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

[Eristar]

Let's not come to conclusions so fast to President Obama's recent cancellation of the Constellation program to the moon. There may be some not so obvious reasons for his decision. Buzz Aldrin was highly critical of the the program and I strongly agree with him. Why was the government's contractors leaning toward an Apollo style Rocket and Capsule return system after almost 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program? After years of various SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) "SpacePlane" designs, why were most of them stopped - some almost near their completion and testing stages? Remember the SR-71 Blackbird design from 1964!!

Take a look at the Air Force budget. It's virtually unimpeded - hence, space technology, whether it's new rocket designs or other new exotic technology is going strong right now by Lockheed and other contractors in many, many very secret and classified programs. What I think is that in lieu of the government's constant delay of releasing new technology for security reasons, is that they will slowly declassify new ideas. This will provide the private commercial sector and NASA, itself, new innovations along with the monetary grants. Keep an eye on the budget going to NASA - it may be higher than expected or adjust upward as the months and years go by.

There is a new Air Force Spaceplance rocketing up in April 2010 and self-landing. Let's see how that succeeds. Maybe there are other reasons for the President's decision, but this may be one opinion. Please give me your thoughts to my Forum response. Thanks to everyone who shares my beliefs. Eristar

 

[CosmicTrader]

Bush ordered the shutdown of the Shuttle program.

Bush's budgets gutted funding for Constellation, to where the Augustine commission had little choice but to do the math to point out how ridiculous it was to anticipate we'd get back to the Moon anytime soon.

We originally got to the moon in about eight years, Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. With Constellation, NASA has managed *one* launch - unmanned and missing pieces, with "off the shelf" technology - in five.

I don't know what the future will bring - hopefully SpaceX will have a successful Falcon 9 launch soon, and the $3.1 bil that NASA is supposed to get for researching a heavy launcher will, in fact, produce one. But let's put the majority of the blame for this where it belongs: On the Bush Administration, and on a NASA culture that has lost the ability to innovate.

 

[TheRightGuy]

As a supporter of NASA and manned spaceflight since the early 60's.This decision to cancel the Constellation Program is to say the least,appalling.The economic spin-offs alone should more than justify the costs. But the lost of National Prestige itself.To turn away from the possibility's of the future. I find even worse. Yes there are other ways to spend the nations wealth.We can always bail out more banks.Or give more pork barrel projects to members of Congress. And I'm sure that will happen no matter what. But to limit the United States to Earth orbital missions,where we have been since 1972. And to maybe have to depend on the good graces of the Russians to keep the ISS supplied is insane. And I hate to wax political. But How Is That Hope And Change Working For You Now?

 

[docm]

Bush ordered the shutdown of the Shuttle program.

And rightly so. Impressive as it was the shuttle program had serious conceptual flaws.

Bush's budgets gutted funding for Constellation, to where the Augustine commission had little choice but to do the math to point out how ridiculous it was to anticipate we'd get back to the Moon anytime soon.

Bush may have signed the budgets, but as Civics 101 teaches it's Congress that writes them and the Dems have held the purse strings since 2006. Not saying the previous Republican Congress did much better, but the Dems were in control through most of Constellation's history which started in 2005. 4 years vs 1.

We originally got to the moon in about eight years, Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. With Constellation, NASA has managed *one* launch - unmanned and missing pieces, with "off the shelf" technology - in five.

Mismanagement and a poorly conceived Rube Goldberg meets table napkin design will do that.

.....But let's put the majority of the blame for this where it belongs: On the Bush Administration, and on a NASA culture that has lost the ability to innovate.

See above. The president proposes, but Congress disposes and often the president is left signing things he'd rather not as a trade-off for other policies. Again, Civics 101. As for NASA's inability to innovate, no. Certain NASA administrators inability to admit their errors and properly adjust, you bet your bippy. This egoism stifled the innovation that was trying to get out but couldn't.

 

[LandoverLee]

With all due respect the Air Force is just interested in a more effective cruise missile that they can launch from our shores and deliver a potent delivery within 30 minutes or less. That Orbital Space Vehicle is just capitalizing on work that the operation of the Space Shuttle has matured. That, OSV is an advance in spaceflight, it's utilization of lessons learned. Constellation was about the way forward. It was capturing our imaginations and providing a useful challenge for our talents for years to come. It was about creating a sustainable transportation architecture that would have enable more science and more human exploration. It was about more that delivering explosive payloads, fulfilling holes in the business plans of start-up space entrepreneurs. It was a program worth of this this nation's and Apollo's legacy. Obama's plans are built on the naive assumption that "Private" enterprise can do space more cheaply. The truth is space flight no matter how innovative a company is, is the most rigorous activity known to humans. The government does not build spacecraft. It already holds competitions for that work. It is the government requirements, based upon bravely lost blood that drive up the cost of spaceflight. Pay heed to the proposed costs of "Private Space Capsules" and watch them rocket skyward as they finally try to do what they say and meet the mission and safety requirements of their sole customer. Sure capsules can be created cheaper and if surviving the experience is not a requirement than we can have cheaper operations, but Challenger shows us the fallacy of that belief.

The problem with space development is that to date there is not much money in it. Every expert or company can only get his agenda or vehicle development at the expense of another. This every man for himself philosophy is what hinders cohesive thoughtful progress. What should be realized by our leaders is that space is a common good and thus a perfectly acceptable expense for good government. Space is strategically important for several reasons, there are resources, there is room for our expansion, there is preservation of our species from man made or natural global disasters, it provides a benign cooperative and competitive environment for nations all in addition to being inspirational to our collective soul. Constellation furthered a faster realization of these benefits as opposed to any of the known alternatives. Hopefully enough support can be found in the Congress to thwart the President, much like was done when he had the audacity to try and get more equitable distribution of health care to every, aka not just the rich, American.

Let's not come to conclusions so fast to President Obama's recent cancellation of the Constellation program to the moon. There may be some not so obvious reasons for his decision. Buzz Aldrin was highly critical of the the program and I strongly agree with him. Why was the government's contractors leaning toward an Apollo style Rocket and Capsule return system after almost 30 years of the Space Shuttle Program? After years of various SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) "SpacePlane" designs, why were most of them stopped - some almost near their completion and testing stages? Remember the SR-71 Blackbird design from 1964!!

Take a look at the Air Force budget. It's virtually unimpeded - hence, space technology, whether it's new rocket designs or other new exotic technology is going strong right now by Lockheed and other contractors in many, many very secret and classified programs. What I think is that in lieu of the government's constant delay of releasing new technology for security reasons, is that they will slowly declassify new ideas. This will provide the private commercial sector and NASA, itself, new innovations along with the monetary grants. Keep an eye on the budget going to NASA - it may be higher than expected or adjust upward as the months and years go by.

There is a new Air Force Spaceplance rocketing up in April 2010 and self-landing. Let's see how that succeeds. Maybe there are other reasons for the President's decision, but this may be one opinion. Please give me your thoughts to my Forum response. Thanks to everyone who shares my beliefs. Eristar

 

[webnix]

Even though I work for an Aerospace company that will be severly impacted by the cancellation of Constellation, inspiring commercial ventures to LEO and beyond is a necessary part of any national space plan. I may be wrong, but I think my company will find a way to apply the synergy of effort already expended during Ares development, into another commercial launch option. While the Obama budget is distasteful to all who have worked toward a moon return in 2020, it is folly to depend upon the government, NASA or any other agency, to do what entreprenuers in the USA have been doing throughout the history of our great republic. They will do what the government can't and they will succeed where the heart and will of our politicians fail.I too, would like to have seen NASA's plans for a moon return fully funded, but the reality of the current economy pushes that dream out for now, but it reinforces what we all know... real spacefaring begins when there is a business incentive to drive it. A parallel can be drawn between commercial aviation and commercial spaceflight. In the early 20th century, commercial aviation didn't exist and wouldn't today except that the government invested in the infrastructure (ie.. airports, air traffic control etc..) that allowed commercial aviation to succeed. So we can cry about the government getting out of the rocket building business, but I say move over NASA and give the commercial guys a chance. Obama can make it profitable for the commercial space business and we will find that there will be lots of money and incentive to go to the Moon, Mars, or any other space goal.

 

[ChrisAstro]

Why can't they just COOPERATE????????????????WHY!!!!!!!!!!!.....

"United/Commercial in effort"

COOPERATE COOPERATE COOPERATE COOPERATE

TEAM WORK....WORK TOGETHER...

Internationaly,Commercially

 

[SteveBergman]

If Congress were willing to devote the funds to space exploration it deserves then I'd be all in favor of both robotic and manned programs. But Congress is not willing. And so I prefer to see the funds going to robotic missions. The robotic missions which have come to fruition in the last decade were enough to change my mind on this point. Robotic missions get us more science and knowledge per dollar that we are alloted than do manned missions. If we can get a bit of a budget increase overall, and finally get the pointless STS bloodsucker off the payroll, then we won't have to decide between Titan and Europa. We can have *both*... and much, much more.

 

[wittywitter]

ONCE RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY LANDS ON THE MOON, OUR LANDMARKS ALREADY UP THERE MAY BE DESTROYED IF WE DON'T GET BACK THERE TO PROTECT THEM. THESE ARE PRIME SITES TO PROVE WE GOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. PROTECT OUR INTERESTS, PLEASE

 

[Zeik]

I don't get it. If NASA is not going back to the moon, then why do they need all the money?

 

[elpolloguapo]

ONCE RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY LANDS ON THE MOON, OUR LANDMARKS ALREADY UP THERE MAY BE DESTROYED IF WE DON'T GET BACK THERE TO PROTECT THEM. THESE ARE PRIME SITES TO PROVE WE GOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. PROTECT OUR INTERESTS, PLEASE

None of those countries, if they were to reach the moon (and I don't know of any concrete plans to go beyond LEO anytime soon for any of them - though that doesn't mean such plans don't exist, I admit), would have any interest in returning to sites already visited during Apollo, nor would they want to antagonize the US by desecrating what has been left there. A moon mission would far more likely go to the poles or other more scientifically interesting places than those visited in '69-'72.

Constellation was an unhealthy program, and while it showed progress, it had a long way to go before it would yield much of anything in the way of results. A partnership between NASA and the private sector could be extremely fruitful for everyone - or disastrous. But I think there's too much of a fixation on going back to the moon, when in reality it wouldn't be that big of a step forward - Constellation's technology was fundamentally very similar to Apollo's. If NASA's hopes to develop much better new propulsion technologies come to fruition, we could be seeing some of the biggest steps forward in space exploration in decades. I'm much happier seeing money invested in developing entirely new systems than in updating old ones.

All in all, it's a lot of grand ideas. But who knows if they'll actually go anywhere.

 

[Claysville321]

Abandoning the Moon Program

I am old enough to remember what JFK did for this country when he proposed we go to the moon by the end of the decade. This country was in a funk and JFK pulled us out of it. And then, the world-wide euphoria when Armstrong stepped on the moon! I remember it today. And now Obama is pulling us out of manned spaceflight to the moon (and Mars and beyond). Remember this: When the Russians or the Chinese or some other group goes to the moon, and we do not, it will be Obama to thank. Any money that is spent on the moon program is spent right here in the USA on jobs in the USA. It isn't spent on the moon. This is a tragedy and a day Americans will remember. Being the best and most technologically advanced isn't in his plans.

 

[fnsgreen]

If I had my way we would be doing both. But the US budget and the financial crises call for cutbacks. We need to live in our means and this is probably the best way to handle it. I believe if we all had the choice on our income tax forms, to designate where to place even a small percentage of our taxes, NASA would be well funded. That would be a truer democracy but there are other important projects and services that really need to be funded for the good of all and we elected our representatives to decide how best to fund them. If we don't like the way they do it ... well we have the means of letting them know that.

Let's look at the good points of this new plan. We are enticing the commercial sector to develop their own means of going into orbit. Hopefully this will lead to better, more efficient means of reaching orbit and giving you and I a better chance of getting their ourselves. By concentrating on the propulsion systems, like ion engines, we are opening up those same companies to ways of reaching beyond Earth Orbit. Elon Musk for example is using NASA's old technology to lift his dragon spacecraft to orbit, one day his company may use NASA's future, 'old technology' to take us to Mars. By reaching Near Earth Objects we may find a new resource to use for our exploration of the solar system - wouldn't it be more efficient to be able to use the water and minerals that are speeding by our planet every day for space exploration then lifting them up from the Earth's gravity well?

I too am disappointed, but it's not the end of the space program, it might even be a whole, new, exciting beginning.

 

[stts]

Jim Jones told the masses "drink and you shall be saved". And they did. They did by the hundreds. The Pied Piper that lead them all off the cliff. And so it happens again. The Savior Obama with his sudden interest in the great exploration of space. With a BOLD plan to save the future. Kill the plans and let others do it. Its so brilliant, why didnt I think of it. The leader up front is just somebody thats in the way. Turn the mob loose, and may the best man win.

What a disaster, and I cant see why so many people are swallowing this. Folks, killing the big plans are just the begining. Obama has no use for NASA because his constituence for reelection have no use for NASA. Once the big plans are dead and burried, there are no more NASA headlines. When it comes time to "handout billions" to private industry, the money wont be there. Its was diverted to healthcare and climate policy and poor people job growth. Now its eazy to cut NASA all the way down to the bone. To hell with space. We have TOUGH decisions dealing with problems at home to face. And the space station? Its a white elephant we are going to give away and will eventually plunge into the atmosphere. Nobody will pony up to service it with NASA gone. The cheap Bigalow baloons are cheap to service. But they will explode with debris hits like the hits the space station has already taken.

So many gullable people here. Mark my words. If Obama succeeds in pulling the plug on NASA, There will be no Moon or Mars in our life time. After all, its clear that the only low risk profits are the satelite business and arguably low orbit joy rides.

 

[terranoid]

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.

"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." I should mention that distance isn't measured in minutes.

"Thanks to innovations in human spacetravel, ... we have velcro!, and bullet-proof vests ..." No, sorry, velcro was invented by a Swiss Guy which had nothing to do with space travel, human or not. The fact that bullet proof vests are required here on Earth says something.

I know You were joking, still I wouldn't hold my breath to reduce CO" levels, not because I am not interested in that, but simply because ... it' a joke

 

[DVCKEV]

Wow, does anyone not realize that Constellation was going to be the beginning of a permanent base on the moon. Concrete findings of water ice recently were going to seal that. I really don't see how we can dump into the for profit banks hundreds of billions of dollars and then be squeamish of what 44 billion total over 10 years for Constellation and getting us back to the moon and begin to establish a permanent base. I don't see how Obama is visionary at all and in fact I'm thinking that he is anything but that. For all his faults and there were many, Bush at least tried to inspire us. This would have been the perfect time for Obama to do so as well, but as the days of his administration continue to pass I'm beginning to regret voting for him more and more every day.

 

[nimbus]

How can there be 2065 votes, when there has been 247 views of this topic? :lol:

Comments (and votes) on an SDC article might be piped into the forums.

 

[ROCKETMANN]

Why do the people who defend this current administration get almost hysterical when it receives criticism? The number of missteps should scare all of us. This is a classic example of "YES WE CAN" turning to "NO WE CANNOT". Why not let the people decide, or are you afraid of democracy? I am willing to let the citizens of this country decide are you? Or maybe you think you know better.

 

[marsin2020]

This is nothing more than abandoning the US manned space program for the foreseeable future. I'm shocked by this decision and would NEVER have voted for Obama had I known this would happen.

:evil:

 

[nimbus]

IMO, not much chance of working in a meaningful and productive way with other countries due to ITAR restrictions. These are empty words to put a rosy glow on an ugly picture. This is nothing more than abandoning the manned space program for the foreseeable future. I'm shocked by this decision and would NEVER have voted for Obama had I known this would happen.

:evil:

Now watch SpaceX get to the ISS sooner than Ares would have.

 

[01speed21]

Abandoning the Constellation program was not a good idea. Abandoning the Ares project would have been the smart move. We already have proven boosters like the Atlas, which has put men into space. Why not work with that instead of spending $9 billion on a new booster?

 

[elpolloguapo]

Abandoning the Constellation program was not a good idea. Abandoning the Ares project would have been the smart move. We already have proven boosters like the Atlas, which has put men into space. Why not work with that instead of spending $9 billion on a new booster?

Constellation was more than just getting Orion into orbit. It required a heavy-lift booster to get cargo and equipment up as well, and we haven't had anything sufficient for that since the Saturn V (the plans for which were destroyed during a NASA housecleaning several years ago). Without Ares there was no Constellation.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Look at Mars, no human has ever been there, but we already have more info about Mars than about the moon. But hey i'm not American, if the Americans just want to waste money on sending humans into space instead of machines just because the president is a black guy, shows they just deserve their country and the poor shape it is in.

Don't you think you took this a bit too far Antwerpo? This is a conversation about political decissions and what we agree and disagree upon regarding the Presidents & NASA's plans for space exploration; not a topic involving race, cree or gender. It wouldn't matter if the President was Black, White, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc... it is the political aspect of Space Exploration. Not the color of ones skin or their religious views playing any sort of role here. Yes we are all different in our own way. However we all also have a job to do. I do personally think Constellation was a waste of time from the start; but a bigger waste of time, money, resources, and the cost of peoples jobs because it wasn't scrapped before it even got off the drawing board. Those resources, man power, etc... could have been utilized elsewhere, and I'm sure for a much better purpose.

 

[menellom]

And of course the big problem with Ares was, even Ares I wouldn't be finished until 2016, 2017, maybe even 2018, and development of the Ares V likely wouldn't have started until two or three years of successful Ares I flights. At the earliest, Ares V might have been completed before 2025 with a Moon landing perhaps before 2030.

One of the things I'm most excited about with the new budget proposal is that NASA will finally be doing some serious research into new designs, new propulsion, new launch ideas, rather than just recycling the Apollo concepts. Let's be realistic, Apollo style rockets and capsules are an okay idea for getting into orbit, but there's no way in hell we're going to explore or expand into the solar system with them... not when it takes almost a week to get to the Moon, and almost a year to get to Mars. While the American private industry handles our (and I imagine before long many other country's) LEO needs, NASA can focus on designing spacecraft and propulsion to get us where we want (need) to go faster.

 

[DanSez]

Those who just want to drive political points need to check it at the door if you want to discuss a solution. We will never solve anything if this doesn't stop.

The major death nails for the US Moon program include:
the US going broke (a fact, not politics)
the Space Station drain on money and talent
lack of leadership (from all sides)

How expensive is it to support humans in an environment that is as dangerous as leo? Shouldn't someone much smarter than the average bear figure out the goal is to transport people as quickly as possible through that environment or provide as much earth like conditions as possible during transit. That would include perfecting rotating space ships, effective shielding and building more capable robotics workers to prepare the ground for human occupation. Instead we get the Cobert Tread Mill... funny, but nothing new to see in that pr stunt.