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

[Lancelot_64]

* Briefing by OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Director Peter Orszag and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers - source http://www.whitehouse.gov * Feb 1 2010.

Q: And does the decision not to go to the moon not send the message to our rivals that we've given up?

DIRECTOR ORSZAG: Not at all. Let me be clear about what is happening at NASA. The Constellation program, which is over budget and behind schedule, was intended to do what we've already done, which is return a man or woman to the moon. We believe in the future of human space flight. We believe that NASA can inspire Americans and lead to scientific advances. So we do have actually a small budget increase for NASA. What we're saying is let's redirect that towards longer-range R&D, advanced robotics, research and development, and find those new technologies that will actually allow us to go further in space and not just repeat what we've already done, especially in a program that is behind schedule and over-budget.

>> Lancelot_64

I am really wanting to be positive about all this. But it's totally rediculous rhetoric..

Did anyone tell this man that the original vision was to return to the moon only to extend our science and provide a springboard to more distant destinations such as Mars? To build a permanent presence there and learn what that meant in reality? Its like saying that the pilgrims came to America after Columbus just for the h*ll of it .. Come on folks who is believing this high level verbage/bullcrap? Note how he wipes his hands of the sick program like throwing it away, or tossing it under the rug would make ammends..

Then he plays on our passions with, I quote- "What we're saying is let's redirect that towards longer-range R&D, advanced robotics, research and development, and find those new technologies that will actually allow us to go further in space." - He can't even get to the moon - now he wants to go FURTHER? (Oh i see it will magically be cheaper then lol)
Note he does not mention investing in private business ?

Folks these people are our employees how much longer are we going to let them behave in this rediculous manner?

My personal opinion is that the moon was a necessary step in our evolution. If for nothing else to teach the powers that be to stick to major long term plans and commit to our future. I am unsure if this should be the work of independant entrepreneurs.

Have to say 'Way to go!' to Branson and Musk if I had the resources fellas I would be right there with you.. By the way if you are looking for an eager budget and finance analyst drop me a line lol !!

 

[cyberdog501]

between the radiation and meteorites,we shouldn,t try and build on the moon when it would be so much easier,and profitable to tunnel into the moon,material is processed, well protected,we may find cavitys underground.that would really speed expantion of livable habitat!!!

 

[rhowington]

Yes, I voted for cancellation. 72% of posters can hate me now. The reason I voted for cancellation didn't have anything to do with returning to the moon and establishing a permanent presence but, how NASA planned to accomplish getting there. I always, (and still do) thought the Constellation program was a joke.

WHY?

1. "Back to the Future", abandon winged re-entry vehicles for capsules (don't the Russians already use them?).
2. Double the launch, double the cost. Please, do we really need 2 vehicles to accomplish one goal?
3. "Everybody has to sacrifice". Let's dump another 100 billion on a new system at the expense of exploration. Didn't we just do that with the "International Space Station"? (The 'International' part is a joke.) Of course we will get some return on the space station, when we crash it into the pacific in 5 to 10 years. Yeah, that was money well spent.

I say return to the moon, go to Mars, mine the asteroids but, do it logicaly. Just dumping money at a project isn't the answer. NASA needs to come up with a sustainable, safe, and upgradeable system. NASA needs to explore the use of nuclear propultion once the vehicle is outside the atmosphere, work on solar sails and magnetic shielding for long term space and planetary habitation. NASA needs to dump all plans for putting humans in low earth orbit, leave that to commercial enterprises.

Lastly, see what we've done with Cassini, look at the taste of Mercury Messenger has given us , the vistas from Hubble, I mourn for what Constellation Programs cost over-runs could have revealed about our universe.

 

[Xplaner]

Commercial fusion from ITER by 2016? Not even close. The research reactor might be done by 2030 if there are no more delays.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsi ... ience.html
But there likely might never be commercial reactors from ITER. It's only useful as a research physics item.

Thinking small - rushing to the Moon on a shoestring budget only to pack up and go home isn't thinking big. Catalyzing bottom up industry is thinking big. The moon isn't cancelled. Unrealistic moon plans are.

According to the ITER website, http://www.iter.org/proj/Pages/ITERAndBeyond.aspx, the reactor is expected to come on line in 2018, and is to provide power to local customers. The fact remains that the time to begin returning to the moon and start doing practical things there is not when the need arises, but in anticipation to the need. This country is short-sighted enough already, we don't need to continue making mistakes along that line. And yes, returning to the moon on a shoestring budget and not doing anything more is not a good idea, rather the project should be fully funded and fully exploited.

You will never successfully argue the point that private industry is going to any more than the minimum it's customers will pay for, and that is very little over the next two decades. The purpose of government institutions like NASA, Lincoln Lab, and the like is to do what private industry will not because the profitability is not there... yet. By developing technology, private industry can ultimately take over when the profitability is there. With only a handful of people able to pay for commercial spaceflght, the rest of us will be firmly planted on the ground for many decades, not only in body, but now in mind as well.

 

[spacedengr]

Let's Review:
1. The manned spaceflight gap was created by Bush, not Obama. Constellation started 5 years late and was then underfunded. The question is: Will the gap be another 4 or 5 years, or who knows when?
2. Manned spaceflight is important to a country with any claim to lead the world. My wife was in Italy during Apollo 11. Thousands thronged the streets to see the live coverage on TV (most Italians did not have a TV then). They cheered us: "America is the greatest country! They have done this great thing for all of the world!" When is the last time everyone cheered for America?
3. In the 1920s, the postal service created a gimmick called "AirMail" to provide some seed money for some air transport startups that at the time could not fly more than 50 miles without crashing. They did NOT hand them all of the US mail and say "Here. Deliver this." It took more than 20 years and the DC-3 for air travel to be practical. It took 40 years and the Boeing 707 for it to become ubiquitous.
Do we really want to hand manned spaceflight to these startups that have never actually orbited anything, let alone humans? How can we expect them to design/build/test/qualify manned systems? If it were as easy as some people seem to believe, why have they not done it already? I can make beautiful briefing charts too.
We have hardware, we have a plan. We have already spent $9B of the taxpayers' money. It would cost $2.5B just to kill the program, as well as dissolving the hard-won knowledge it has taken 60 years to amass.

You should not change horses in the middle of the race.

 

[menellom]

Let's Review:
1. The manned spaceflight gap was created by Bush, not Obama. Constellation started 5 years late and was then underfunded. The question is: Will the gap be another 4 or 5 years, or who knows when?
2. Manned spaceflight is important to a country with any claim to lead the world. My wife was in Italy during Apollo 11. Thousands thronged the streets to see the live coverage on TV (most Italians did not have a TV then). They cheered us: "America is the greatest country! They have done this great thing for all of the world!" When is the last time everyone cheered for America?
3. In the 1920s, the postal service created a gimmick called "AirMail" to provide some seed money for some air transport startups that at the time could not fly more than 50 miles without crashing. They did NOT hand them all of the US mail and say "Here. Deliver this." It took more than 20 years and the DC-3 for air travel to be practical. It took 40 years and the Boeing 707 for it to become ubiquitous.
Do we really want to hand manned spaceflight to these startups that have never actually orbited anything, let alone humans? How can we expect them to design/build/test/qualify manned systems? If it were as easy as some people seem to believe, why have they not done it already? I can make beautiful briefing charts too.
We have hardware, we have a plan. We have already spent $9B of the taxpayers' money. It would cost $2.5B just to kill the program, as well as dissolving the hard-won knowledge it has taken 60 years to amass.

1. As much as I loathed the last Administration, the current apathy and underfunding of NASA is the result of the last eight administrations, going all the way back to Johnson, as well as the growing science gap in the US. With the exception of few tiny budget increases over the last 40 years or so, most of which didn't last more than a fiscal year, NASA hasn't been seriously funded since Skylab. I'm not throwing a parade in the streets for Obama or anything - but I think the man's making a serious effort to do the best he can with what he's got. In spite of concerns that he would cut NASA's budget to fund education, he's actually increasing NASA's budget while also supporting a massive overhaul for science education and science advocacy.
2. Within the last month when the US rushed to Haiti's aide after the earthquake. There are literally clips of Haitian crowds chanting "USA! USA!" as troops help rescue people from the ruins. I realize some are concerned that canceling Constellation may hurt our leadership in space and our national pride, etc. But I don't think that's true.
3. We're not talking about an industry that's never launched a rocket before. SpaceX's latest rocket, the Falcon 9 (the Falcon 1 has flown successful flights since '08) is on the launch pad, fully tested, fully constructed, waiting to launch. Bigelow Aerospace has two inflatable module prototypes in orbit as we speak and is launching its main first life-support capable habitat early next year.

 

[CaptainJBo]

Let's Review: . . . You should not change horses in the middle of the race.

I find your comments right on target. The Air Mail example is particularly telling. I want commercial to get their chance--when they are ready. In the meantime, Constellation provides an extremely safe and reliable way to continue human space exploration.

 

[menellom]

Let's Review: . . . You should not change horses in the middle of the race.

I find your comments right on target. The Air Mail example is particularly telling. I want commercial to get their chance--when they are ready. In the meantime, Constellation provides an extremely safe and reliable way to continue human space exploration.

Constellation wouldn't actually be providing an extremely safe reliable way to continue human space exploration until 2017 or 2018 when Ares I is finally finished. The private industry can provide such transportation much sooner.

 

[Chairshot215]

I will make my comment short. From reading most, whether or not one cares about the cancellation of Constellation depends on political views. I think of all the successful NASA Missions like Hubble, Kepler, Casini and the mars rovers. The scientific discoveries from these programs have kept my interest in the space program, I cant tell you the last time I watched the shuttle lift off but I can tell you that I look every day in the hopes that Kepler has found a planet or that we have learned more about the lakes on Titan. I think it would be a grate idea to have the ability to develop many more such projects. Think of how many of these type programs have not seen the light of day because of the Constellation budget. Anyhow, thats my free 2 cents. I would rather have an army of exploratory robots than a ship that goes back and forth from one or maybe three different objects.

 

[BenS1985]

I know this may sound sappy and/or idealistic but....

As an American, I owe a great deal of gratitude to men and women who set out and explored the continent hundreds of years ago. Columbus, Magellan, Ericson, the natives that came across the Bering land bridge, and obviously my German and English ancestors that came to the state where I live.

Much in the same way, I think that America owes a debt of gratitude to others for its colonization. With that in mind, I believe that its our duty to pay it forward and work toward reaching every area of the solar system. Not just for America, but every nation that decides to leave this world and travel to others.

Constellation was part of that. Now its not. We spend more money keeping troops in Europe, a region that doesn't need or want us, than we spend on NASA. I think its incredibly short sighted to do what NASA is. 500 years from now, I would hope that people look back with a thankful attitude of what America contributed to space exploration and colonization. With what America is doing, it makes that idea a little bit harder.

I have full confidence in our private programs. SpaceX and Bigelow are great programs. However, to have NASA slash budgets in favor of climate research, and working on status-quo programs doesn't cut it for me. NASA, like America, needs to think and dream big. We certainly are not under this administration.

And I will leave it at that.

 

[nimbus]

Commercial fusion from ITER by 2016? Not even close. The research reactor might be done by 2030 if there are no more delays.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsi ... ience.html
But there likely might never be commercial reactors from ITER. It's only useful as a research physics item.

Thinking small - rushing to the Moon on a shoestring budget only to pack up and go home isn't thinking big. Catalyzing bottom up industry is thinking big. The moon isn't cancelled. Unrealistic moon plans are.

According to the ITER website, http://www.iter.org/proj/Pages/ITERAndBeyond.aspx, the reactor is expected to come on line in 2018, and is to provide power to local customers.

No useful fusion from ITER reactors for a few decades at least, outside of experimental work. The ITER website sells koolaid and you've just parroted it.

The fact remains that the time to begin returning to the moon and start doing practical things there is not when the need arises, but in anticipation to the need. This country is short-sighted enough already, we don't need to continue making mistakes along that line. And yes, returning to the moon on a shoestring budget and not doing anything more is not a good idea, rather the project should be fully funded and fully exploited.

C.F. Augustine. There is no money to "fully fund" direct return to the moon now. Not gonna happen.

You will never successfully argue the point that private industry is going to any more than the minimum it's customers will pay for, and that is very little over the next two decades.

Your hands set on your ears. Odds are that by 2020 people will seriously be talking about planning missions to the Moon and/or Mars.

The purpose of government institutions like NASA, Lincoln Lab, and the like is to do what private industry will not because the profitability is not there... yet. By developing technology, private industry can ultimately take over when the profitability is there. With only a handful of people able to pay for commercial spaceflght, the rest of us will be firmly planted on the ground for many decades, not only in body, but now in mind as well.

Flawed truisms. The tech for space access is already done. Profitability will be there when there's a market. There'll be a market when space access is cheap enough. Catch 22. SpaceX, Bigelow, ULA, all of them are ready and willing to pay for the initial cost of breaking that catch 22. This recent policy change, taken at face value, aims to encourage that. Affordable and reliable access to space is the bottleneck that must be broken.

I know this may sound sappy and/or idealistic but....

As an American, I owe a great deal of gratitude to men and women who set out and explored the continent hundreds of years ago. Columbus, Magellan, Ericson, the natives that came across the Bering land bridge, and obviously my German and English ancestors that came to the state where I live.

Much in the same way, I think that America owes a debt of gratitude to others for its colonization. With that in mind, I believe that its our duty to pay it forward and work toward reaching every area of the solar system. Not just for America, but every nation that decides to leave this world and travel to others.

Constellation was part of that. Now its not. We spend more money keeping troops in Europe, a region that doesn't need or want us, than we spend on NASA. I think its incredibly short sighted to do what NASA is. 500 years from now, I would hope that people look back with a thankful attitude of what America contributed to space exploration and colonization. With what America is doing, it makes that idea a little bit harder.

I have full confidence in our private programs. SpaceX and Bigelow are great programs. However, to have NASA slash budgets in favor of climate research, and working on status-quo programs doesn't cut it for me. NASA, like America, needs to think and dream big. We certainly are not under this administration.

And I will leave it at that.

NASA budget was increased.
Politicians get to mislead NASA every which way because the American public just doesn't care enough. Same reason why it's been at .5% of the budget for decades. In this same context, a space exploration and arguably first precursor to colonization, that's under performing, over budget, and behind schedule, isn't going to win enough support to survive. Not when alternatives are, more likely than not, capable of giving that same space access cheaper, faster, and just as reliably. Not in economic circumstances like today's.

 

[IronBob]

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.

That's about the dumbest statement I've read on here yet. So far, SpaceX's track record is about the same as Russia's the last three years, (3/5) and had they had their way, they would have dropped a tank somewhere between Texas and Savannah. Now that his highness has cancelled Ares, just exactly how will Ares compete to prove your point?

 

[RichLoba]

The future is un-manned spacecraft because you can have more missions for the same price.
I lived when the shutdown the moon landings, why, because of the echonomy.
This was indeed very sad as a kid, but being older now, i see what we have been able to do with robots, such as Hubble, Mars landers, etc.
Just like the new drowns, there is no reason to risk people when a robot can do it, and for less.
My vision is everyone being able to have their own space drowns that can fly through space wherever they want to go.
Now that is something that is possible.
Think of it like video games, but real, and learning something. :lol:

 

[IronBob]

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.

Psst...pssstttt....don't tell anyone but if you think that the piddling amount of money that these so-called "commercial" entities are going to receive from NASA is going to finance any of what you're talking about then you're sniffing rocket fuel. This is going to kill you but all those things you just cited would take massive amounts of money to study much less produce. This is going to kill you probably, but NASA doesn't really "design" most of the big hardware items.

So do you honestly believe that SpaceX or anyone else is going to want to put their butt on the line by cutting corners and saving money? So where are all these cost benefits going to come from? Do you honestly think any of these companies are going to just blindly create these technologies with no upfront funding!? I got news for you, it's all fun and games now but when SpaceX or any other "commercial" venture takes on a customer, the whole ballgame changes.

I can't wait for Virgin to start shuttling people. The first thing that's going to happen is "I thought it would be higher up than this", "The ride wasn't long enough" , "I paid $500,000 for THIS!?". Once you have a customer, the game changes and Lockheed had a customer that basically wanted something for nothing because they were given next to nothing for something.

 

[dohphd]

We have turned this circus into political football. The Clinton administration canceled SEI and started the X33. The George Bush administration canceled the X33, started the Ares I and Ares V and reinstated a return to the moon. The Obama administration has now canceled the return to the moon and given this to industry which has yet to show it is capable of putting humans in space. We will pay the Russian close to $60 million per launch to get Americans to the ISS. With China holding hour credit and Russia our only access to space, it is hard to believe that this represents US leadership.

We need to stay a course longer than 8 years of Republicans or Democrats. Weare falling further behind every administration.

 

[menellom]

We have turned this circus into political football. The Clinton administration canceled SEI and started the X33. The George Bush administration canceled the X33, started the Ares I and Ares V and reinstated a return to the moon. The Obama administration has now canceled the return to the moon and given this to industry which has yet to show it is capable of putting humans in space. We will pay the Russian close to $60 million per launch to get Americans to the ISS. With China holding hour credit and Russia our only access to space, it is hard to believe that this represents US leadership.

We need to stay a course longer than 8 years of Republicans or Democrats. Weare falling further behind every administration.

That's one of the reasons why I think this is the right move. A presidential administration can't "cancel" the private industry, or the technological progress NASA makes like it can a rocket or a program. If NASA develops a small nuclear reactor or a new propulsion system or something like that, it won't matter if the next administration comes in and outlines a new program, because the advancements will still have been made.

 

[AstroMike]

Not the Moon

We've been there done that, seen it. Even Buzz Aldrin agrees!

We even have had robotic missions there since Apollo, like Clementine, Lunar Prospector, and now LRO. Finding "ice" on the Moon, is about as important as a child learning that a freezer is for just that! Its time that NASA, and the world "spacefaring" countries, that is those with agencies, form a "World Space Agency".

Along with NASA, the Russians, member countries of the European Space Agency (ESA), Canada, China even Japan, could forge a new alliance, so that we could go not as competitors, but as one, human ambassadors. The next logicial step I feel is Mars! We're not talking science fiction here, but reality! The new Ares/Constellation program would not necessarily end, but could also be used for station visits, and re-supply, and eventually Mars concepts!

India, Korea, ..
India Looks To Global Effort For Manned Mars Mission

I like the idea of a WSA, it's a rational approach. Whether or not you'd get people to go for the idea is another question entirely. US likes competing with everyone else, China's still convinced they're landing on Mars in 10 years, there'd be a lot of negotiation involved. And if we're only talking about involving those countries with launch capability it wouldn't be a serious pool of funding - the total combined budget of the five major players after the US (EU, Russia, Japan, China, India) isn't even half of NASA's budget... if we want a serious pool ($50 billion plus) we're gonna need to involve a LOT of countries.


Also BIG UPDATE! Bolden Conference bumped up, starting in 15 minutes!!! Link!
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html

Buzz Aldrin has his own agenda. He has been trying to get his own private sector space craft company off the ground for years. Of course he agrees with civilian space flight. It could potentially put money in HIS pocket. The canceling of Constellation sets the USA back almost unrecoverably. The cycle is always- start a program, get halfway through- face adversity-cancel program after the investment of millions to billions of dollars..EVERY PROGRAM will face adversity, and when a new Administration takes office, be it 4 years or 8, NASA's direction will change again. We need to give NASA their marching orders and give them the time to complete them. Gemini, Mercury, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle...They All faced adversity. Constellation was a good program facing adversity. With our "hit a wall and quit" approach, we will never go anywhere..Ever again.

 

[Cosmicvoid]

... So do you honestly believe that SpaceX or anyone else is going to want to put their butt on the line by cutting corners and saving money? So where are all these cost benefits going to come from? Do you honestly think any of these companies are going to just blindly create these technologies with no upfront funding!? I got news for you, it's all fun and games now but when SpaceX or any other "commercial" venture takes on a customer, the whole ballgame changes.

Psst... psssttt, hey, IronBob, didja know that Elon Musk funded Spacex out of his own pocket (plus investors), to develop working hardware that is now being contracted to customers.

From SpaceX's site:
"... SpaceX now has twenty three Falcon 9 flights on contract representing a variety of commercial and government customers ..."

So where do you get your misinformation? Or do you just make it up?

 

[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.

That's about the dumbest statement I've read on here yet. So far, SpaceX's track record is about the same as Russia's the last three years, (3/5) and had they had their way, they would have dropped a tank somewhere between Texas and Savannah. Now that his highness has cancelled Ares, just exactly how will Ares compete to prove your point?

Just how was Ares any better than anything when it wasn't even done being designed, had never flown, and was, even in design, behind schedule, over budget, and under performing?

Taking away the ad hom in your argument, what's left is the assertion that because SpaceX crashed and burned in their first attempts, the rest of their work will follow suit. Which is flawed because the statistical sample is tiny (# of launches, age of SpaceX the enterprise, etc), because it ignores that rocket science is hard, because it's passionately (as opposed to dispassionately, impartially) biased to condemn SpaceX with no accounting for their efforts to improve.

Next it's at least even odds that one of the private efforts (e.g. ULA, SpaceX) will get people to the ISS sooner than Ares had. And probably cheaper. So much for Ares being the "smart" bet.

So.... Sit back and keep the crow nearby, you may just eat some sooner than later.

 

[nimbus]

On Delta IV man rating -

expected to fly 10 times by the projected mid 2014 IOC date

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ ... ster-plan/

SpaceX has a man rated Falcon at the pad already. Not flying one by the time Ares would have been ready to taxi people would definitely be a failure. Watch and see for yourself IronBob.

 

[coby21]

As the second question in the pol sais, "a change of pace"? CONSTILATION IS THE "PACE" for human space flight. NASA and our country has just had the rug pulled out from under our feet.
Yes we have been to the moon for politicul reasons (1969-70's). Bot not mutch was done their but take great photos and bring home some rocks. The men that did that are great heros to our nation. But going back to stay and useing it for a jumping off point (gas station) to other parts or the solar system is the way to become a true HUMAN space fairing world-nation. OBAMA! SHAME ON YOU!

 

[EarthlingX]

As the second question in the pol sais, "a change of pace"? CONSTILATION IS THE "PACE" for human space flight. NASA and our country has just had the rug pulled out from under our feet.
Yes we have been to the moon for politicul reasons (1969-70's). Bot not mutch was done their but take great photos and bring home some rocks. The men that did that are great heros to our nation. But going back to stay and useing it for a jumping off point (gas station) to other parts or the solar system is the way to become a true HUMAN space fairing world-nation. OBAMA! SHAME ON YOU!

Check this, see if you like:
Fuel depot impact protection (forum)

 

[menellom]

As the second question in the pol sais, "a change of pace"? CONSTILATION IS THE "PACE" for human space flight. NASA and our country has just had the rug pulled out from under our feet.
Yes we have been to the moon for politicul reasons (1969-70's). Bot not mutch was done their but take great photos and bring home some rocks. The men that did that are great heros to our nation. But going back to stay and useing it for a jumping off point (gas station) to other parts or the solar system is the way to become a true HUMAN space fairing world-nation. OBAMA! SHAME ON YOU!

Three points. First, this may seem a rather shallow gripe, but I feel I need to point it out anyways. Spelling:

Poll not pol
Says not sais
Constellation not Constilation
Political not politicul
Much not mutch
Heroes not heros
Using not useing
Faring not fairing

Second point, dropping the blame on Obama is hardly fair, the current situation is the result of severe underfunding and growing political and public apathy over the course of over 30 years. I don't agree one hundred percent with the proposal, but given the situation I'm grateful NASA's not on the chopping block.

Third, if the Constellation program was 'the pace' for human spaceflight, I imagine you would see it on the track being passed by an obese man. Constellation was a decade behind, at best. Even if the current proposal were blocked and Constellation continued, it would be seven or eight years before NASA has the capacity to launch on its own again.

 

[SciFi2010]

If someone delivers cheap paint and paper to you, it doesn’t make him or her Michelangelo. The same thing is true with cheap bits and bolts for engines. The fact that the Chinese deliver it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can design a fundamental new engine. Somehow we have to compensate our weaknesses with the strengths of others. One way or the other we have to take advantage of the flow of (cheap) imported goods, services and immigration or we are in deep trouble by taking only the burdens of it. We could use imported goods and services as building-blocks 1.to improve our production-processes (to reduce costs) and 2.create new products (goods and services) to increase American export, which is already happening but not enough (It is more consumption than production). For example most of the computer-hardware is imported, but most of the software, fundamental hardware (processors) and its applications are still designed and made in the US (Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Google, Adobe, Oracle, Cisco, Sun, etc…). With this in mind we should make our products, production-processes and administration more “intelligent” with computerization, robotization and A.I. to reduce costs, improve quality and invent new products. A good example is the electrification of the car-industry. It computerized and robotisized its production-processes and the same things are happening with its products, electric and hybrid cars (and give the cars more fuel-efficiency and –flexibility → oil, coal, gas, solar, wind, hydro- and geothermal energy, etc…). What we need now is more Artificial Intelligence in the production-processes and in the products. The same thing can be said about the PC-market, if we can introduce A.I. inside a PC every student could have its own teacher. (We have now more young Chess- masters starting from 10 years than ever before thanks to the computer and Chess-software) Even parts of the Aerospace industry are imported, but Boeing airplanes for example are made in the US. We could do the same with immigration; we could take advantage of immigration and limit the disadvantages to improve our economy (without exploiting anyone). We could regulate the flow and duration of stay of economic immigrants according to the needs and cycle of the economy. A temporary residence permit (and insurance) can be given to immigrants selected on need and background (education, skill, no criminal record, etc…), but should leave when that need is over (with the option to return if needed), while a permanent stay in the US can still be earned through exceptional skill and accomplishment. I think that is one way to keep immigration sustainable (and legal) if we take into account that most of the migration to developed nations is mostly based on economics. (Political refugees, human- and drug-trafficking and terrorism are another part of the story, but I don’t know a direct solution for that besides good policy and customs). What I am trying to say is: we have to use our creativity and imagination with the “components” that are given to us (or we are in deep ****!). The same thing applies for a 21st century plan to colonize Low Earth Orbit, the moon and mars. If we just use the same technology and economics we’ll just end with another Apollo project and ISS station: An expensive burden, which can carry only a hand few astronauts selected by governments or wealth, while its continuity and development are purely decided by tax-payers money and policy. Everybody is complaining about it and we fantasize that America will bring millions of people into LEO space and beyond, which will not be the case if the fundamentals are wrong. The problem is capitalism takes time to work. You have got to imagine what the mechanisms are to develop a mature airplane industry (like Boeing and Airbus) including infrastructure (airports, radar, etc…) starting from the Wright brothers at the beginning of the 20th century till now. Sure we need government incentives and investments, but if governments start to monopolize the market it goes nowhere. For 50 years the technology stayed essentially the same and only a handful of chosen ones were allowed to go. We should be able to experiment and buy cheap parts of the shelf. Better late and well prepared, than too soon and ill prepared. (if we didn’t learn enough from rushing into Iraq → no plan, not enough funding, equipment and personnel to occupy Iraq→ Iraq’s society falls apart and we retreat). No matter what others say there’s no other nation that has more knowledge and experience to colonize the moon than US. Most other countries (even Russia) are trying to copy the Apollo project, which is not enough to colonize the moon. And we need back-up exit strategies in case something fails (remember Apollo 13 “Hello Houston, we have a problem”). China and India don’t even have spacestations to experiment with space launch, space-technology and long-term effects in space (China is not even allowed to join ISS). We still have at least 30 years time if not more. We should repair the economy; evaluate the results of the commercial aerospace program after 4 to 8 years and come up with a new moon program based on new technology, economics and long-term funding. We may even find out in the end whether any nation can do it alone financially and technically.
“2001”, directed by Stanley Kubrick, might be 2041: “HAL, we are finally colonizing the moon”.

 

[Xplaner]

Commercial fusion from ITER by 2016? Not even close. The research reactor might be done by 2030 if there are no more delays.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsi ... ience.html
But there likely might never be commercial reactors from ITER. It's only useful as a research physics item.

Thinking small - rushing to the Moon on a shoestring budget only to pack up and go home isn't thinking big. Catalyzing bottom up industry is thinking big. The moon isn't cancelled. Unrealistic moon plans are.

According to the ITER website, http://www.iter.org/proj/Pages/ITERAndBeyond.aspx, the reactor is expected to come on line in 2018, and is to provide power to local customers.

No useful fusion from ITER reactors for a few decades at least, outside of experimental work. The ITER website sells koolaid and you've just parroted it.

The fact remains that the time to begin returning to the moon and start doing practical things there is not when the need arises, but in anticipation to the need. This country is short-sighted enough already, we don't need to continue making mistakes along that line. And yes, returning to the moon on a shoestring budget and not doing anything more is not a good idea, rather the project should be fully funded and fully exploited.

C.F. Augustine. There is no money to "fully fund" direct return to the moon now. Not gonna happen.

You will never successfully argue the point that private industry is going to any more than the minimum it's customers will pay for, and that is very little over the next two decades.

Your hands set on your ears. Odds are that by 2020 people will seriously be talking about planning missions to the Moon and/or Mars.

The purpose of government institutions like NASA, Lincoln Lab, and the like is to do what private industry will not because the profitability is not there... yet. By developing technology, private industry can ultimately take over when the profitability is there. With only a handful of people able to pay for commercial spaceflght, the rest of us will be firmly planted on the ground for many decades, not only in body, but now in mind as well.

Flawed truisms. The tech for space access is already done. Profitability will be there when there's a market. There'll be a market when space access is cheap enough. Catch 22. SpaceX, Bigelow, ULA, all of them are ready and willing to pay for the initial cost of breaking that catch 22. This recent policy change, taken at face value, aims to encourage that. Affordable and reliable access to space is the bottleneck that must be broken.

Do you have and actual facts to back up what you are saying? NO offense, but between you and the PhD holding scientists ACTUALLY DOING REASEARCH IN THE FIELD I'll go with them. The ITER project has already produced the reaction in an experimental reactor, so I don't know where you are getting your information from. Second, having worked in the aerospace industry, attended the conferences and partaken in the business development side, I can assure you 100% that no private business is ever going to do anything unless they believe there is little probability (i.e. 0.1%) that they will not recover their full investment plus a risk premium. By 2020, we will still be talking about missions to the moon and beyond, and we'll be playing catch-up. This co0untry leads and you want us to follow. Tell me, what, precisely, is the use in "affordable and reliable access to space" when there's nothing to do up there but come right back down. Nothing useful in LEO for the average customer.