Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

In the real world
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Sionnach Glic »

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there - that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years - possibly even a decade or more - away.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects - principally, researching and monitoring climate change - and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station - a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.

"We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one administration official.

Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by the White House until the release of the budget.

But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget - possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.

They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said there would be an "attractive sum" of money - to be spent over several years - for private companies to make rockets to carry astronauts there.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program, NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from the space station.

Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.

Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.

In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations, some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed by the hobbyists.

Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a battle with Congress, Ares may survive.

"I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."

Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets, Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a fight.

The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

One administration official said the budget will send a message that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.
:picard:
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Graham Kennedy »

I'm in two minds about scrapping the moon thing. On the one hand... well how cool would it be to see that happening again? And it would be soooo nice to blow the crap out of those moon landing conspiracy guys once and for all.

But on the other... is it really something we (well, you guys to be accurate) need to spend billions of dollars on? What would it really accomplish that hasn't already been done?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Tyyr »

Yes it would. The amount of time spent on the surface and amount of area surveyed doesn't amount to jack. It'd be like visiting London for a weekend, looking the country over via Google Earth and declaring that you'd seen everything the UK had to offer and a return visit was pointless.

As a stepping stone to the rest of the solar system, the moon isn't one. It has potential as a fuel manufacturer but that's about it. There are plenty of other reasons to visit the moon however like exploration of the rest of it. The potential for astronomy based there, and practice and skills that will be useful going out farther into space.

As far as the cost, the amount pissed away so far on failed economic stimulus would dwarf the cost, especially if NASA had just stopped dicking around with the abortion that was Ares, and it would help create high paying high tech jobs.
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 17671
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Mark »

I'm iffy about the timing. Is this REALLY what the government needs to be spending money on at this point? I'd feel a bit more comfortable with exploring space as soon as I'm sure my IRAs and 401K won't crash.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Deepcrush »

The cost for the Moon program is a drop in the bucket. If they want to fix the economy then they need to forget the bailouts and just nationalize things already. That and drop these bullshit welfare programs. In good times I say give them 90 days. In bad times like this, give them a year. After that, up yours and out on the street.

As for the moon program. I think they need to gather nations together and get to it! Lets see some f***ing progress for all the time and lives spent on this stuff.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Tyyr »

Mark wrote:I'm iffy about the timing. Is this REALLY what the government needs to be spending money on at this point? I'd feel a bit more comfortable with exploring space as soon as I'm sure my IRAs and 401K won't crash.
As opposed to spending the money on what? Another bank bailout? A stimulus package that is only now starting to dump money into the economy a year after it was really needed? Hell, for what the government spent bailing out AIG alone we could have gone to the moon. On top of that you want the government spending this kind of cash on something like this because it helps create high paying high tech jobs that do more for the economy and your 401k as opposed to the minimum wage road work kind that the stimulus will supposedly eventually create. The U.S. military spends more money fighting corrosion every year that NASA's wildest budgetary requests.

The economic loss of this is already going to pound central Florida. We're already looking at 7,000 high paying jobs going away at the end of the year. The bottom has already fallen out of the housing market on the central east coast. Now more jobs are going to evaporate as well if they kill Constellation. It won't just be central Florida either. Companies across the U.S. are heavily invested in this project and Constellation going bye bye is going to wipe out thousands of high tech high paying jobs across the country. I'm not suggesting keeping things going just as a pork barrel "jobs" project but you can't eliminate 10 to 20,000+ high paying jobs and not feel it. Especially if you're worried about your 401k.

On top of that the knowledge base involved in this project isn't replaceable. You can't just go out, hire a guy right out of college and expect he can design a rocket capable of taking a crew to the moon immediately. Hell, look at the Apollo program. NASA designed and flew the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft before Apollo. The biggest issue with Ares has been that the generation of engineers who designed Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Space shuttle have all moved on and NASA was starting with a blank slate all over again. Killing Constellation ensures that we get to do it all over again. Remember, you can't just fire all these guys and in two or three years hire them all back. They'll move on, job wise, physically, hell some will even up and die on you. You'd be doing great to get 20% of them back if even that. The other 80% and all their knowledge is just flat out gone.

So in other words, first you're going to lose quite a few high paying jobs and second you're going to effectively kill NASA's manned space program and force it to start over from scratch if they ever get funding again all over an amount of money that in terms of the federal government doesn't amount to dick.
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Sionnach Glic »

The money required for this project would be absolutely trivial for the US to scrape together. Want to cut something? Take a hatchet to half the overtime and far overbudget projects that the military is running.
Deepcrush wrote:As for the moon program. I think they need to gather nations together and get to it! Lets see some f***ing progress for all the time and lives spent on this stuff.
IIRC, both China and Russia have said that they want to go to the moon, and I imagine that the ESA may have a try sometime in the future.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Tyyr wrote:Yes it would. The amount of time spent on the surface and amount of area surveyed doesn't amount to jack. It'd be like visiting London for a weekend, looking the country over via Google Earth and declaring that you'd seen everything the UK had to offer and a return visit was pointless.
Two problems with that. First, Earth has a very, very varied terrain. The moon isn't anything like as varied. There really isn't nearly as much to see there. A far better analogy would be sampling half a dozen spots in the Sahara and calling it a good snapshot of the whole Sahara. Which it may not quite be... but it's well on the way.

Second, if it's exploration you want then I'd be prepared to bet that we could send twenty rovers to the moon and run them for years on end for the cost of sending one man there for a day.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Tyyr »

The Sahara isn't quite right either but suggesting that you know all you need to about a place after having explored less than 1/10 of 1% of it is just daft.

Rovers are nice, but they're limited and regardless of how many you send its simply not the same as actually going there. Case in point, Spirit and Opportunity on Mars. They have done and continue to do an amazing amount of work there. However everything they've done could have been done by a trained geologist in an afternoon, maybe a full day if they really got into it. A human on sight could examine the rocks, take samples, do tests, move to another spot, make recommendations, follow hunches, etc. Great example, early in the mission one of the rovers ran across what were later dubbed "blueberries," small spherical bits of rock that littered an outcrop they wanted to study. There was concern that the blueberries could damage the rover's drill or jam up its motive system and they spent days trying to figure out what to do. A human would have just popped a few in a sample tube then brushed the remainder away and gotten right back to work in thirty seconds to a minute depending on how easy a sample tube was to get to. Yes, humans are much more expensive to send some place, but they are infinitely more capable in dealing with the unexpected once on site and when it comes to exploration the unexpected is pretty much the only thing that happens.

And at some point you just have to commit and go for it. It's like kids, if you keep putting off having them "until you're ready," you never have them. At some point you say "We're doing this now," and you go for it.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Mikey »

Graham's right. Exploring more of the moon would be nice; but it can in no way, shape, or form be even remotely considered a necessary, immediate priority. Yeah, so the budget for it is a small fraction of the total national budget. But it doesn't need to be done right now, so why not save the money? The only reason for attempting to press lunar exploration as an immediate necessity is merely so we can say we did it... which is no reason at all. If other nations want to go, let 'em.

And as far as teh Ares project... good riddance to bad rubbish. Great idea - horrible project.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Tyyr »

Ares was U.S. manned space flight though. I don't like it particularly but if Constellation dies we're back to square one. Yes, they might say they want commercial interests to take over getting crews to the ISS but none of them are even close to ready. Space X just got to the point where they stopped blowing up rockets on the pad. Virgin is focused on the commercial suborbital market and as pretty as their ships are none of them will be getting anywhere close to the ISS in this decade. The only real alternative are pre-existing heavy lift rockets which have their own issues. Namely that none of them are man rated and man rating them will require almost as much time, money, and effort as designing a whole new rocket. That was the big attraction of the Jupiter design, it utilized almost nothing but currently existing man rated parts which would expedite acceptance. On top of the man rating issue is that lifting a crew capsule will put them right at their design limits leaving them with no ability to do anything but go to LEO. Killing Constellation means that we're at least a decade from having any ability to put a US astronaut into space aboard anything but a Russian rocket.

There is rarely a "need" to do things like this. Was there really a need to build the X-1 and try to break the sound barrier? No, we had perfectly good subsonic aircraft. However the research done with it opened up a whole new realm of aeronautics. Did we really need to start putting things into space? No, there was little point to any of it but national pride stunts and a little bit of science. However thanks to people who poured money into what at the time seemed like nothing more than a black hole we have our modern era replete with the scientific discoveries made that were only possible in space, the technologies that advanced to allow men to go to the moon, the satellites that you rely on daily for communications, entertainment, and navigation.

Human history is absolutely full of stunts and experiments performed with no real end goal in mind other than "can we do it," and yet these are often the very things that push humanity forward farther than anything else. I mean good lord human existence is proof that not being content with what you've got today, that trying something for the hell of it, and going to see what's over the next hill just to see what's there has worked out pretty well for us as a species. So frankly turning our backs on that just to save what amounts to exactly jack and shit in terms of our national budget is beyond idiotic and verging on truly brain dead.

Seriously, what are we saving? Our current budget deficit for 2010 is what, 1.35 trillion dollars according to the CBO? NASA was requesting 18.7 billion for 2010. That's 1.385% of the deficit. Not even the budget, just the deficit. If you're really freaking out about the deficit well then congratulations, killing Constellation just saved 0.74% of the deficit. Not even a penny on every dollar of the deficit. YAY! We fixed the budget! Gimme a break. The total budget for 2010 sits at $3.55 trillion dollars of which NASA's budget request (not even their authorized budget) was only 0.527% of the budget and Constellation was 0.28% Not only are you doing nothing to really fix anything (lets face it, killing Constellation amounts to nothing but a publicity stunt, a way to look like he's doing something about the insane deficit we've got going without actually making the real pork tighten its belt in the least) you're killing the very type of program that has a proven track record of creating high paying jobs and leading to significant advancements in America's technological know how. All over a totally insignificant amount of money.

I'm not suggesting that NASA gets a free pass and a blank check. Ares was a clusterfuck. The Augustine panel proved to a be a total partisan disaster as rather than really evaluate what was going on they protected their old buddies in NASA. They need to be held accountable for hitching their horse to that thing for so long when less costly and more immediate options like Shuttle-C and Jupiter existed (both of which had their basis not in pie in the sky predictions but real serious NASA studies in the 1980's for unmanned heavy lift options to the shuttle.) They should be held to a reasonable budget that allows for manned and unmanned explorations. However pretending that cutting the manned space flight program out actually does any good is ludicrous.
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Atekimogus »

I do understand why they are unwilling to spend money at - what seems to most nearsighted people - a futile and useless enterprise.

What I do not understand is that they obviously need to build and pay for everything alone, I mean there are other space agencies and it's rather sad that they obviously aren't able to pool ressources to achieve again something extraordinary.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Deepcrush »

The problem is that most countries are used to the idea of the US paying for everything now.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Graham Kennedy »

I'm not suggesting that there is literally nothing to learn about the moon any more. I'm suggesting that learning more about the moon us very unlikely to lead to any really Earth-shaking discoveries. After all, it is essentially a great big ball of rock. We're not going to find the cure for cancer or a great big vein of unobtanium there. With any investment, even science, you have to weigh up what you're likely to achieve against what it is going to cost. Seems to me investigation of the moon isn't really justified on those grounds.

You say Rovers are limited; well yeah, but so are Human beings. But the time on target of a rover is greater than you will ever get with a human, the area coverage you will get is greater than a human will ever do. You say a human could do what Spirit and Opportunity did in one afternoon (unlikely; they covered something like 15 miles between them), but that actually proves my point; the cost differential is so great that even if a person can do as much as half a dozen rovers, the rovers still work out cheaper and better.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Farewell To America's Moon Landing Program

Post by Tyyr »

I'm not suggesting that we're going to learn something Earth shattering on the Moon (unless this is actually the reality of a really bad made for SyFy movie). The benefits we received from the last big push into space had nothing to do with the moon itself but the effort required to get us there. Same thing with going back to the moon and onto Mars and eventually even further.

Outside of photography yes, a human could quickly do the science that either rover did fairly quickly. Their pace of exploration was incredibly slow. The example with the blueberries, they spent days trying to decide how to handle that situation. During that time the rover sat where it was, motionless. It took pictures during that time but that was about it. It just sat and waited. A few days later it executed the instruction set it finally received, abraded the rock, took a mass spectrometer reading, then sat silent again. Days were spent discussing and planning a few minutes of actual work. I'm not trying to suggest this approach is wrong. Given the situation, there was the possibility that those little nodules might disable the rover's abrasion tool and take down the major piece of scientific equipment and no fix of that would be possible. Obviously care was needed to ensure that the whole mission wasn't wiped out by a marble. But what does a human do? Well if they were careless enough to just ignore the situation and abrade anyway and their tool gets jammed. The astronaut moans and complains for a minute then tears the tool apart to pluck to offending piece of gravel out and put it back together to get back on it. Or they go and get a replacement tool, or use a different tool all while listening to the mission manager telling him to stop being an idiot and take his time next go 'round.

Rovers have a benefit of being relatively cheap but they pay for that by being incredibly limited in what they can actually do. In my opinion, the best methodology for space exploration is to pepper a target of interest with rovers and probes until you find a point of significant interest and then you send humans there.

The whole point of the moon mission wasn't another Apollo era publicity stunt. It was to go, extend the stay on the surface, and eventually work towards a manned presence there. Learn what we can about it with an eye towards learning how best to exploit it to our advantage. Take that first baby step back out of LEO and then start setting our eyes on new targets like NEOs and eventually Mars.

What would have really done the country more good? A well funded and aggressive NASA working to put men on the Moon and eventually Mars, invigorating high tech industry and reigniting the interests of a whole new generation or pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into banks and industries that were "too big to fail," but too stupid to survive? Over a trillion on stimulus bills that didn't actually stimulate anything given that most of the money from them has yet to actually be spent? Given the minimal investment in NASA and the huge benefits we've historically received from investments in space exploration I cannot fathom how cutting out almost half their budget makes any kind of sense.
Post Reply