POLL: Is Abandoning NASA's Moon Plan the Right Choice?

[satops]

There's politics in everything. While I support manned space missions, I feel a return to the moon is a waste of science dollars and nothing more than a political stunt.

We should concentrate on constructing a simple earth orbit booster capable of carrying a medium-sized crew (5-7).
Then, we should build a replacement shuttle fleet, built like they should have been built decades ago with an increased payload capability and the ability to venture to much higher orbits. Build them like nobody else in the world can!

Provide more sophisticated robots for the rock science. It's cheaper and safer.

 

[Geoffrey_Landis]

Originally, it was stated that since we wanted to develop a new vehicle, but wouldn't get any new funding to develop it, we were going to stop flying the shuttle, and to use the money that had been spent in flying the shuttle as the funding to develop the replacement vehicle. It looks like part 1 of this plan is being accomplished-- cancelling the shuttle-- but the money saved by cancelling it isn't going to go into a new vehicle.

 

[bessler4space]

Well, constellation would have worked but where did the program inovate. It used Apollo and space shuttle technology which is old and NOT new. With the economic times we are having this is much better than nothing. Constellation was under funded and would not have gotten us to the moon by 2020. The worst that happens is we get new technology but can't get to the moon or mars any cheaper or faster. Constellation would have gotten us to the moon by at least 2030. If the worst happens we can get there at the same time. The only way constellation would have been on time was if it got at least 4 billion a year over 10 years. The only way that you can get that kind of money is if we cut military spending a little bit(which I support). President Obama would have gotten eaten alive if he cut military spending(by no brain republicans and scared people who believe that President Bush had national security right). No matter how it turns out we will benefit.

 

[starshipomega]

While I would personally love to see people back on the moon, I dont think constellation was ever really the way to go about it. Ideally what we should be doing is setting up real infrastructure in space off which we can eventually use to keep moving outward into the solar system. Heavy industrialization of LEO should be the first step so that once we have to capability to go somewhere we have the capability to stay there. I think the ultimate plan (over decades, but we could get started now) should be to establish factories and construction facilities in LEO which can be used for the manufacture of everything else we need in space. And dragging everything up from the ground each time you wanna take a trip isn't gonna work for a sustained presence offworld. The ISS should either be expanded or shut down now, and a dedicated transport hub space station should replace it. This could be used to send people on to other destinations, LEO should not be an ultimate destination all by itself, and that's what the shuttle and ISS have done.

 

[Observe]

Finally we have the sense to put the brakes on outdated technology in favor of directing NASA to engage in research and development of future technology that might provide real ability to travel in and occupy space.

The short-sighted goal of returning to the moon in a horse-and-buggy was a bad idea to start with. Let's research what can be achieved toward a proper replacement for the Shuttle and beyond - rather than spilling money into re-inventing the wheel (Constellation program).

 

[orbitmath]

Here this Country goes again. Shortsighted people refuse to acknowledge that Humanity's future is in space. They are hidebound and earthbound. They refuse to see the big picture because it is just too technically complex for them. Any thing beyond trying to balance their check books is just too much mental labor. They came within a hair of cancelling the space station. People call it a white elephant. I wonder how many of them truly and sincerely have checked out the technical harvest that has come from manned earth orbit not to mention the hundreds (thousands?) of technical spinoffs that have resulted from space exploration, many of them saving peoples lives. How many people take the time to look at the federal budget pie and note how miniscule NASA's slice is compared to, say, Defense or Welfare? Well, if this Country wants to fall behind and become tenth rate, what can be said. It's happened many times in the past and then we rushed to catch up. If we don't go to the Moon or Mars or beyond, I am certain the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and others will do it in the not too distant future. When they do, will they be as cooperative and sharing with us as we have been with them in the past?

 

[JonClarke]

Provide more sophisticated robots for the rock science. It's cheaper and safer.

Safer than what? We already accept a 2% chance of death for people in space.

Cheaper than what? MSL costs 2 billion US$! . And is still no faster than MER,only slightly more capable and still restricted to the 10- 40 minute comms lag. At best might achieve over several years the equivalent of a single crewed EVA.

Send people to do the rcok science, it is they who are faster, better and in the long run cheaper.

 

[BrianBoru]

Absolutely the right choice if you intend to scrap the civilian American astronaut program,
and to abandon a leadership role in manned space exploration.

 

[sovereignSAGITTARIUS]

I want a COMPROMISE. I WANT THE STATE OF THE UNION "BIPARTISANSHIP"-ness TO BE INSTITUTED. I WANT LEFT AND RIGHT TO GIVE THE MIDDLE WAY!

Bottom line, 6 years of Nasa's budget have gone down the drain as a result of this decision, now consider that a "cost".

If i could persuade the president, i would compromise with keeping ares V heavy lifter and the moon while making due with a prolonged partnership with Russian soyuz and scrapping ares 1 until a private viable option is available while trimming the budget too and maintaining zero subsidizes (zero subsides would be nice but not contingent).

right wing person speaking/ of course space isn't politically well defined when it comes to policy. i am against the pres. decision.

 

[FinalFrontier10041957]

Obama's NASA funding decision of 2/1/2010 makes no sense.
If one looked at this decision without any context, it might be thought that this was a wise decision, to get a bigger bang for the federal buck by incentivizing private industry to jump into the gap being left by the retiring shuttle. But on closer inspection, what this is really doing is pulling the plug on an aging space program that has struggled to define itself in the post-Apollo world for more than 30 years. And there is no company waiting in the wings to supplant the lift capacity that has been provided by the Shuttle program.
Even with all the warts and mistakes that has characterized the Shuttle program, it was the workhorse that built the International Space Station (ISS). Without either the shuttle or the next phase heavy lift launcher, the USA will be without any means of getting large payloads to orbit. This is a situation that poses grave threats to our long-term ability to defend our national interests in the strategic theater of space.
I do have some hope that the administration does have some brains behind this decision, rather than thinking this is an easy place to cut money from the budget. If someone from the administration has read "Halfway to Anywhere" by G. Harry Stine, then perhaps this isn't as bad as it seems to those of us who dream of being able to go to space as a tourist before we die. But I am not optimistic in my assessment of the Obama administration, based totally on their track record of the past year.
In Stine's book, he accurately identifies the problem with the current paradigm of big space projects. Government involvement, in the form of countless technocrats and regulatory panels, pounds innovation out of the system, while making everything produced excessively expensive. This dis-incentivizes private capital from even attempting to compete in that market. Where government should be spending their money, according to Stine, is in backing the basic research and development of experimental spacecraft that push the envelope of what is possible with existing technology, and then licensing that technology to private companies to develop commercially competitive vehicles, who can then provide services to both the government and the private sector for a profit. This is how the US aircraft industry was developed in the early 20th century. A good example of this approach used in spacecraft development was described in this book with the DC-X Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) tester.
It is unfortunate that this program was shut down by NASA, with complicit approval by the Clinton administration. If it had been allowed to continue to fruition, we would be on the threshold of a new era in space, as a totally reusable SSTO with heavy lift capacity would revolutionize the economics of getting payloads to LEO. From that point, we would be able to make Solar Power Satellites a significant source of electricity for our nation, create true space habitats that would be able to create their own artificial "gravity" by rotation, service and refuel satellites in orbit and countless other economic activities that would fuel our growth in the 21st century and beyond. Instead, we have no replacement at all for the retiring Shuttle program, and nothing even in the works for a heavy lift launcher, let alone a reusable one.
What is now needed is a coherent plan for exactly the opportunity that was missed at the end of the last century. I would implore anyone who is interested in our nations' future as a significant participant in the next great step of humanity to get informed about the options, and become engaged in the discussion. Make your voice heard to your local representative and senators, and impress upon them the need to create a new national focus on space. If we ever want to be a true space power again, we need this ability to get "Halfway to Anywhere"!!

 

[Gary0001]

Yes, it probably is even though once again Congress and NASA have shown how incompetent and wasteful both them have become over the years. If the Obama administration is actually serious about giving private companies contracts to launch people and cargo on a for-profit basis, it could be the beginnig of the true space age. If it's just another one of Obama's and Congress's bald-faced lies to America with a straight face, then it is another disaster for America. It will show that Obama's technical smarts are as 19th century as his economic smarts. Instead of marching into the 21st century with free enterprise and using space resources and space solor power to make America rich and leading Man into the solar system, he wants to retreat into the 19th century with his $80 billion passenger train proposal. Just think of the glory to be felt waiting in the rain for the 8:15 Super- Amtrac to arrive at 11:45! Most of the seats will be empty and subsidized by thousands of taxpayer dollars, but it will be a glorious monument to rational goverment planning, foresight, and the wisdom of the Obama! And those stupid Chinese and Indians will be wasting their money building orbital infrastructure and orbital weapons and orbital ........ uh-oh...

 

[lorq]

I applaud the Obama administration's intelligent, reasonable, and forward-thinking proposal for the new NASA budget. Shifting NASA's priorities away from unproductive re-plays of Apollo and toward longer-term research and development, robotic exploration programs, and a heavy-lift vehicle, will make an enormous positive difference for the future of American space exploration -- manned and unmanned. The administration has done a great service to America with this shifting of priorities.

 

[mj1]

To put it plainly, we can't afford to spend the money NASA would need to spend for something the private companies (with NASA's help) could do for 1/10 of the cost. I am for NASA doing more big picture work. They need to be planning and developing the wherewithal to send humans into deep space, colonize the Solar system, mine asteroids, etc. Why waste their limited resources of LEO rockets? They have been there and done that. If we are ever going to get to the stars, NASA has a BIG role to play in that and they need to put all of their focus into that endevor. Sure, building a decent ship that can explore the solar system will take years or perhaps decades, but NASA should make it their purpose in life to be in the forefront of that work. It's a hell of a long term vision. Leave the delivery service to the private companies.

 

[BrianBoru]

It certainly doesn't help having idiots like this in the agency;


Obama kills moon program, endorses commercial space
BY WILLIAM HARWOOD
STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS "SPACE PLACE" & USED WITH PERMISSION
Posted: February 1, 2010

Surprisingly, perhaps, astronaut Steve Robinson, scheduled for launch next Sunday aboard the shuttle Endeavour, said in an interview Friday that "we have an exciting future. It's not well defined, but it's exciting. :roll:

 

[6061]

Is it good choice or is it bad choice? The question itself is missleading. Why? Well, US obviously has terrestrial needs that are primary to all other and this does make sense. On the other hand, I think that abandoning the constellation program is not such tragedy like "abandoning human spacefligt forever", that sounds pathetic. What is this, you ask? Well Constellation is infact, apart from being costly, pretty bad approach on returning to the Moon, not to talk about Mars.
First of all, two launchers? Why? Back in the 60's they only needed one, it was on the edge of possible and it worked! And now, 60 years after, NASA needs two! Tech got pretty good from back then, infact a quantum leap was acheeved in engeneering, design and electronics. All suggests that things should got smaller, sophisticated, compact... No, we need one launcer for the crew, other for the fuel, third for the solar panels, fourth for the supplys, fifth for... and all of theme are different in design, well not so different but enough different to quadruple the cost. Orion? Look's like back to basics, nothing smart happened from Appolo... is this really happening? Don't missunderstood me, human, or manned spaceflight is crucial! Man was up there and will be again, however not in this fashion. I think the lack of enthusiasm in NASA is a result of overpumping the price to heavens for nothing. You don't get inovattive, you don't get anything, you are just so expensive! So the best thing is to ask the private sector to do it for you, cheaper. Constellation, I fear, looks like the NASA plan to send a man over to the Mars 10-15 years ago (that ended up in a recycle bin), by first: building a new space station, then building a series of complex building on the moon, then building a spaceship shipyard in the Earth's orbit and so on.....that would take VAST TRILLIONS of dollars and would be completed in a million years....rubbish! Let's not mixup manned spaceflight with robotic exploration. Robots are waaaaay cheaper in all aspects. All of that before (new space station, moon base complex, shipyard....) sounds fantastic but when you wake up... So president Obama's cutting the Constellation off is that wakeup call. Yes, NASA is fat! It's NOT nice but it's real.

 

[RaddaRadda]

Sure, if you like being a warmongering, greedy, lying rat fink, social program leaching, loser
Now I feel better

 

[spacefire]

I strongly advocate funding private companies to get a crack at the old HL42 TSTO (with a man-rated heavy booster) and then the SSTO Venture Star. All the research that has been invested into these projects would finally yield something of value, and because so much data exists investment would be lower than starting from scratch on a new project. X33 was doomed by something that could easily be fixable with advances in materials science, and we are making giant strides in that field. We could get a Shuttle replacement that is ten times cheaper to operate within a decade and probably cheaper than the cost of Constellation.

 

[LandoverLee]

If California can get $2.25 Billion for a high speed rail line. Why are we scrapping our National Space Program. Obama is relegating America to mediocrity in this area in the name of fiscal responsibility and it's all bunk. Does he not appreciate the thousands of jobs throughout America that will be thrown into jeopardy through his actions? Does he not appreciate the Billions in waste HE has generated by canceling this program? Most Americans I'd wager consider the Space Station complete and mundane. It held promise to us as a stepping stone towards larger aspirations. Even though I voted for him from his early campaign comments all that is happening is not a surprise. It was only after the Hillary camp merged with his did he "appear" to get on board. Though I support commercial development of crew transport, the current batch is simply not ready. And was not Constellation commercially competed? Does anyone think the U.S. government is going to let a single federal Astronaut off the planet without significant oversight. If it takes 3 years to order and receive your comsat in orbit how is a manned capsule going to be created in less time. The requirements documentation for a commercial manned system haven't even been thought about yet! Those who think that commercial crew capacity will be available before Ares-1 were deluding themselves with greed and now it will probably be 2050 if at all before any leaves LEO. With any luck we won't have been knocked back to the stone ages or worse by an undetected celestial neighbor before then. What naivety! What a lack of vision!

It would have made a lot more sense to just stretch the program out. Yes, it would have cost more in the long run, but it would have been able fit within the paltry NASA budget and we would at least have had the hope of going some where else but a 100 miles up. All this work is going to have be redone when the next President fixes this mess. None of the "proposed/conceptual" commercial systems will support anything other than LEO missions. Even if they are successful Lunar trips will now require more rocketry to launch the lunar transfer module and lander. Just brilliant.

 

[LandoverLee]

What you're not considering is that once those Private companies, why does everyone think Boeing, LockMart, and ATK are public or government firms, adhere to the government's (NASA) requirements and standards their offerings will be in line with what is originally proposed. The only reason a "Private" vehicle will be cheaper is because it is less capable. The idea was to create a lasting architecture that would fulfill our current as well as future needs. No "Private" system yet conceived does this.

To put it plainly, we can't afford to spend the money NASA would need to spend for something the private companies (with NASA's help) could do for 1/10 of the cost. I am for NASA doing more big picture work. They need to be planning and developing the wherewithal to send humans into deep space, colonize the Solar system, mine asteroids, etc. Why waste their limited resources of LEO rockets? They have been there and done that. If we are ever going to get to the stars, NASA has a BIG role to play in that and they need to put all of their focus into that endevor. Sure, building a decent ship that can explore the solar system will take years or perhaps decades, but NASA should make it their purpose in life to be in the forefront of that work. It's a hell of a long term vision. Leave the delivery service to the private companies.

 

[pmf0671]

People who shout that sending human missions to the moon or mars is a waste of money and stupid, can't see but 5 minutes in front of their face.

Humans are explorers by nature. Sure we can focus on our planet, be green and try to reduce CO2 levels (everyone hold yer breath, that helps ) and so on and so forth, but one forgets that without our competitive nature we wouldn't be driving around in our pretty little cars, and we wouldn't be living in luxury in our pretty little homes.

Thanks to innovations in human spacetravel, we can now insulate our homes 20 to 100 times better than before, we have velcro!, and bullet-proof vests hardly thicker than a sweater. And those are just a couple of examples.

The fact is that any space travel is an investment in mankind. Not to forget that colonising beyond our planet is also a survival instinct, as we now have the knowledge that there are still threats out there in space that can litterally decimate our species.

Gonna stop here or this page is gonna get way too long.

 

[HeyMrSpaceman]

It is mostly the right choice to abandon NASA's moon plan, but like so many of Obama's other initiatives, it just hasn't been explained to the general public in a proper manner.

First of all, enhancing commercial options for spaceflight is a great idea. But because of its inherent riskiness, I wish our all-chips-in determination had proceeded a little more cautiously. You just don't give up the family car because your 14 year old will be getting a driver's license soon and could possibly drive you to work. If we had extended our space shuttle usage slightly into the future, gradually slowing it down as we tested the waters using commercial ventures and Russian launches, we might be more able to see the consequences. But in any case, this commercial option is far, far better than spending a fortune building the underfunded Ares I, only to have it ready after we have prematurely de-orbited the Space Station. That was an insane plan to begin with.

Secondly, having more flexible options and more intense experimentation with novel propulsion systems, landing systems, launch systems, and spacecraft engineering before we venture into deep space can only put us even more in the vanguard of space travel. I just wish this new direction for NASA had been spelled out with a little more detail. What are the goals specifically? When can we expect to see results and immediate missions? Where are we going, and what will the space program look like 20 years from now? Of course, the very name of the "flexible" option tells us that we have to be open to changes. But at least give us some particulars. Don't let people get the impression that this constitutes the end of space travel when it is only the beginning of a new era.

If, 37 years ago, we had stopped the shuttle program completely, and continued the Apollo program while proposing new frontiers, our current space program would be so far advanced from where it is now that it would be unrecognizable. Ending the moon program is the right change to make now before it is too late. Just tell us what exactly will replace it.

 

[Valcan]

This will depend on what we announce to do with the 6B AND the dropping of the shuttle AND the drop of constellation. If we are getting private space off the ground with :
1) Bigelow,
2) helping SpaceX, orbital, perhaps SpaceDev to get human launches,
3) creating a new heavy lifter such as Direct Jupiter,
Then YES, it is a great idea.

OTH, if all the money simply flows to current NASA projects, then no, this will be a bad idea.

Holy crap a dang liberal and a conservative can agree!

 

[geofbrewer]

My neighbor worked on the Saturn 5. When the Apollo program was shut down prematurely, he left Florida for his home state. How many people will find employment elsewhere in this tight economy? Granted some will move to the "next" program but how much of the institutional memory will be lost? I'm not trying to defend the Constellation program, but what was the real reason for going through with the program? Was some congressman trying to prop up an industry in his/her state? Was there a recognition it was a "seed" program requiring greater budgeting at some future time? One of the drawbacks to NASA is its programs are subject to the politics of the moment. It takes about five (5) years for some of these programs to find their legs. With the possibility of a new administration every four (4) years, it's a wonder NASA gets anything done. So the question becomes, does anybody really care? We have so much excess capacity and inventory in certain sectors of our economy, we could do some amazing things if we wanted to. We could take care of a lot of problems and still do a lot of exploration, robotically and manned. Lastly, is anybody doing anything besides moaning?

 

[ppatton]

Deciding NASA's future gave Obama a chance to show visionary leadership. He could have replaced AresI/Ares5 with the simpler cost saving DIRECT/Jupiter rocket. He could have redirected the Moon/Mars effort towards a sustainable human exploratory presence on Mars rather than a lengthly lunar detour. He could have paid for the effort with cuts to the Pentagon's bloated budget. He could have made a ringing call for international cooperation in a great new human adventure. After years of being disgusted and ashamed of our country, he could have given Americans a reason to feel proud again. Instead, he simply canceled Constellation with only vague references to developing new rocket technology and no plan or timetable for sending humans to Mars. Apparently, there's now nothing left of American manned spaceflight except the dubious Reagan/Gingerich notion of privatizing it. It's true that the robotic space program is currently much more scientifically productive than human spaceflight. However, we need to invest now for the long term future. In the long run, humans on Mars and beyond can do a much more through and flexible job of exploring than can any robots we are likely to develop in this century. There are other reasons besides science for manned spaceflight. Cooperative international manned flight provides a highly visible arena in which nations can work together towards a common goal. Binding nations together in a common endeavor is necessary to achieve other goals vital to the survival of global civilization, like stopping global warming and controlling nuclear weapons. The public space program is also one non-military way of investing in the development of new technologies that private investors consider too risky. I'll grant that, given the unsolved problem of astronaut exposure to galactic cosmic rays, humans to Mars might not be the right visionary goal, just yet. There are lots of other visionary goals to choose from. What about a new generation of space telescopes to characterize Earth-like extrasolar planets, and test their atmospheres for the tell-tale signs of life? NASA's terrestrial planet finder and life finder space telescopes are nothing more than design studies crying out for funding. How about implementing them with a definite budget and timetable? How about a robotic sample return from Mars within less than eight years (ie. before Obama's putative second term is up)? Surely America can do *something* besides fight endless pointless wars and cut budgets on everything else.

I voted for Obama with hope and enthusiasm. Unfortunately, he's repeatedly shown a lack of vision about reviving America. First, he made the abysmally bad choice of escalating Bush's ruinously expensive war in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires. On health care reform, he failed to make a strong push for a robust public health care option to control the costs of our corrupt and greedy private health care system. Where is his leadership on the critical issue of global warming? It surely wasn't in evidence at the failed Copenhagen Climate Conference. Now, he seems to have failed at providing a renewed vision for America's space program. In the face of crying public needs and a middle class in collapse, Obama has chosen to freeze domestic spending rather than to restore taxation of the wealthiest Americans to pre-Reagan levels. Obama seems to have forgotten that, as a supposed Democrat, he is heir to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. I hope the Europeans are ready to take over as the leaders among the world's democracies, because the US is no longer capable of anything except senseless militarism and private greed.

 

[kristenwinslet]

NASA was set on a great path as it set out for the moon in the 1960's. They called it "Moon Fever" and everyone had it. Then came the bad news that the Apollo Program was being canceled in favor of a 'Space Shuttle' that would become the workhorse of America's access to space.

Along the way, we had a near miss with Apollo 13, the loss of Challenger and her crew in 1986 and the loss of Columbia and her crew in 2003. From there on out, it seemed NASA was on a down spiral that it just could not recover from.

The second generation shuttle program hailed by Vice President Al Gore; "Venture Star" failed because Lockheed just could not solve some technical issues that were far beyond the current technology in the late 90's. This was the beginning of the end of NASA as we all have grown to know the organization, triumph over challenges.

Now, with the nation and the world in economic crisis, funding a new moon program is just not feasible in the eyes of many as we turn to problems here on Earth.

While it is sad to see the infrastructure be dismantled and the knowledge base of the current shuttle program go their separate ways, perhaps now is a good time to take stock in what we have done, where we have been and then look seriously as to how we want to move on from here.

I love NASA and all those who made it all happen over the years. Perhaps it time for those with all that talent to meld into the commercial space effort and leverage all of that experience and know how into something even greater than what the Constellation Program might have been.

Let's give capitalism the next up at bat in the frontier of space and see just what may come of it. As we all know, one very small company is about to make it BIG in this new frontier of space. I think the best is yet to come . . .