? Getting anything sizeable past low Earth orbit is still something that takes an amount of investment well outside the abilities of all but the largest companies. Governments make up a very large percentage of the few entities that have the capital and long-term vision to get us over the first hurdles.
  - gamble 17y ago
    I don't believe that human beings will ever be able to exist independently of earth without radically more advanced technology, in every field. If you consider the amount of support the early American colonists required from Europe, despite how primitive their society was in comparison to ours, colonization of space would require an immense amount of infrastructure that simply doesn't exist beyond the earth's surface. Materials that we take for granted, like hydrocarbons and plastics, are unobtainable off-earth. More seriously, the moon and Mars have almost no native sources of energy. Everything would need to be shipped from earth at tremendous expense. Obviously, it would be possible to put men on the moon or Mars and support them with an endless train of supplies from earth, but in the event of some catastrophe on earth that interrupted the flow of materiel, those colonies would become deathtraps rather than refuges.
zandorg 17y ago
I saw a DVD of the Apollo 11,12,13 landings and it was a joke - just a bunch of guys jumping around and cracking jokes. The automated Mars robots looked dignified in comparison.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  I'd be interested to see what DVD you have of the Apollo 13 moon landing.
  - zandorg 17y ago
    Correction: Apollo 15-17 (just checked my email for the correct DVD title).
    - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
      <grin>
vegashacker 17y ago
The last man on the Moon, Eugene Cernan, said it was "disappointing". I kept re-reading this and saying, what? He thought going on the moon was disappointing?? Ooooooh, "it" == "Obama's decision". :)
vrode 17y ago
Consider these points 1. Most of the technology needed for spaceflight may be both developed and tested on the ground. 2. Therefore, the exploration of near planets without a solid technological base (and we don't have one, do the research: I mean the correlation between developed and required technology) has merely a sign value, and remains close to none practical use for scientists. 3. Spaceflight and exploration might be a great inspiration for the whole planet of aspiring space engineers, but even I, a space-geek, agree with your administration on this matter. This is not a time to inspire, this is a time to pull up some strings in the economy. And in the meanwhile a competitively set industry private or not might push the technology forward to earn the financing they long took for granted. Many people fail to separate two things: a) the process of evolving technology and exploring space; b) the process of putting people to orbit. Why do you think the space station will be trashed so soon? It has little to none value, but sucks the resources FROM the technology. So if we want to 'harvest' H_3 from the Moon surface, why do we need people up there? The fact is that we actually don't. Even modern robotics as simple as it is, may do most of the resource gathering job cheaply. While human presence and life-support will increase the cost and move this perspective even further into the future. All eyes are turned where there is a prospect of financial gain. Right now, the gain is negative because of the lacking technology that needs investment. That is exactly why we have 3-5 people in space and not a large colony of workers. We use more money on supporting those three, than on making ground for some larger operations. Where am I wrong?
- teeja 17y ago
  Not, that I can see. Once we have a plan for doing something based on measurables with a stipulated and affordable goal, then we should act. Until then, keep doing science.
another 17y ago
(I made a similar comment regarding a previous article along these lines. The same point applies.) Even though the "United States gives up on space" narrative is temptingly simple, it's also (in my opinion) simply wrong, and substance-free commentary like this is disappointing. (If you base your opinions on the unsupported statements of old astronauts, you can look at Buzz Aldrin's comments for a different perspective, but I'd recommend doing your own research instead.) Much of the gloomy commentary on this announcement is uninformed. Canceling the Constellation program is a forward step and an essential step---it makes possible the very dream, bold human spaceflight, that this article mourns. At the very least, read the Augustine Commission's summary report; it's only 12 pages. Note their statement of the goal of space exploration: "human expansion into the solar system". That's cause for excitement, not mourning.
- another 17y ago
  Bolden's speech yesterday is (IMO) worth reading, especially the middle section regarding Constellation: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/434022main_bolden_WSBR_20100316.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/434022main_bolden_WSBR_20100316.pdf Note also the $6B increase in NASA's budget.
smhinsey 17y ago
Do they have inside information on this plan? My understanding is that it isn't going to be released until April 15. All I have seen about it is sort of ballpark speculation based on prior acts/statements.
iuguy 17y ago
In other news, group of people associated with special interest claim plans to restrict or cancel special interest in the face of reality is catastrophic to said aforementioned special interest, not to mention other connected (no matter how tenously) special interests. I'm not sure that this is really news in the genuine sense of the word. News is Obama announcing the change.
brown9-2 17y ago
"I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence." What does exploring space or landing on the moon have to do with "moral leadership"?

Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes. If you want to see real activity in space that means that getting stuff out of the Earth's atmosphere has to be significantly cheaper, and the only way that's going to happen is if space becomes a bigger industry than it is today - which means commercialization.

sliverstorm 17y ago
> Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes And military spending is about a lot of silly things too. But it drives development in the technological field, and we have reaped huge benefits because of all the funding the US poured into arms and space There's not just one way. Commercialization brings prices for the same goods down, but innovation and progress brings prices down too. The government is useful for a situation where something is still vastly unprofitable; they continue to attack the problem, and somewhere down the line it gets close enough to having business potential that companies start getting involved. 'putting a man on the moon' may not be the best goal, but that's a different discussion imho. (Although I already know planning for a Hubble 2 is something I could really get behind)
ericd 17y ago
Getting stuff out of the atmosphere with chemical rockets will always be extremely expensive. The only way it's going to get significantly cheaper is with alternative lifting methods, such as an electric powered space elevator.
- motters 17y ago
  One of the biggest expenses in current space operations is ground crew, which typically numbers in the thousands. Under the status quo there is simply no incentive to reduce this number, and there are often incentives to increase it to create new jobs. In the original space shuttle concept the ground crew was supposed to be no larger than a few hundred, but it didn't work out that way. Commercializing rocketry should mean that ground crew size and turnaround times can be minimized, since there is a direct financial incentive to control costs.
  - ericd 17y ago
    Fair, but even if it were extremely efficiently run, even the fuel costs of lifting large masses into orbit and the associated size of the vehicles required, as well as the resultant complexity of such a thing would be prohibitively expensive. Much cheaper, but still not where it needs to be. In order to do anything serious in space, it needs to become MUCH CHEAPER to put things into orbit. That is what a space elevator could accomplish. Not to say that we're ready technologically... we need to become a whole lot better at producing long carbon nanotubes.

avar 17y ago

As wasteful as the proposed Constellation program was at least it would have gotten humans out Low Earth Orbit again. Is Obama's plan for increased commercialization anything more than moving around the pieces that are already there? Most of the parts for the space vehicles are already made by subcontractors, aren't they just changing how the oversight is done? Even with those rules changed NASA is still going to be responsible for the astronauts. It'll take years and billions of dollars to man-rate vehicles that we wouldn't have thought twice about using back in the 70s as long as they didn't explode on the first couple of test flights. Maybe money flowing out of the Space Shuttle program will get us there sooner, but with the US rebooting its space program every time time a new president takes office I'm starting to think the Chinese are our best hope for getting to the stars.

jordanb 17y ago
Nearly 50% of the money NASA sends to contractors goes to three organizations: Lockheed Martin, The JPL at Caltech, and Boeing. The rest goes to other Military-Industrial "Usual Suspects," like Grumman and Raytheon.[1] These organizations are principally interested in maintaining their cushy position and soaking up tax money. They are not particularly driven to push the envelope. Obama's plan is a "shifting" around of the contracts, yes, but it's shifting away from organizations like Lockheed Martin to organizations like Scaled Composites. Away from fat lazy organizations to ones with some hunger and drive. That's also the reason why it's probably DOA in Congress. [1] http://www.govexec.com/features/0808-15/0808-15s13s1.htm http://www.govexec.com/features/0808-15/0808-15s13s1.htm
- mturmon 17y ago
  Lumping JPL/Caltech in with LockMart and Boeing does not make sense. The first is a research lab mainly concerned with conceiving and building robotic (unmanned) missions. The second two are mainly involved with operating manned flight systems. No comparison.

gamble 17y ago

NASA has two options: 1. Massive budget increases to fund missions to the moon and Mars. 2. Realign its goals to match the budget they have now. The Bush-era plan to return to the moon without actually paying for it was the worst of all worlds. Obama's plans may not be inspiring to those who want to relive '69, but I respect that he's willing to tackle problem realistically. We've also got to face the fact that human spaceflight is a prestige project with no scientific value. It's time to force NASA to focus on science. If people want to fart around in free fall, then that's something for private industry to concern itself with.

ericd 17y ago
>We've also got to face the fact that human spaceflight is a prestige project with no scientific value. It's time to force NASA to focus on science. What about the scientific value and long-term species survival value of trying to make it so humans can survive in space long term? Learning how to colonize the moon and other planets? Getting anything sizeable past low Earth orbit is still something that takes an amount of investment well outside the abilities of all but the largest companies. Governments make up a very large percentage of the few entities that have the capital and long-term vision to get us over the first hurdles.
- gamble 17y ago
  I don't believe that human beings will ever be able to exist independently of earth without radically more advanced technology, in every field. If you consider the amount of support the early American colonists required from Europe, despite how primitive their society was in comparison to ours, colonization of space would require an immense amount of infrastructure that simply doesn't exist beyond the earth's surface. Materials that we take for granted, like hydrocarbons and plastics, are unobtainable off-earth. More seriously, the moon and Mars have almost no native sources of energy. Everything would need to be shipped from earth at tremendous expense. Obviously, it would be possible to put men on the moon or Mars and support them with an endless train of supplies from earth, but in the event of some catastrophe on earth that interrupted the flow of materiel, those colonies would become deathtraps rather than refuges.

zandorg 17y ago

I saw a DVD of the Apollo 11,12,13 landings and it was a joke - just a bunch of guys jumping around and cracking jokes. The automated Mars robots looked dignified in comparison.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
I'd be interested to see what DVD you have of the Apollo 13 moon landing.
- zandorg 17y ago
  Correction: Apollo 15-17 (just checked my email for the correct DVD title).
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    <grin>

vegashacker 17y ago

The last man on the Moon, Eugene Cernan, said it was "disappointing". I kept re-reading this and saying, what? He thought going on the moon was disappointing?? Ooooooh, "it" == "Obama's decision". :)

vrode 17y ago

Consider these points 1. Most of the technology needed for spaceflight may be both developed and tested on the ground. 2. Therefore, the exploration of near planets without a solid technological base (and we don't have one, do the research: I mean the correlation between developed and required technology) has merely a sign value, and remains close to none practical use for scientists. 3. Spaceflight and exploration might be a great inspiration for the whole planet of aspiring space engineers, but even I, a space-geek, agree with your administration on this matter. This is not a time to inspire, this is a time to pull up some strings in the economy. And in the meanwhile a competitively set industry private or not might push the technology forward to earn the financing they long took for granted. Many people fail to separate two things: a) the process of evolving technology and exploring space; b) the process of putting people to orbit. Why do you think the space station will be trashed so soon? It has little to none value, but sucks the resources FROM the technology. So if we want to 'harvest' H_3 from the Moon surface, why do we need people up there? The fact is that we actually don't. Even modern robotics as simple as it is, may do most of the resource gathering job cheaply. While human presence and life-support will increase the cost and move this perspective even further into the future. All eyes are turned where there is a prospect of financial gain. Right now, the gain is negative because of the lacking technology that needs investment. That is exactly why we have 3-5 people in space and not a large colony of workers. We use more money on supporting those three, than on making ground for some larger operations. Where am I wrong?

teeja 17y ago
Not, that I can see. Once we have a plan for doing something based on measurables with a stipulated and affordable goal, then we should act. Until then, keep doing science.

another 17y ago

(I made a similar comment regarding a previous article along these lines. The same point applies.) Even though the "United States gives up on space" narrative is temptingly simple, it's also (in my opinion) simply wrong, and substance-free commentary like this is disappointing. (If you base your opinions on the unsupported statements of old astronauts, you can look at Buzz Aldrin's comments for a different perspective, but I'd recommend doing your own research instead.) Much of the gloomy commentary on this announcement is uninformed. Canceling the Constellation program is a forward step and an essential step---it makes possible the very dream, bold human spaceflight, that this article mourns. At the very least, read the Augustine Commission's summary report; it's only 12 pages. Note their statement of the goal of space exploration: "human expansion into the solar system". That's cause for excitement, not mourning.

another 17y ago
Bolden's speech yesterday is (IMO) worth reading, especially the middle section regarding Constellation: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/434022main_bolden_WSBR_20100316.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/434022main_bolden_WSBR_20100316.pdf Note also the $6B increase in NASA's budget.

smhinsey 17y ago

Do they have inside information on this plan? My understanding is that it isn't going to be released until April 15. All I have seen about it is sort of ballpark speculation based on prior acts/statements.

iuguy 17y ago

In other news, group of people associated with special interest claim plans to restrict or cancel special interest in the face of reality is catastrophic to said aforementioned special interest, not to mention other connected (no matter how tenously) special interests. I'm not sure that this is really news in the genuine sense of the word. News is Obama announcing the change.

brown9-2 17y ago

"I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence." What does exploring space or landing on the moon have to do with "moral leadership"?