POLL: What Should Obama Have NASA Do?

[doublehelix]

A White House panel tasked with reevaluating NASA's plans for future space exploration has trimmed a list of 3,000 options down to about seven general scenarios, which it plans to cull even further before presenting them to President Barack Obama later this month.

http://www.space.com/news/090805-human- ... tions.html

 

[kevinm1984]

Right time and the right place as I got to be the first vote. Good to see my opinion is shared. We need to get off this rock someday and we have a long way to go to consider moving anywhere else. Time to push ahead with manned missions without neglecting unmanned science missions.

 

[bbfreakDude]

I voted for the third option, but that being said I'd be in favor of a combination of two and three with some modifications. Going beyond LEO and not landing is insane, humans can do their best work when it comes to actual science on the surface. Unmanned probes have us beat in flybys and orbital observation. So why wouldn't you land?

Also, I don't agree in having a set time period in which we must have this stuff done as in the second option, I don't care when we leave LEO as long as we're heading in that direction and its sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. The Chinese can even beat us back to the moon for all I care, all I care is that we do it right this time. That means leaving LEO for good, no more flag and footprint missions. No more of science being an afterthought in human missions.

It also has to be done in a sustainable manner, considering NASA isn't going to ever get an increase in its budget most likely. I do think that is within our grasp, if we work towards that goal rather than just back to the moon in mind.

As for a Mars mission? Many of you know my position, mostly that I think its an insane task that can't be done without a huge amount of resources and investment for very little known benefits (no, possibilities don't count). Not to mention I think such a mission, especially a direct trip only endangers the overall goal of living and working in space beyond LEO. Just because we want to go isn't a good enough reason, and you can dress it up all you want as the head of Mars Society did yesterday to the Committee but there is NO compelling reason to go to mars anytime soon.

Lets do it right this time people, and it isn't a matter of whether or not we go. As others will go with or without us, they'd prefer with us but wheather we remain a leader in space and exploration depends entirely on what is decided sometime soon.

 

[BigAlFry]

I know that I don't have the highest education, nor am I a rocket scientist. That being said; I voted for none because as cool as the space program is and as fascinating as space exploration can be, I don't think it's necessary right now. What I think should happen is they should cut the budget, have the government spend money where it is needed and have NASA reduce their tasks to engineering. Have them sit there and plan a manned mission to Mars, work out all the details for constructing a self sustaining habitat on Mars and then begin building and testing systems and technology for the mission when the country isn't in such a tough spot and the money is readily available.
Once again, I'm no genius, but it seems to me like NASA is wasting it's time with useless projects. What the heck is the international space station? It's a rediculously expensive habitat where absolutely nothing gets done. What research do they do out there? Microgravity experiments. Why do they need such a large and expensive habitat to see if prolonged time in microgravity increases your chances of kidney stones? Not only that but it will finally be finished in 2011, float around up there doing next to nothing before being decomissioned and NASA de-orbiting it around 2020. As cool as it is to have a space station, it's useless.
Just sit down, choose a REAL mission, plan it out, engineer it, build it, find a handful of people who are willing to take a risk and fly it.
Why is everyone in such a damn hurry to get off this planet? I know it has to be done eventually and it would be good to go to a new planet and start from scratch and avoid all the mistakes we made on this one, but honestly. We won't ever get to Mars wasting all this time and money on pointless things. Thie ISS isnt getting us to Mars. It's not even self sustaining.

 

[shuttlebob]

Obama is right on track, doing exactly what he said he would do. He recognizes the reality of this world's present situation. Important people have been nominated and placed in critcal positions with some very challenging tasks. The new NASA administrator is made of the "Right Stuff". He knows first hand of the Shuttle Program's acheivements and continuing tasks associated with the ISS and LEO. We need to extend the Shuttle Program and become proficient in supporting and servicing the ISS and future constuction projects here in lower earth orbit, without adding to the current space debris concerns. Our global relationships with other space-faring nations continues to be one of the best products derived from ISS and Shuttle Program operations for the past 30+ years. That said. I'm still not comfortable with being dependent on our foreign partners for transportation and supplies while we wait for the new Vehicle and Launch System. The mission to Mars will require global cooperation, which is still being developed, and funding that no nation can do alone. Lets start dreaming with our eyes open.

 

[bbfreakDude]

I know that I don't have the highest education, nor am I a rocket scientist. That being said; I voted for none because as cool as the space program is and as fascinating as space exploration can be, I don't think it's necessary right now. What I think should happen is they should cut the budget, have the government spend money where it is needed.

Where is NASA's 18.6 billion 2010 budget actually going to make much of a difference? With 6.176 billion to be spent on actual space operations, and 3.963 billion on exploration. Does that sound like a lot of money to you? Well, if it does you should enlighten yourself. Its a drop in a bucket compared to two trillion dollars in mandatory spending (Medicare/Medicade/Social Security/Welfare/Unemployment, etc). Also not very much compared to the DOD, DOT, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and many more.

I agree that NASA should work towards being self sustaining, but I disagree on you're seeming to want to trash the ISS. At least not for the investment we've put into it, 2020 maybe, but not before that.

I can also agree that our tax dollars should always be spent efficiently, I just don't see less than one percent of the federal budget being spent on an investment of space and science as a bad thing. In fact I think it should be at least two or even three percent, but that's not going to happen.

 

[holmec]

More funding is the obvious answer if anyone has been following the Austine's Commission (HSF).

Wouldn't mind a poll with the options that the HSF is considering. No ISS or international coop in this one. And no going further than Mars.

I have developed a problem with Mars in that Mars in and of itself becomes a show-stopper. How about exploring all of the inner solar system with manned and unmanned missions on an international level?

 

[holmec]

And what of the commercial space?

Have a poll to see who supports the COTS-D (commercial companies ferrying NASA astronauts to LEO)?

 

[road_runner321]

The fervor and pride we felt as a nation, as a planet, during the moon landings is a testament to our wonder of space travel. I know we still feel that same wonder and curiosity, but it sits there, under the surface; untapped, dormant. If only we had a visible and ambitious symbol, a mission of hope, to get behind, we would fly again into the strange places, the unknown where anything can happen. The stars call us. We heard them once. Will we hear them again?

 

[Samsworld53]

What we need to do is scrap the Orion concept. The vibration issues are a major concern. Why spend money on a concept that might not work. Some NASA engineers developed on the own time a heavy lift concept using equipment we already have, with minor configuration adjustments would be a viable option. This was rejected by NASA. Why? To spend more money on Research and development. We gave up the Saturn 5 HLV for the space shuttle. Which is a great space craft? We could go back to that system. We know it works or! Instead we should go with tried and tested technology. The HLV and or Block 11 HLV composed of shuttle components would be more economical. Ice formation or foam loss on the tank would not be an issue. It seems that it can lift big payloads and even a service module and Lander for the trip to the moon and mars. This approach makes more sense, and the budget already at 18 billion will get more bangs for the buck. We need to continue the space program and really “go where no man has gone before.” If we don’t then, we will become a second rate country .If you think we are detested now, see what happens when we tuck tail and hide from this great challenge. We are the greatest country in the world; we need to live up to that billing.

 

[ZenMasterSauce]

I voted for the third option, but that being said I'd be in favor of a combination of two and three with some modifications. Going beyond LEO and not landing is insane, humans can do their best work when it comes to actual science on the surface. Unmanned probes have us beat in flybys and orbital observation. So why wouldn't you land?

Also, I don't agree in having a set time period in which we must have this stuff done as in the second option, I don't care when we leave LEO as long as we're heading in that direction and its sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. The Chinese can even beat us back to the moon for all I care, all I care is that we do it right this time. That means leaving LEO for good, no more flag and footprint missions. No more of science being an afterthought in human missions.

It also has to be done in a sustainable manner, considering NASA isn't going to ever get an increase in its budget most likely. I do think that is within our grasp, if we work towards that goal rather than just back to the moon in mind.

As for a Mars mission? Many of you know my position, mostly that I think its an insane task that can't be done without a huge amount of resources and investment for very little known benefits (no, possibilities don't count). Not to mention I think such a mission, especially a direct trip only endangers the overall goal of living and working in space beyond LEO. Just because we want to go isn't a good enough reason, and you can dress it up all you want as the head of Mars Society did yesterday to the Committee but there is NO compelling reason to go to mars anytime soon.

Lets do it right this time people, and it isn't a matter of whether or not we go. As others will go with or without us, they'd prefer with us but wheather we remain a leader in space and exploration depends entirely on what is decided sometime soon.

-- I must say that I agree and disagree with some of the things mentioned. First I choose the last option specifically because of the challenge it would force upon an organization that seems to be just a mirror image of what the US has been lately, stuck in a rutt and certainly not moving anywhere at a fast enough pace. Although safety and feasibility with budgets is something to concern ourselves with; especially when it comes to doings things efficiently and cost effective, it should not be a precursor to pushing to do things that renews a sense of importance for what those thousands of people do day in and day out. I think in this country we often occupy ourselves with gossip and focus less on the things that actually made us great in the past. Why we rose so fast and so far. That is why Mars Direct is the best option because removing the focus of economic hardships and replacing it with the youth that maybe they can push for something similar in the future is what its about.


That being said let me also say that although Mars Direct is my choice, NASA should be tasked for more than what it does now in terms of LEO, which I think is a gold mine of opportunity if used properly. And that means paring up with the private sector to make LEO more than a rountine but a place for manufacturing, living space, and jumps to farther places. This also does require some extra investment but as much as the powers that be talk about a ROI with the ISS, if we use the ISS and a launching point for everything from fuel depots to LEO travel, we have our return. It all depends again on the plan. its about money yes, which our government should give them a solid and continuous funding line anyway, but its more about the vision. Bush had some part of that right at least and with this committee I think Obama could enhance and further the start of a better one. It all depends on us. But enough of the standing around waiting for someone to either compete with us directly, like the Soviet Union, we need to do just because we can. Everyone is going to the Moon in the next 20 years. Going to Mars pushes that envelope for everyone.

BTW- a stay on Mars is at least 500 days long so support and living in space on another planet is already a large part of the experience the ISS is. We have the skills and the know how, lets just do it already.

 

[ZenMasterSauce]

What we need to do is scrap the Orion concept. The vibration issues are a major concern. Why spend money on a concept that might not work. Some NASA engineers developed on the own time a heavy lift concept using equipment we already have, with minor configuration adjustments would be a viable option. This was rejected by NASA. Why? To spend more money on Research and development. We gave up the Saturn 5 HLV for the space shuttle. Which is a great space craft? We could go back to that system. We know it works or! Instead we should go with tried and tested technology. The HLV and or Block 11 HLV composed of shuttle components would be more economical. Ice formation or foam loss on the tank would not be an issue. It seems that it can lift big payloads and even a service module and Lander for the trip to the moon and mars. This approach makes more sense, and the budget already at 18 billion will get more bangs for the buck. We need to continue the space program and really “go where no man has gone before.” If we don’t then, we will become a second rate country .If you think we are detested now, see what happens when we tuck tail and hide from this great challenge. We are the greatest country in the world; we need to live up to that billing.

Two issues wrong with the Saturn 5 HLV. It is OLD. And upgrading the systems to actually work and work well in the 21st century is a waste of money. What is needed for the 21st century is something made for the century. Although Ares is a problem on so many levels, im a fan of DIRECT, I think the Ares V would be the best solution to push anything we do especially beyond LEO. With such a rocket, many things would be less important. Using commercial companies to transfer humans to LEO and the ISS(plus development of a secondary system for NASA specifically NOT the Ares I) would be a great idea.

 

[Samsworld53]

ZenMasterSauce wrote
Two issues wrong with the Saturn 5 HLV. It is OLD. And upgrading the systems to actually work and work well in the 21st century is a waste of money. What is needed for the 21st century is something made for the century. Although Ares is a problem on so many levels, im a fan of DIRECT, I think the Ares V would be the best solution to push anything we do especially beyond LEO. With such a rocket, many things would be less important. Using commercial companies to transfer humans to LEO and the ISS(plus development of a secondary system for NASA specifically NOT the Ares I) would be a great idea.

I see your point on the Saturn 5.it was only a focused point. But I do agree that the Orion program is flawed and if you have viewed the post shuttle concepts using those components in the HLV-11 block. the HLV or for that matter the atlas HLV.I think we can save on design and development cost's and get a system we all can be proud of

 

[Bill_the_Atheist]

Hi! this is "BILL the ATHEIST from West Hartford, Connecticut", and I just want to say (as an amateur astronomer, myself) ((as well)), that A.) As long as NASA "KEEPS the UNmanned Planetary (and) Cosmological, and Astrophysics PROBES missions FUNDED ADQUETELY"---then, I am for the "MARS DIRECT" MISSION, meaning "BY-PASSING the MOON, and GOING (WITH HUMANS, from "ALL" THE SPACE FARING COUNTRIES of OUR PLANET)--to save money,(because WE can't "do it 'ALL BY OURSELVES'"!!! SO: in short, I'm for the DIRECT HUMANS TO MARS MISSION, while BY-PASSING the MOON! Sincerely, Bill, from West Hartford, Connecticut. radiotelescop69@hotmail.com

 

[heroineworshipper]

China has an idea. How about finishing what U start?

 

[Dammacx]

It is a shame that the exploration of space has to be so political. As much as I hate to see things driven by money and profit I don't think any real great leaps will be made until someone can see true money making opportunities in space and private companies invest in space travel and exploration. At the moment it looks like tourism is leading the way but I don't think quick orbital flights will lead the way to anything great. I think NASA as the supposed leader in the exploration of Space needs to have a serious goal and focus it's resources. I think a well planned trip to Mars including a landing and real science done is the way to go. We already know how hard it will be technically to do the mission safe but I think the rewards and the technology and science learned just to do it will be worth it. How much science and technology that we now take for granted has come out of the limited space exploration we have done. Just keeping a person a live while in orbit around the planet is hard. A focused mission to Mars done right and safely will require many different types of people and technology and science and big ideas. I think something people should consider about going to Mars is that like the saying goes, It is not the destination but the Journey. Sending people to Mars will be hard but that is what will make it worth while.

Lets not go to Mars because it is there, lets go because going there will be very hard and it will bring out the best people have to get there.

 

[2001Kubrick]

Obama has already hinted at scaling back NASAs budget in the future. There are some who think he might drastically cut funding altogether and leave us with an impotent version of NASA with no large near-term goals. No human missions to mars, not even a trip back to the lunar surface. Thoughts?

Apparently, Obama is more concerned with giving our billions to AIG and corrupt financial lenders than the future of humanity? I voted for this guy not realizing his position on the space program and already find myself regretting doing so.

 

[Mr_RSeay]

Go to the moon at settle those wishing ti stay or live there. From there all the solar system and beyond will be easier to see and later reach. Any other is more delay to a positive future

 

[DarkRanger]

I voted for the Third option. I feel that our country must take the lead in the colonization of space. We can’t continually ignore that the best place to launch missions beyond the Earth/Moon system is from the Moon. We must land and establish permanent bases on the moon. Then and only then will we as a world be able to reach out to the rest of the solar system. Going straight to Mars is Flashy and a great attention getter but then what? Remember Apollo? Our country has failed in taking the gains from the Apollo program and establishing a permanent base on the Moon. I’m not blaming NASA; I blame our short sighted government officials for not having the fortitude or providing the proper funding to take the next logical step. It’s time to make our mark in our solar system and the only way to do that is with Permanent Manned Settlement of the Moon.

 

[hoser]

Whatever we do, we need to try to make our stay in space begin to pay for itself. Given the current the cost per kg to deliver people and resources, we need to start building new things in space using local materials, like on the Moon using lunar materials. Then it's less expensive to stay there.

The Moon is the right place to start for a number of reasons. First, it's not that far away. We can learn to deal with long term exposure to solar radiation and cosmic rays. We can learn to harvest materials from the lunar surface and from mines. To pay for being on the Moon, we can try collecting 3He for fusion power, and either send it back home to use in reactors on Earth, or beam the power back. Eventually, people living on the Moon will want to be there for their own reasons and become independent of the Earth. That would be a natural development and desirable in the long run.

It will become obvious to everyone that living on the Moon or on Mars will be mostly underground. We are going to need excavation equipment there at some point. Once we can make machinery on the Moon, from materials found on the Moon, we should have a chance at a self-sustaining colony.

Trying to go to Mars would be a much greater challenge, good for a visit, but not to stay. At least, not yet. After we learn to thrive on the moon, Mars will be open to colonization. When we go to Mars, we should try to stay.

I hereby propose the name of the first city on the Moon and its Capital: Binn. Anyone wanting to live there must be crazy. Can I go?

 

[Johnsfriend]

Would it be too much trouble to stay home and blow up a few terrorist satellites aimed at America? Use that amazing technology to help us down here...unless you can relocate us to Mars.

Thank You very much.

 

[srmarti]

This is not a very good set of poll questions. The shuttle retirement itself is an entirely separate issue from the others. The shuttle retirement issue is mainly about giving up U.S. manned space capability until a replacement vehicle is operational and the fact that the replacement won't have some of the the shuttle's capability.

The other questions are where do we go AFTER the new vehicles are operational.

Two separate issues and you want me to pick one answer. Did Obama or his people write this up?

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I voted for the MARS Direct route. I beleive that mission requires spending 6 months on Mars, which means we'll have the technologically built to STAY - not just a land and plant the flag kind of thing. It would probably be easy to transfer this technology to develop a moon base for temporary settlement, similar to the stays at ISS. Heck staying on the Moon should be small beans after going to and staying on Mars.

Let's quick messing around and just do it!!!

 

[mark_d_s]

I used to be firmly in favour of a Mars mission, which is definately the sexier option - new frontiers etc.

However, a permanent Lunar Base offers so much more...

First, in all likelyhood, it would be an international collaboration - and believe me, us Europeans want to be involved, as do the Indians, Chinese, Russians, Japanese, Canadians and most likely South Koreans too. Financially this is far more viable.

Second, a Lunar mission would open all sorts of opportunities for commercial enterprise - resource utilisation being the most obvious (strip mining, processing, manufacturing).

Third, and perhaps most important, with a scientific/engineering based lunar community, we can start building probes & rovers and send more science missions for less money. Heck, we can even test the things in a deep space environment without leaving the lunar surface. At 1/6g we can build enormous manned telescopes with 14 days continous viewing of an object - a super VLT & Hubble rolled into one.

Thanks, but I'll take the Moon over Mars everytime.

We just need to make sure we have an adequate water supply.

 

[doom_shepherd]

What Obama SHOULD do is a combination of Mostly option 3, with some of 2 and 4 (I really believe a Near-Earth Asteroid mission is far more important than most folks give it credit for.)

What Obama WILL do, if we are incredibly LUCKY, is go with option 1.

Which is basically what he SAID he'd do, (delay Orion - and any other US manned program - for 5 extra years, divert the funding to some Union Bribery Project) before he started campaigning seriously and actually NEEDED votes in Florida, whereupon he totally reversed his "position" and claimed he was in favor of doing more.

Just like in school, kids, the FIRST answer you get is usually the right one. Once they start campaigning, the lies come out.