10425924
story
Comments: 555 + - Science: Former Astronauts Call Obama NASA Plans "Catastrophic" on Saturday March 13, @06:35PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoon.gif); width:46px; height:51px;
moon
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnasa.gif); width:74px; height:67px;
nasa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
krou writes "Talking to the BBC at a private function held at the Royal Society in London, former astronauts Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan both spoke out about Obama's decision to postpone further moon missions. Lovell claimed that 'it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology,' while Cernan noted he was 'disappointed' to have been the last person to land on the moon. Said Cernan: 'I think America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership in technology and its moral leadership ... to seek knowledge. Curiosity's the essence of human existence.' Neil Armstrong, who was also at the event, avoided commenting on the subject."
Related Stories
Your lucky color has faded.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Different research (Score:4, Insightful)
Bringing men to the moon currently wouldn't add anything of value. It was possible in the '60s, doing it now would not bring any advancement. Space money is better spent on research for new propulsion systems and ways to get off the Earth. When that is done, THEN go to the moon.
Why so expensive? (Score:5, Funny)
With modern CGI techniques, surely faking moon landings should be getting cheaper?
The sad thing is that (Score:4, Insightful)
Buzz Aldrin has a different view (Score:5, Informative)
It's rather interesting that Buzz Aldrin has a completely opposite view of the new plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html [huffingtonpost.com]
... The President courageously decided to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015. And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles-that's American space vehicles. Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons. ... For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020. That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004. That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space. But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.
First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.
To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.
Enter the new Obama administration. Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official. Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me). In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine. The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station. And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path." Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons. Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one.
But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon, no funds were available for this development effort -- until now. Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what
Re:Buzz Aldrin has a different view (Score:4, Insightful)
Aldrin is arguing against a repeat of "Flags and Footprints" on the moon. He is right. The best option you and I have of going into space is a self sustaining space transport industry.
Parent
Yay to NASA, Nay to Constellation (Score:4, Informative)
The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years. It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good. A lot of NASA’s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done. It also stresses Earth science, which isn’t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming. So that’s still good news.
The very very good news is that half that money — half, folks, 3.2 billion dollars — is going to science. Yeehaw! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets. That, my friends, sounds fantastic.
NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration
In the year 2137: (Score:3, Insightful)
A child on the Ghanaian Space Agency base on Europa asks her father, "Almost every nation on Earth has built outposts and colonies in the Solar system except America. What happened to them, Daddy?".
"Oh, they decided to stay home and play Dark Orbit instead."
We don't have the whole picture. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ares I was a piece of pork which should have long since been canceled. I'm glad it's gone. Everyone knows there are currently two US boosters (three soon enough) in the same weight and performance category and part of Obama's plan is to use those to go into LEO. This makes sense.
What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path. I'd like to see some of the ideas behind DIRECT refined so we end up with a moderately economical, scalable launch architecture for really heavy payloads. COTS is not likely to develop this on their own, they're happy at 25 tons to LEO and under. It's where their profit is. Note, I'm choosing to be optimistic on Flexible path being funded and implemented.
It looks like Orion Lite from Bigelow/Boeing/Lockheed is the front runner for crew transport. I'm not sure how much commonality is possible between it and a future Orion Heavy used for lunar or martian missions. Hopefully building one makes it easier to build the other.
A different take on going to the moon (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was 6 years old my parents moved to Titusville, Florida right across the Indian River Lagoon from the VAB. I grew up watching Saturn V's, Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Shuttle space vehicles thunder skyward. I went to school with the sons and daughters of real "Rocket Scientists". I'd say the number one reason I got into the engineering field was the excitement and allure of these kind of epic and difficult endeavors. What inspires people to go into engineering today ? I only worked on Spacecraft and launch systems for 10 years before I got into other things, but would I have been inspired at all by a presidential challenge to build a better battery, or an energy efficient home ? I somehow doubt it. So I would argue that not only does going to the moon spin-of useful technology it inspires the youth of today and tomorrow to achieve great things in engineering !
Re:Priorities. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people. Maybe if we hadn't squandered a trillion dollars on the unnecessary war in Iraq we could afford things like going to the moon again.
This.
A big portion of our bleeding economy is flowing out the giant bullet hole labeled "War against terror." and if we just stopped a _single_ _war_ that we're involved with we'd have a ton of money to put towards all sorts of stuff.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just the "War on Terror." It's all the wars. We face no external threats, militarily speaking. It's time for us to discard our empire.
What "empire" (Score:4, Insightful)
We face no external threats, militarily speaking. It's time for us to discard our empire.
And what "empire" is that exactly? Do you demand we let go of Puerto Rico?
Other than that we have a number of military actions in areas where we are supporting democratic governments - Iraq and Iran - that are not in any way part of a U.S. "empire" (for better or worse).
As for the lack of military threats, I suggest to tell that to the people attacking our military and citizens. Perhaps they will stop once they realize they do not exist.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What "empire" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think dfetter is talking about this empire. [wikipedia.org]
Re:What "empire" (Score:5, Informative)
I respectfully disagree.
US military spending accounts for 48% of the world's total military spending. (Look it up. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending [globalissues.org])
For comparison, US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
The US is the world's top arms merchant, sometimes selling to both sides in a given conflict.
The US has military installations in 60+ nations.
The US sometimes literally installs governments and supports many petty dictators and corrupt puppets - in exchange for their loyalty and cooperation.
All this sounds like an empire to me.
But don't believe me. Do some research. Hit wikipedia, google "World military spending", study world history, etc.
If you still believe the US is not an empire, explain why not. Help me understand the distinction. I am willing to give you a fair listen with an open mind.
Parent
Re:What "empire" (Score:4, Insightful)
So the Army of Kentucky decided it would be a good move to go into Bagdad? You tried to win an argument by redefining the language to something other than what everyone else uses - not a very pleasant trick but increasingly common.
People haven't really changed, it's as much an empire as the Roman Republic was with client states and outposts. An empire that resembled it more closely was the Austrian-Hungarian empire in the late 1800s, you might want to read what Mark Twain wrote about that and you'll see a few similarities with the USA today. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just a label. What the empire actually does is the important thing
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about the 835 installations located throughout the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Overseas [wikipedia.org]
What about the billion dollar embassies being built in Baghdad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Baghdad [wikipedia.org]
Or being built now in London?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_London#Future [wikipedia.org]
Rome also placed "installations" all around Europe during its height and had to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Funny)
That and a GIGANTIC FUCKING OCEAN! The only reason we can afford to fight so many wars is that it is very hard to invade America.
You may not have heard, but we've developed these things called "ships" and "airplanes" over the last couple centuries. You should read up on them - they're really kinda cool! Some 70 years ago, they allowed forces from the US, Canada, and Australia to successfully invade and defeat enemies in several nations, even though there were oceans in between!
I know, I know, it's hard to believe. Don't take my word on it - I'm sure if you google "World War 2" you should be able to come up with some confirmatory evidence.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they military attack you, if they already own a nice chunk of your economy [nytimes.com]? They won't kill you, they'll own you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Insightful)
Further Research [nasa.gov].
I'm not saying that postponing a manned return to the Moon is catastrophic by itself - but we depend on space travel for so much today that scaling back our efforts there amounts to saving pennies today (NASA's budget is a tiny drop in the federal budget!) by throwing away potentially massive results tomorrow. And this is aside from how important exploration is in purely human terms.
Parent
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since insuring everyone can actually save money, we can do both.
Parent
Re:Priorities. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Informative)
When the pension systems were implemented, typically a man would work for 45 years, paying into the system, and then live for maybe 5 years past retirement, drawing on that same system.
It worked simply because the life expectancy past retirement wasn't more than a few years.
Now people are living longer after retirement than they ever worked, and drawing more from the system than they ever payed in. The pensioners now are using the current working populations contributions. So what will be left when today's workers reach retirement age ?
That IS a pyramid scheme, whether you like it or not.
It has nothing to do with "great outlook", it's got everything to do with cold hard reality.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think providing health care for our own citizens would be a valuable thing.
Iraq has already cost a trillion dollars, and we aren't at the 10 year mark yet. I don't remember one scintilla of debate about how much that was going to cost. Of course at the time Colin Powell was busy waving vials of talcum powder in front of the UN, and the Secretary of State was talking about "proof in the form of a mushroom cloud". That type of fear-mongering tend
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Informative)
[citation needed]
This would be the CBO's forecast:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf [cbo.gov]
The coverage provisions will have a net cost of $624 billion for the ten years from 2010 to 2019, and a gross cost of $875 billion over the same ten years, the $624 billion number is what is actually relevant. However, with new taxes and other cost savings the bill would implement, the total effect of the bill on the budget deficit would be to lower the deficit by saving $118 billion over ten years. On the other hand the CBO estimate in 2003 for the bill that established Medicare Part D stated the new (at the time) benefits would have outlays (costs) of $460.7 billion from 2004 to 2013. That is here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/44xx/doc4468/hr1s1.pdf [cbo.gov]
Parent
Re:Priorities. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Priorities. (Score:4, Interesting)
That is on average, and there are a lot of reasons why average life span is less that just health care. Drug related violence for one, auto accidents for another which both kill a lot more people per-capata in the US than, say, Western Europe.
For example, life expectancy is higher at birth in the U.K., by 1.7 years for males and .9 years for females, but life expectancy at older ages is greater in the U.S. than in the U.K. For men, life expectancy is greater at birth and up until age 60 in the U.K., but then the pattern reverses and men can expect to live longer in the U.S. at ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85. By age 75, male life expectancy is greater than in the U.K. by at least six months. Likewise, U.K. women have higher life expectancy at birth and up until age 55; at ages 60 and above, American women have greater life expectancy than their U.K. counterparts, and by age 75 women live longer in the U.S. than in the U.K. by 8-9 months.
I don't have an explanation for this, but these numbers would seem to suggest that there are other factors at work than just access to health care. Most people can expect to receive the great bulk of their medical care at the end of their life. Since once you reach the age of 60 in the US you can expect to live longer than you counterparts in the UK it seems to me that there are other factors at play. Here is a crap load of data if interested: http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls [irdes.fr]
Regardless I vote for sending the guys (and/or gals) to the moon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Adapting a past quote:
There is no correlation between benefits to society and money seeking ambition.
Re:Dishonest politician breaks a campaign promise. (Score:5, Interesting)
Like many politicians before him, Barack Hussein Obama broke a campaign promise. He outright lied in order to get the votes independent voters.
How did he break a promise to fund Constellation? From a previous Slashdot story [slashdot.org]
"In a recent article on The Space Review, Greg Zsidisin reveals that Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, using the redirected funds to nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond, if he is elected president. It is feared that if this happens the Vision for Space Exploration will flounder and that may be the end of human spaceflight altogether."
Seems like he's just following through on what he said almost 2 years ago.
Parent
Re:Priorities. (Score:5, Interesting)
And thanks for clearing up why you're so uninformed. Glenn Beck is a self-proclaimed "rodeo clown", and the fact that you don't think you look like a fool for parroting his absolute bullshit puts a smile on my face. Tell me, how did that interview with Massa go? The one that had the potential to "change the course of this nation"? LOL
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose you also hate the post office, fire department, police department, military, public roads, the electrical grid, etc. etc. etc...
Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting NASA with respect to the deficit is like putting a bandaid on your finger while ignoring the sucking wound in your chest.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Cutting NASA with respect to the deficit is like putting a bandaid on your finger while ignoring the sucking wound in your chest.
Actually not. A little bit of money here, a little bit of money there, an earmark there, another over there, and not before long you're swimming in red ink.
It's unfortunate that the republicans had to piss away the equivalent of moon trip in Iraq that we now need to have this discussion. If people don't like this, they need to hold those people who continue to be loudmouths on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too (Score:5, Interesting)
It got modded troll, but it's 100% true.
No, it's one 100% troll. For one thing, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with NASA's budget. For another, picking on wars is like shooting fish in a barrel - you could just as easily argue that getting involved in WW2 was unnecessary for the US.
It has wasted a trillion dollars, and we have nothing to show for it but a bunch of fresh graves.
First off, that's the (estimated) combined cost for both wars, so you're wrong right off the bat. Second, the figures provided by the various "counter" sites are, for some reason, never sourced. If you can provide the raw data to support that claim, I'd very much appreciate it - nobody else seems to know how to find it. Third, there are plenty of things that you can "show for it" - the problem is that you apparently don't think they've been worth the cost.
We wasted enough money in Iraq to pay for universal health care, AND a trip to the moon.
Canadian healthcare - for a population one tenth the size of yours - costs $120+ billion per year. At a cost of roughly 700 billion over 7 years, the Iraq war wouldn't even be enough to fund OUR healthcare, let alone yours. You're living in a dream world. Wake up.
Parent
Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too (Score:4, Interesting)
In 2001 you got hit by a multinational group of thugs and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
We got attacked by Saudis based in Afghanistan, so we invaded Iraq.
We could have simplified logistics and saved a bunch of money by invading a much closer country like Jamaica. It would have made the same amount of sense under your logical analysis.
Parent
Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too (Score:4, Informative)
They were allies, declaring war on one was declaring war on them all.
Iraq did not support those who participated in 9/11. Saddam was a horrible human, but his crazy was of a different variety than those who crashed planes into buildings.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with you that cuts are necessary, it must be said that Obama is increasing NASA's funding [discovermagazine.com] despite canceling Project Constellation. The cancellation seems more politically driven than anything relating to the federal budget. Even if NASA's $18 billion budget were left the same, it would still be only 0.5% of the total federal budget. The real pork [wallstats.com] can be found in the $901 billion defense budget and the $696 billion social security program.
Re:Our budget deficits are catastrophic, too (Score:5, Informative)
Better go look at the budget. Obama's budget *increases* NASA spending while removing its most visible mission. Basically, he plans on creating the next Lockheed or Boeing at taxpayer expense.
Quite the opposite, actually. The current Constellation program favors cost-plus non-competitive contracts, while the new plan uses fixed-price commercial contracts with multiple companies competing and developing in parallel, with companies only getting paid for meeting milestones. For example, a number of companies are currently under "CCDev" contracts for developing commercial crew vehicles and technologies, and only get paid the full amount if they meet all of their milestones by the end of 2010. You can read more about this in the budget documents:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf [nasa.gov]
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf [nasa.gov]
Parent
Re:It's moral leadership to seek knowledge (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:waste of money.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing all of the collateral benefits that came from the space race. You're probably typing on one right now.
Parent
Re:waste of money.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that space exploration is giving us (humanity as a whole) good value for money is, frankly, ridiculous. The billions and billions of dollars spent has of course brought some benefits and some cool inventions. But spending that same money on other kinds of research would with a very high probability have yielded more benefits. But I do agree that it would have yielded less fame to the old whiners from TFA.
Parent
Re:waste of money.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say coming down out of the trees was probably a mistake...
In fact we should return to the trees. By my math, raising the living level of 6.8 billion people by three meters yields a net increase in the human living level by 20.4 billion person-meters. We could achieve the same net increase in the level of human life by sending 53 astronauts the 385,000 km to the moon, but it's important to note that would do nothing for the median level.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
there's probably a few others i'm missing
Re:manned space travel has been catastrophic (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:TOTALLY INCONCEIVABLE !! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, don't worry about it. Whatever happens to the rest of the country, our troopers will be certain to have the latest toys.
After all, the moon needs democracy, too.
Parent
Re:And I was reading Carl Sagan... (Score:4, Informative)
... while he was writing about the hopes he had on the space exploration and everything. It makes me sad. In some way I'm glad he's gone so he doesn't have to see this.
Having actually attended a lecture at JPL that Carl Sagan gave on exactly this topic - his views of space exploration, I am fairly certain he would be over joyed at this announcement.
His key point in the lecture was that space science - that is, genuine space exploration - did not require manned flight and was far more economical without it, but was politically dependent on manned flight in the U.S. Thus, support for manned flight was indeed necessary to support space science, but only because of the unfortunate realities of space science funding in the U.S.
Up until now his observation remained valid. He would be thrilled to see this extremely costly and anti-productive link broken.
The cries from the "Oh no! Obama is abandoning space!" crowd underscore the fact that manned space flight is a deadly political anchor on actual space exploration.
Parent