Going to the moon is now too ambitious

[Phoenix]

NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says - Nation - MiamiHerald.com

BY JOEL ACHENBACH
Washington Post Service
NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says - Nation - MiamiHerald.com

WASHINGTON –– NASA doesn't have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020 –– and it might be the wrong place to go, anyway. That's one of the harsh messages emerging from a sweeping review of NASA's human space flight program.

The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, has been trying to stitch together some kind of plausible strategy for America's manned space program. The panel has struggled to find options that stay under the current budget and include missions worthy of the cost and effort.

The committee members will meet with administration officials Friday and will report that there is no realistic way to get Americans back on the moon by the target date of 2020, which has been the agency's goal since President George W. Bush signed off on the ``Vision for Space Exploration'' in 2004. Landing on the moon by 2020 would require such drastic budgetary maneuvers as de-orbiting the International Space Station –– crashing it into the South Pacific –– in 2016.

The final list of options being explored by the Augustine group will include some variation of a lunar base down the road. But the committee is most animated by what it calls the ``Deep Space'' option, a strategy that emphasizes getting astronauts far beyond Low Earth Orbit but not necessarily plunking them down on alien worlds.

Instead, the ``Deep Space'' strategy would send them to near-Earth asteroids and to gravitationally significant points in space, known as Lagrange points, that are beyond the Earth's protective magnetosphere. Astronauts might even go all the way to Phobos, a tiny moon of Mars, where the spaceship wouldn't land so much as rendezvous, in the same way that a spacecraft docks at the International Space Station.

The Earth's moon would be a possible ``off-ramp'' of such a strategy but not a central target for exploration. Putting astronauts on the surface of Mars, and then returning them to Earth, would be prohibitively expensive, according to an analysis by the committee, which will send its report to the president by the end of this month.

$50 BILLION GAP

The ``program of record'' –– NASA's current strategy –– has not fared well in the committee's review. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the panel, said the gap between NASA's goals and its current budget totals roughly $50 billion by 2020. If the space station's life is extended for five years, she said, the current budget would allow for the completion of a heavy-boost moon rocket only in 2028, and that would be without spending money on developing the components of a lunar base.

``If you're willing to wait until 2028, you've got a heavy lift vehicle, but you've got nothing to lift,'' she said. ``You cannot do this program on this budget.''

Committee member Jeff Greason, an aerospace executive, was even more eviscerating of the NASA strategy, noting that the fixed costs of the current strategy are sure to bust the budget down the road: ``If Santa Claus brought us this system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it.''

The panel will give the administration a menu of options that include some that require a boost in funding for human space flight, which currently costs about $9 billion a year. Unknown, though, is how the Obama administration feels about human space flight in general. The president, both as a candidate and in the White House, has explicitly endorsed sending humans back to the moon, but his decision to create the Augustine committee is a sign that the status quo strategy, which carries the imprimatur of his predecessor and is endorsed by Congress, is not long for this Earth.

John Logsdon, the former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, observed the panel's session and said he wasn't sure that the Deep Space option, with its emphasis on ``fly-bys'' rather than landings, would be easy to sell to the public.

``I wonder myself if just flying around and not landing anywhere would be very attractive,'' he said.

OTHER PROGRAMS

The panel is certain to recommend extending the life of the International Space Station. It is also pushing hard for greater commercialization of space, including using private companies to taxi astronauts to Low Earth Orbit.

Some options include pulling the plug on the Ares I rocket that NASA has been building for four years. The Ares I is supposed to replace the space shuttle, the final flight of which is slated for late 2010. Billions have already been spent on the rocket, which is scheduled for an inaugural test flight this month.

Simply fucking amazing how far we have sunk. We have trillions to spend on bailouts and nationalized healthcare but cant even spend a fraction of that on something as important as space flight? Seriously what the hell happened to this country? In the span of just over ten years we went from not having a man orbit this planet to walking on another world! Now its going to take us 20+ years to adapt 1960s technology to go back?

[DisgruntledOrangatang]

Its like Warhammer 40k, that ancient superior technology was lost because of the age of strife, NOW WE DUN NO HOW 2 DO ITZ.

[Zitar]

Unless...Tin foil hat on.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Putting people on the moon is more important than health care?

I agree, it seems like a small amount of money compared to what has been thrown around. I have to admit I care more about me and my loved ones health than I do putting some guy back on the moon.

[Suineg]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

Putting people on the moon is more important than health care?

I agree, it seems like a small amount of money compared to what has been thrown around. I have to admit I care more about me and my loved ones health than I do putting some guy back on the moon.

Which is why I think RIGHT NOW that NASA in it's entirety is a total and complete waste of all funding.

[The Ancient]

I like their use of the term "Obama Panel." Clever way to state "Obama hates progress!"

[Lenaldo]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

Putting people on the moon is more important than health care?

I agree, it seems like a small amount of money compared to what has been thrown around. I have to admit I care more about me and my loved ones health than I do putting some guy back on the moon.

Unfortunately for you, I care more about putting a man on the moon than your health and your loved one's health.

More serious, putting a man on the moon is the end result; the technological gains we make in the process is why its important that we continue the NASA program. Fixing health care is something money can do in a "short" time; expanding our knowledge in technical fields is largely time dependent. You can't just throw 1 trillion dollars at a physics/engineering problem and "solve" it.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

So, uh, why not make space an international thing, with the US not footing the entire bill like the UN?

It's everyone's space, not just ours. If we want to go to the moon as a civilization, let others contribute. Otherwise, let us fix our own shit.

[Zeste]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

So, uh, why not make space an international thing, with the US not footing the entire bill like the UN?

It's everyone's space, not just ours. If we want to go to the moon as a civilization, let others contribute. Otherwise, let us fix our own shit.

What such a craft might resemble:

[Ancalagon]

While your anger is touching, the conclusions you draw from this are completely off-base. Why, precisely, should American taxpayers -- especially in bad economic times, but even in good times -- be robbed for the sake of our ever-wasteful space program? I know Star Trek was really cool, and I know you fell head-over-heels for your seventh-grade social studies lesson about how exciting the world was when we beat the Soviets to the moon, but put aside the childish fantasies and realize: this is real wealth, that real people earned and that real people need, that is taken by force so that a legion of scientists and ex-pilots can be comfortably employed.

You might respond in a few ways. "Hold on just a second," you might say, "don't you know that the space program has given the world a ton of useful discoveries and inventions?" To that I say: How much money has gone to the space program these past five decades? What might have been accomplished had that money been left in the hands of those who earned it? The question is impossible to answer, but anyone with an honest bone in his body can admit that the private sector is always and everywhere more efficient than the public sector. We cannot say with utter surety that more good would have come had the money stayed with the people, but we can make a pretty safe bet.

"Fair point," you might say, "but what about defense. If we don't maintain a space program, and the Chinese, say, develop their program to the hilt, our defense will be jeopardized." To that I say: if, unlike most of the drones who style themselves Americans, you actually care about defense rather than empire, you'll be happy to know we can bring our troops home from all across the globe, end our multiple ongoing occupations, cut the defense budget in half, and then in half again, and then in half again -- and still we'll have enough money left over to render America impregnable and to develop quality space defenses.

The purpose of government, if it has any at all, is to protect the rights of its citizens. Except insofar as a space program contributes to national defense, and it's a major stretch to say it does currently, it is an unjustifiable prerogative of the federal government -- one that should be eliminated post-haste. You won't, of course, find anything allowing for a space program in the Constitution, but I realize that old piece of parchment carries little weight nowadays. Please make the moral case for taking money from people so that we can return to the moon.

[Mist]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

You might respond in a few ways. "Hold on just a second," you might say, "don't you know that the space program has given the world a ton of useful discoveries and inventions?" To that I say: How much money has gone to the space program these past five decades?

About 0.7% of the federal budget. Of that, much of it goes to launching, tracking and maintaining various things like weather and communication satellites. Very little goes towards actual space exploration.

What might have been accomplished had that money been left in the hands of those who earned it? The question is impossible to answer, but anyone with an honest bone in his body can admit that the private sector is always and everywhere more efficient than the public sector. We cannot say with utter surety that more good would have come had the money stayed with the people, but we can make a pretty safe bet.

Yeah, I know, rich people having an extra 0.7% of their income to buy an extra mexican slave maid or buy another gas guzzling Hummer or another 5000 dollar an hour escort or bribe another politician is definitely equal or better than having a source of national pride that also gives us enormous amounts of scientific research, dollar for dollar.

[Agraza]

Manned exploration is just a really hard sell. It's a fuckton more expensive than unmanned exploration, and unless we plan to develop a colony - very wasteful.

That said, the improvement of satellites and telescopes has some value here on Earth. Also, if they can get fusion engines working we might need to mine the moon for Helium-13 or whatever. People want a plausible return of investment, and with the resources available we may as well be spending our time on mapping and communication satellites that make the world a smaller and more intelligent place.

I'd love it if we cut like 1% of military spending and got to the moon and mars in a decade, but I don't see our representatives going forward with that, and without more cash it's hard to expand their operation.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Mist

About 0.7% of the federal budget. Of that, much of it goes to launching, tracking and maintaining various things like weather and communication satellites. Very little goes towards actual space exploration.

The usual sleight-of-hand. How much, pray tell, is 0.7% of the federal budget -- I'm assuming your number is correct rather than pulled out of your ass -- over the last fifty years? No small sum, I'd venture to guess.

Yeah, I know, rich people having an extra 0.7% of their income to buy an extra mexican slave maid or buy another gas guzzling Hummer or another 5000 dollar an hour escort or bribe another politician is definitely equal or better than having a source of national pride that also gives us enormous amounts of scientific research, dollar for dollar.

A few points:

1. Right, because only the rich pay taxes. Typical class-envy bullshit. Maybe MSNBC hasn't done a good job keeping you informed of late, but this nation's middle class also bears an incredible tax burden. If you're so blind as to think all 'rich' are worthless scum, at least consider the fate of middle class family who has to cough up over half of its yearly earnings to the government. Consider what might have happened if all of these sorts of families had been allowed to keep even an extra percent of their income every year over a period of fifty years. If you lack the ability to paint with your mind's eye, and have no recourse but to suppose that all that would have resulted from this is that more Mexican maids would have been hired and more Hummers would have been purchased, then you have my sincerest condolences. Otherwise, you'll by now have realized that it is precisely productive individuals who spend and invest their own money that allow for the invention and production of so many of the incredible items we enjoy today.

2. A source of national pride? A source of national fucking pride? Do our wars not suffice? I think we would do well to have far fewer catalysts of national pride. National pride is dangerous. National pride has been the cause of so much stupidity and evil. Less national pride, I say; more individual pride, family pride, local pride. It's far safer, and far less costly to induce.

3. If you believe that the federal government should be a promoter of science, whether I agree with you or not, there are far more efficient ways for it to do so than the current space program setup.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

retardation

Yeah. NASA was totally a waste of money. We just got a bunch of trivial shit out of it, and rich people would have totally funded their own research groups to find out basic science.

News flash, nobody funds general research except the government. Private sector stuff like Bell Labs has all been shut down or emasculated.

Here's a tiny portion of the 1400 products that have been commercialized:

# 1 NASA spin-off technologies
# 2 Twenty-five NASA spin-offs

* 2.1 Health and medicine
o 2.1.1 Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs)
o 2.1.2 Infrared Ear Thermometers
o 2.1.3 Ventricular Assist Device
o 2.1.4 Artificial Limbs
* 2.2 Transportation
o 2.2.1 Aircraft Anti-Icing Systems
o 2.2.2 Highway Safety
o 2.2.3 Improved Radial Tires
o 2.2.4 Chemical Detection
* 2.3 Public safety
o 2.3.1 Video Enhancing and Analysis Systems
o 2.3.2 Land Mine Removal
o 2.3.3 Fire-Resistant Reinforcement
o 2.3.4 Firefighting Equipment
* 2.4 Consumer, home, and recreation
o 2.4.1 Tempur Foam
o 2.4.2 Enriched Baby Food
o 2.4.3 Portable Cordless Vacuums
o 2.4.4 Freeze Drying Technology
* 2.5 Environmental and agricultural resources
o 2.5.1 Water Purification
o 2.5.2 Solar Energy
o 2.5.3 Pollution Remediation
* 2.6 Computer technology
o 2.6.1 Virtual reality research
o 2.6.2 Structural analysis software
o 2.6.3 Remotely controlled ovens
* 2.7 Industrial productivity
o 2.7.1 Powdered Lubricants
o 2.7.2 Improved Mine Safety
o 2.7.3 Food Safety

1. CAT scanner: this cancer-detecting technology was first used to find imperfections in space components.

2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.

3. Cordless tools: power drills and vacuum cleaners use technology designed to drill for moon samples.

4. Ear thermometer: a camera-like lens that detects infrared energy we feel as heat was originally used to monitor the birth of stars.

5. Freeze-dried food: this reduces food weight and increases shelf life without sacrificing nutritional value.

6. Insulation: home insulation uses reflective material that protects spacecraft from radiation.

7. Invisible braces: teeth-straightening is less embarrassing thanks to transparent ceramic brace brackets made from spacecraft materials.

8. Joystick: this computer gaming device was first used on the Apollo Lunar Rover.

9. Memory foam: created for aircraft seats to soften landing, this foam, which returns to its original shape, is found in mattresses and shock absorbing helmets.

10. Satellite television: technology used to fix errors in spacecraft signals helps reduce scrambled pictures and sound in satellite television signals.

11. Scratch resistant lenses: astronaut helmet visor coating makes our spectacles ten times more scratch resistant.

12. Shoe insoles: athletic shoe companies adapted space boot designs to lessen impact by adding spring and ventilation.

13. Smoke detector: Nasa invented the first adjustable smoke detector with sensitivity levels to prevent false alarms.

14. Swimsuit: Nasa used the same principles that reduce drag in space to help create the world’s fastest swimsuit for Speedo, rejected by some professionals for giving an unfair advantage.

15. Water filter: domestic versions borrow a technique Nasa pioneered to kill bacteria in water taken into space.

I dare you to find any other area of research or fuck, any use of money in general that has anything near the amount of yield NASA has had over the years. And for the record, I'm not talking about the bullshit defense stuff like Star Wars people try to cram into NASA. People like you are the reason one of the best science programs this country has ever done is getting sidelined and repurposed for bullshit. You're so fucking ignorant it's painful.

Also you should get your money back from whatever pseudo-ivy you went to. Reading your pretentious ass drivel gives me a fucking headache from the blood pressure spike.

Christ. NASA has over six thousand patents.

[CnCGOD]

I read this as Obama wants to spend the money on entitlements and doesn't want to go to the moon so he made a oversight group to recommend not doing so.

Fuck if space research and technology means a little more taxes, I WOULD GLADLY PONY UP.