Texas Lawmakers Press NASA To Base Lunar Lander Program In Houston (arstechnica.com) 128
Eric Berger writes via Ars Technica: The Apollo missions that flew to the Moon during the 1960s were designed and controlled by what is now known as Johnson Space Center, the home of the famous "Mission Control." Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis that styles itself "Space City." Times change, however. In recent months, the politically well-positioned Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama, has been quietly pressing leaders with NASA Headquarters for program management of mid- to large-size landers to the lunar surface, which would evolve into human landers. Sources indicated this effort was having some success.
However, Texas legislators have now begun to push back. On Tuesday, both of Texas' senators (John Cornyn and Ted Cruz), as well as three representatives with space-related committee chairs (John Culberson, Lamar Smith, and Brian Babin), wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We support NASA's focus on returning to the Moon and using it as part of a stepping stone approach to place American boots on the surface of Mars in the 2030s," the Texas Republicans wrote. "As NASA reviews solicitations for lunar landers, we write to express our strong support for the establishment of NASA's lunar lander program at the Johnson Space Center." The letter reminds Bridenstine of Houston's strong spaceflight heritage.
However, Texas legislators have now begun to push back. On Tuesday, both of Texas' senators (John Cornyn and Ted Cruz), as well as three representatives with space-related committee chairs (John Culberson, Lamar Smith, and Brian Babin), wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We support NASA's focus on returning to the Moon and using it as part of a stepping stone approach to place American boots on the surface of Mars in the 2030s," the Texas Republicans wrote. "As NASA reviews solicitations for lunar landers, we write to express our strong support for the establishment of NASA's lunar lander program at the Johnson Space Center." The letter reminds Bridenstine of Houston's strong spaceflight heritage.
Johnson? (Score:2, Funny)
The Johnson Space Center is a fitting name for something as phallic as rockets.
Re:Johnson? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep NASA "control" in Houston? (Score:2)
If they still have the talent and facilities in Houston, leave them there.
Want space money? Defund military (Score:2, Insightful)
There's plenty of interesting stuff to do in space, enough for multiple mission control centers spread all over the country. But as long as the NASA budget is so tiny, you're all squabbling over breadcrumbs at the table.
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences. It'll be a hard sell given the current anti-science political climate, but if you're looking for a serious injection of public money, it's
Re:Want space money? Defund military (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences.
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program. If that sounds silly to you then consider that Texas has more people and money than many nations on the planet, and some of those nations smaller than Texas sent stuff into space. The government doesn't have to fund everything, just make some deals with private companies to get them to launch from there and use Houston as a base of operations.
Just voting money out of the military and into space exploration won't necessarily make missions to the moon orbit around Houston. If they want to be in on the deal then they need to make an offer that NASA cannot refuse. I'm thinking that means government spending on the state, county, and municipal levels, not federal. Texas is a big state but they don't have enough votes to divert federal funds on their own.
When it comes down to it the REAL money isn't in the budget for NASA, or even in the total budget for the federal government. The real money is in the private sector. Get private businesses interested in missions to the moon, make Houston a good place to do business, and people will be standing in line to hand out money.
Re:Want space money? Defund military (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program
The senators want to receive federal money, not spend their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program
The senators want to receive federal money, not spend their own.
The Senators and (especially) the US Representatives trying to steer this toward Texas don't "receive" federal money, they spend it.
No such entity (yet) (Score:2)
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Ummm, there would need to be a "Space Force" first. There is no such entity currently regardless of whether or not there should be.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a US space force already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
With the possibility of a new branch of the military comes the possibility of new facilities for it. Houston might be a good place for that.
Not yet (Score:2)
There's a US space force already.
No there is an Air Force which has a space focused command - not the same thing and certainly not an integrated service. The Navy also has a similar [wikipedia.org] command. Plus various other defense oriented federal agencies have their own capabilities. There is no Space Force branch of the military at this time - just a bunch of capabilities spread across a variety of federal agencies.
With the possibility of a new branch of the military comes the possibility of new facilities for it. Houston might be a good place for that.
Certainly possible
Re:Want space money? Defund military (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences.
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Before we sink money into the modern day equivalent of the atomic airplane or SLAM, we might want to figure out what to do with all of the 20 some thousand miles per hour debris that will be orbiting earth when out intrepid space cadets start making things go kablooey (technical term) in earth orbit. When they inevitably do this,ARES (apparently NASA is recycling Initialisms) will show a fairly solid shell of areas to avoid. I've always said that our first war in space will be our last for possibly several hundred years, until the debris de-orbits. Then we can blow up more and start the process all over.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program. If that sounds silly to you then consider that Texas has more people and money than many nations on the planet, and some of those nations smaller than Texas sent stuff into space.
Hold on there Sparky. This will involve state taxes, and all taxes and regulations are bad, amirite? Texas is happy to take taxpayer money at the federal level because a lot of it comes from out of state people, but the concept of using their own money is a real non-starter.
Really, although the space program can be a great source of inspiration, Texas actually just wants the money.
Re: (Score:1)
Not when there are federal workers to steal from!
No cumulative COLA in order to pay for the 1.5T tax cut, 88% for the top 1%?
No problem
Only if it makes economic sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If they still have the talent and facilities in Houston, leave them there.
Only if this results in the most economically effective outcome. If it makes economic or functional sense to have it elsewhere then move it where it needs to go. I that happens to be Houston that's fine but all reasonable options should be considered first. We definitely should not do what we did 50 years ago just because some well connected political leaders want to pander to their constituencies.
Re: (Score:3)
If it makes economic or functional sense to have it elsewhere then move it where it needs to go.
I doubt that either of those things will factor into the decision. The real factor is even mentioned in the summary "the politically well-positioned Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama". Any politician with a NASA facility in their constituency will be fighting for this.
Re: (Score:2)
If they still have the talent and facilities in Houston, leave them there.
Only if this results in the most economically effective outcome. If it makes economic or functional sense to have it elsewhere then move it where it needs to go. I that happens to be Houston that's fine but all reasonable options should be considered first. We definitely should not do what we did 50 years ago just because some well connected political leaders want to pander to their constituencies.
Houston is also in a geologically precarious position, so placing it there would be more of a political decision than a sound one.
Besides, I though that Texas was going to secede from the Union again.
Texas (Score:3)
Besides, I though that Texas was going to secede from the Union again.
We could only hope... ;-)
Old favorite joke of mine. A delegate from Texas was holding court at a political convention and bragging about how big everything in Texas was. Eventually the delegate from Alaska tired of listening to this and told him he should shut up or Alaska would cut itself in half and Texas would only be the third biggest state.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I though that Texas was going to secede from the Union again.
We could only hope... ;-)
Old favorite joke of mine. A delegate from Texas was holding court at a political convention and bragging about how big everything in Texas was. Eventually the delegate from Alaska tired of listening to this and told him he should shut up or Alaska would cut itself in half and Texas would only be the third biggest state.
HA! Burnnnnn!
Re: Only if it makes economic sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geologically perilous? Houston hasn't had anything over a 4.0 in the last 30 years from what I can tell.
Geologically was about the best choice of wording. Earthquakes are not the issue, but subsidence. Houston is sinking - some places at a 2 inch per year rate. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
Right off the Gulf of Mexico and with rapid subsidence is not a good scenario. I surely wouldn't buy land there.
paying for your lack of vision (Score:4, Funny)
... the Moon, which is rocky junk lets face it. You can invest to build a moon base there, for some unknown purpose, over the course of decades, sure. Why now?
Iron, massive amounts of solar power, experience in vacuum-proofing things and a low-G place to retire when you get to the age where you need a scooter to get about. Also if the Americans get uppity, you can throw rocks at them... what do you mean, you haven't read that book?
Re: (Score:3)
We have more than enough iron and solar power on Earth, and more applications for those things as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's worry about that when we actually have a need for iron at those other sites.
Boots on Mars?!? (Score:2)
Why the nuts boot on Mars thing, so last millennium. You know what counts, who made the hardware, who cares whose pair of feet are there, tens of millions of people are quite capable of filling those boots, what counts is who designed and built the space craft, that is all that counts. Space craft to get to the moon, space craft to get to Mars and space craft to get to the stars. That is all that really counts, that space infrastructure to, well, it the most barest of capitalist terms, the infrastructure re
Re: (Score:2)
The Stars are like pink unicorns. They are very pretty, but they exist on the edge of our imagination because you cannot get there from here. We can do wonders with astronomy, we cannot do wonders with space travel. Space is big...really really big...so big you cannot imagine how big. It also tends to be filled with radiation fields.
Re:Boots on Mars?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cody shows how far the stars are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Boots on Mars?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing nearby due to current propulsion/distance limitations. We don't have any rationale for going to Mars right now except bragging rights and it would inevitably cost lives to achieve. What's the purpose now?
Because it's there. The same reason go to climb mountains or dive in the sea. Mars is just a higher mountain or deeper ocean.
A smokescreen for other things.
I'm sure that it is. I'm not sure how that makes any difference on people wanting to try. In fact some hidden motive only makes more people want to try, and do so with greater vigor.
Lack of perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing nearby due to current propulsion/distance limitations.
Currently true but so what? 100 years ago I could have said the same thing about traveling by air. Now I can be almost anywhere on the globe within 48 hours whereas 100 years ago the trip would have taken weeks if not months. I'm not about to bet against our ability to develop technology to get us to Mars and beyond. It won't happen overnight but I could easily see it being semi-routine within another 100 years.
We don't have any rationale for going to Mars right now except bragging rights and it would inevitably cost lives to achieve.
You could have made the same argument for crossing the Atlantic ocean 500 years ago. Here's
Re: (Score:2)
Well, years ago there were people saying one cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Errmmm...I guess people are still saying that.
If you want to play that game, then pick anything impossible or claimed to be impossible. Then claim it won't always be so. Then declare you've logically proven that it can be done because one day it will be done. Wow!!! This is an amazing new logical rule you've discovered. Anything, anything is possible!!
Plausible technology (Score:3)
If you want to play that game, then pick anything impossible or claimed to be impossible. Then claim it won't always be so.
Spare us your misplaced snark. Sending a spacecraft to Mars has already been done. Sending a human into space for long periods has already been done. Sending a human to the moon and back has already been done. It's not a significant stretch of the imagination to envision us sending a human to Mars and possibly beyond. Cripes if we weren't overly concerned about them surviving the trip we could do it today. The only thing really holding us back is that we're still developing the life support systems -
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an enormous stretch of the imagination. It's an enormous leap in the amount of payload needed, and the net expenditure of energy, an increase of at least 100 in payload requirements and of roughly 1000 in propellant requirements. It's not merely the changes in kinetic and potential energy of the payload, changes which cannot be recovered efficiently by any spacecraft in the foreseeable future. It's the changes in kinetic and potential energy _of the propellant needed_ for Mars landing, Mars take-o
Mission design (Score:2)
It's an enormous leap in the amount of payload needed, and the net expenditure of energy, an increase of at least 100 in payload requirements and of roughly 1000 in propellant requirements.
There is nothing about the payload requirements for a manned mission to Mars that our current technology cannot manage. It's not going to be done on a single huge spacecraft so I'm not really clear what you are worried about. Supplies and fuel will be sent via separate missions (probably multiple) most likely and the craft to ferry the humans very likely would be built via multiple launches similar to the ISS. The limitations on such a mission are really just budgetary and life support. The former is a
Re: (Score:2)
A colony would certainly multiply the complexity. NASA became accustomed, in the 1960's, to simply overpowering the limitations. It's feasible if you're willing to expend the resources. SpaceX has established what modern manufacturing and more precise manufacture can do. But a Mars mission, and return, demand far more. I'm working from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. The delta V from earth to LEO can be estimated at about 10 kilometers/second, including drag. The delta V from LEO to Mars is approximatel
Re: (Score:2)
You could have made the same argument for crossing the Atlantic ocean 500 years ago. Here's the thing about exploring. You don't know what you are going to find
Except that we pretty much know exactly what we'll find on Mars. A place far more inhospitable than the worst place on Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that we pretty much know exactly what we'll find on Mars.
Except for all the unexpected things we keep finding now and then.
How will you know what is there unless you look properly?
Re: (Score:2)
Unmanned rovers are good enough for that. Much cheaper and quicker. Also provides incentive for better AI to do autonomous exploration.
Both robots and people (Score:2)
Unmanned rovers are good enough for that.
Not always and in many ways they are slow and limited.
Much cheaper and quicker.
That's only true currently because we haven't yet developed the life support systems to sustain a human on Mars. A human geologist on Mars could accomplish multiple orders of magnitude more useful work per unit time than any robot we are in danger of developing any time soon. The argument that we shouldn't go anywhere we could send a robot is a flawed argument. The bottom of the ocean is incredibly hostile but there still are good reasons to send peop
Much still to discover (Score:2)
Except that we pretty much know exactly what we'll find on Mars.
No, we know SOME things we will find on Mars. There are undoubtedly countless things we are completely unaware of and will be amazed. It's an entire planet that we've barely explored. Heck we haven't discovered everything there is to find here on Earth yet and we've had thousands of years to look. Your argument is akin to flying to another country and snapping a few photos in while on a short vacation and then declaring that you've seen everything there is to see.
A place far more inhospitable than the worst place on Earth.
I assure you that there are places on Ea
Remember folks (Score:5, Interesting)
The government doesn't create jobs. We're told this over and over. The Cato Institute says so [cato.org]. And they're not alone. A quick search shows a multitude of people all saying the government can't create jobs.
So why the big fuss over where a non-job producing venture is to be placed? It's not like anyone is going to get a job out of this.
Re:Remember folks (Score:5, Insightful)
I see you are joking, but just to sharpen the point a bit, that damn interstate highway system never created one job, damn them for building it. And that science government funds, nothing ever comes of it, it should be scrapped because the private sector will create all the science we'll ever need. And DARPA, imagine creating things like the internet, nothing of economic value will ever come it and certainly no jobs.
Snouts in the trough (Score:3)
Texans don't believe in space unless they get nice juicy FedDollars.
Oh we all like FedDollars,
They seem to be free,
We'll bend over for FedDollars,
Just give them to me.
Re: (Score:2)
..and building a new space thingy in Houston when they cannot manage a nasty hurricane is...economically viable because then it will need to be rebuilt after Houston screws up again with the next big hurricane.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever people complain about waste in Government, I point to the private companies shoveling Government money into their pockets and paying off Congresscritters to keep the flow coming.
Any private company that doesn't immediately double their prices at the first whiff of a government contract should get a medal. And then be audited out the wazoo because something is going on there.
Not sure what the issue is here (Score:3)
Is there some element of this story that is controversial?
Should Houston sit back and give some other city a chance to host Mission Control?
Is it inappropriate for Texas lawmakers to suggest re-establishing mission control in Houston, where it had been for the previous half century?
Is the two Senators sending a letter to NASA supporting this idea somehow unusual?
This is basic politics, nothing even slightly inappropriate is hinted at in the story, and no better suggestion is made. This strikes me as a 'Dog bites Man' story, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How about letting NASA decide where it is best to do things, regardless of political desires. This would allow them to select the best site based on personnel availability, existing resources, potential expansion costs, and a host of other factors.
Keep in mind that the space shuttle Challenger was lost in part due to congressional delegation pressure from Utah. Its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) were manufactured in Utah which required the SRBs to be built in segments due to the maximum length of a rail ca
Re: (Score:2)
That's the theory that ill-educated idiots keep pushing... But the fact is that three of the four bidders on the SRB proposed segmented boosters.
Re: Not sure what the issue is here (Score:2)
How about letting NASA decide where it is best to do things, regardless of political desires.
It has never been that way. Do you think it is a coincidence that NASA facilities are located in the states/district of powerful politicians in the 60's?
I'd love to hear the case for picking up mission control from a Houston and moving it somewhere more suitable? What, particularly is so awful about Houston that keeping mission control there would be detrimental to future space programs?
Re: (Score:2)
But beyond that there is always discussion about the value of going back to the moon, the value of public space travel, the value of private space travel, and of course the irony in Texas politics being so anti-NASA most of the time, but now they are pro-NASA for this project.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, most of Texas is anti-science. They are big believers in Federal dollars, just as long as they don't have pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Only out in the boonies. Texas is rapidly urbanizing and already is 40/40 republican/democrat, with 20% swing votes. In 20 years largely democratic hispanics will outnumber republican leaning whites by a measurable degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the last time it was based in Houston we had a problem.....
Anywhere but (Score:3)
Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis
This line of reasoning makes no sense.
The Moon landings were over 40 years ago (the first one will celebrate 50 years, next year). It is unlikely that any of the staff, equipment or "know how" that contributed to those few missions still exists in Houston - or has any relevance now.
What would make sense would be to spread the largesse around. Find some other place that hasn't benefited from the NASA pork barrel and build the new centre there.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense, but only so long as you cling to the ludicrous notion that since all of that is gone... it's acceptable to start from a completely blank slate. A much less ludicrous notion is to take advantage of the existing infrastructure and experience pool of
Prior art (Score:3)
In his novel From the Earth to the Moon - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Jules Verne wrote a whole chapter about the struggle between Florida and Texas, to host the location for the "Columbiad" gun that would shoot a projectile to the Moon.
Verne's portrait of representatives from Texas and Florida arguing on this is... humoruous.
(Florida won the match, and IIRC the location chosen by Verne was not that far from Cape Canaveral.)
Horrible idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Longitude and latitude matter (Score:3)
It looks like Cape Canaveral is a degree closer to the equator. That makes a real difference in the delta vee needed to achieve orbit, and even more of a difference in fuel costs and workin gpayload for a launch that must reach escape velocity to achieve a lunar landing. Even small differences in fuel use are critical for such a large launch. It would seem to make no sense to use an even slightly more off-the-equator launching pad.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that no one is talking about launching rockets from Houston, right? They’re talking about design, production, and mission control work. Houston is the fourth largest city in the US, built on top of a giant swamp. It’s in no way suitable for launches.
...but if do want to talking about launching rockets in Texas, Brownsville is further south than Cape Canaveral, the land is cheaper and easier to build on than coastal Florida, and private companies are already conducting launches dow
Re: (Score:2)
No, I actually said almost the complete opposite of that, but since you're asking, the Port of Houston is the second largest port in the nation (first is Boston Harbor) and is one of the largest hubs for freight trains in the US, which together played a large part in why it was selected for this sort of work in the first place by NASA.
But, really, it makes more sense to use Houston for mission control and design work (as it's been used up to this point) while launching from Brownsville or the like. At that
Texas is a has-been (Score:1)
Saying "In the 1960s we wuz where y'all got y'all's ast-er-nerts" carries only dead weight.
Texas is not the soul of modern astronomy or flights to space. GSFC and KSFC are.
Sorry, Texas, you, and your corrupt politicians (why don't you go elect another Trump, to show the world how inbred you are)
have nothing to contribute.
Kindly be quiet... stop killing immigrants... and electing racist a-holes...and STFU.
E
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a stupid, insulting, and discriminatory reply that I don't know where to begin. Thousands of top engineers still work in the Clear Lake area. Millions of Texas voters voted for !Trump. Liberal strongholds in the North are far more corrupt than Texas.
You're just a bitter fool.
Why not base it all at once site at KSC (Score:2)
Operationally it could be better simply to base everything out of KSC and the Orlando area so the control center and the launch site are not separated by 1000 miles. You could also say manufacturing should be based in the KSC/Orlando area so you are not forced to truck in big components halfway across the country. Just put everything around the launch sites. Orlando even has UCF which was set up for training astronauts and engineers to supply the space program
`
Re: (Score:2)
My parents let me stay up past my bedtime to experience the establishment of Tranquility Base and Armstrong's "one small step".
As someone who isn't American, I regard that moment as the greatest in your country's history. It changed everything for everybody on Earth.
Base in Hollywood (Score:2)
Closer to the sound stage.
No. (Score:1)
Any state whose constituents and politicians consistently pushes anti-science political agendas that use as their justification the existence of a magical being should be excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to write almost exactly that, with the corollary that states with a strong record for supporting science and education get preference.
FFS (Score:2)
Heaven forbid NASA decides what it should do based on facts and which location would give them the most favourable result.
But no, all the state politicians care about is making sure they get the pork.
There's a reason Astronauts live in Houston (Score:2)