Obama explains his new plan for NASA

[Tee Kay]

I do have to wonder why send a manned orbiter, though perhaps that will give some useful information about long transit conditions on humans vs. long orbital stays.

This, pretty much. This sort of thing needs to be mastered step-by-step.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I'm looking forward to the days we get Faster Than Light Boeing 747's.

 

[mariogreymist]

I'm looking forward to the days we get Faster Than Light Boeing 747's.

I think we need faster than sound 747s first, and I don't think the airframe can handle that kind of stress in any case.

And if you're referencing Xenu, they were 707s.

 

[Glassfan]

He did? I seem to remember reading somewhere yesterday that the U.S. is still planning to get back to the moon in 15 years or so. Wish I still had the article open so I could paste.

Overall, here's what I think of Obama's vision for the future of the American space flight: I LIKE IT! Constellation being cancelled kinda sucks, but Obama's overall vision appears to be realistic as well as somewhat ambitious.

President Obama's vision is just that - a vision. A fantasy. As in - not going to happen. "Planning to get to the moon in 15 years or so" - like I'm planning to lose weight (next year). It's a speech - get it?!

We used to laugh at President Bush's speeches. Why are we taking President Obama's speeches seriously?

 

[Shaihulud]

NASA is still the most heavily funded agency dedicated to SPace Exploration, although I am disappointed that they have cut back on their mission, at least they are not totally without a plan.

 

[Winner]

I don't see the connection to my post at all, sorry.

Then try harder.

 

[Winner]

President Obama's vision is just that - a vision. A fantasy. As in - not going to happen. "Planning to get to the moon in 15 years or so" - like I'm planning to lose weight (next year). It's a speech - get it?!

We used to laugh at President Bush's speeches. Why are we taking President Obama's speeches seriously?

Obama said nothing about a new mission to the Moon. In fact, if we are to trust him, he wants to skip Moon altogether and go for the asteroid, Phobos and Mars, in some very distant undefined future. The Chinese must be happy to hear that.

 

[Riffraff]

Then try harder.

Well my point was that 'proper' space exploration profits next to nothing from the manned space missions that are to be expected in the next decades. We learn nothing substantial by putting people on the moon again and the effort should be going into fundamentals in my book.

You got off on some rant about how money is wasted elsewhere.

 

[Winner]

Well my point was that 'proper' space exploration profits next to nothing from the manned space missions that are to be expected in the next decades. We learn nothing substantial by putting people on the moon again and the effort should be going into fundamentals in my book.

And I explained why that isn't true.

You got off on some rant about how money is wasted elsewhere.

Did you even read what I write? You started off in the typical anti-space fashion: "Ah, it's so expensive, we should spend money here on Earth, forget manned space exploration." First I explained how manned space exploration does benefit humanity not simply by allowing humans to do science directly in space, but by creating an incentive for accelerated development of certain types of technologies. Secondly I felt compelled to repeat the FACT that space exploration is not really expensive compared to other things, so if you people are so concerned about money, you should look elsewhere for savings.

 

[warpus]

I was reading a bit more about the proposed mission to an asteroid in 15 years time. The destination is 20 times further than the missions to the moon were, and so overall you are looking at 40 times the travel distance and 200 days travel time as opposed to 8 in the case of the moon.

It is really quite a brilliant idea. The mission will require new deep-space propulsion technology, pieces of which already exist in various other projects (i would imagine some of this already exists in constellation, the bloated and unsustainable thing that is getting scrapped). This sort of propulsion technology is required for a manned mission to Mars - going to an asteroid is a great excuse to finish developing it.

Not only that, issues about deep-space radiation need to be figured out and implemented into the spacecraft design, as well as other things that need to be taken into consideration when transporting humans through deep space over hundreds of days. The lessons we learn here will all be useful for the Mars mission.

That alone should make a plan to land on an asteroid a worthy one, but there is even more to consider. If we ever discover an asteroid on an intercept path with earth, we'll need to do this. We'll need to fly to the asteroid and potentially land people on it. If we ever do have to save the planet from a rogue asteroid, it will be way better to have had experience flying to one and landing on it already. This initial mission to an asteroid might end up being quite important.

And that's not even looking at the more scientific things that can be gained - such as a look into the distant past of the solar system, which is what can be achieved with a manned mission to an asteroid. Could even be a first step in some sort of a mining operation. (as in that they can figure out what exactly there is on an asteroid, how deep it is, how easy to get out, if there's even anything useful, etc)

So yeah, this is pretty damn cool.. I hope it all pans out. Constellation was unsustainable, both in terms of development and maintenance once it was finished. The "flying around mars and not landing on it" thing is raising questions from people, but let's see what happens with the mission to the asteroid first. If we learn enough about deep-space travel and develop some new and exciting technologies, it might make it far easier to land on mars too - and that goal might get upgraded once we actually have reached that stage.

Also, you know.. it's easy to say "we're going to land on mars". Any president could have said that. This seems like an actual plan. Obama's not just telling people what they want to hear. A lot of what he said is def. not what people wanted to hear. Heck, he got a letter from the first person to land on the moon, the last, and some other guys a while ago, in anticipation of this announcement, once it was leaked that constellation was going to get scrapped. It seems like Obama has a plan, and from where I'm sitting it looks not only pretty ambitious, but also quite realistic.

The part that should be getting true Americans excited the most is a dedication to a free market solution to the problem of transportation to and from near earth orbit. SpaceX is contracted to provide this service to NASA for a couple years, starting late this year. Which is great, cause it could truly lead to private firms operating in space, attempting to make money, lowering costs. From what I read they think it's possible to reduce the cost of transportation of cargo to near earth orbit by a factor of 10. The founder thinks that private enterprise is more efficient than government bureaucracy, and that he can reduce costs to 10% of the current asking price. If that isn't something all Americans can unite behind, I don't know what is.

 

[Riffraff]

And I explained why that isn't true.



Did you even read what I write? You started off in the typical anti-space fashion: "Ah, it's so expensive, we should spend money here on Earth, forget manned space exploration." First I explained how manned space exploration does benefit humanity not simply by allowing humans to do science directly in space, but by creating an incentive for accelerated development of certain types of technologies. Secondly I felt compelled to repeat the FACT that space exploration is not really expensive compared to other things, so if you people are so concerned about money, you should look elsewhere for savings.

Actually you didn't. All you did was listed a bunch of technologies which overlap, that's it. The fact is that while developing all these technologies is great, many of the costs coupled with a space mission are obviously completely specific to the project itself. And as the projects we are capable of at the moment have negligable direct use, I feel that efforts could be spent better elsewhere.

My point is simply that I think the available resources should be spent into research into manned spaceflight and not into manned spaceflight.

 

[Snorrius]

Let's hope Gazprom will start mining Moon for helium-3 .

 

[Icekommander]

My point is simply that I think the available resources should be spent into research into manned spaceflight and not into manned spaceflight.

Wait, What? Are you advocating that we shouldn't bother with manned missions, that we shouldn't bother with unmanned missions, or that we shouldn't bother with space at all? Or did I miss the point of your last couple posts completely?

 

[Winner]

I was reading a bit more about the proposed mission to an asteroid in 15 years time. The destination is 20 times further than the missions to the moon were, and so overall you are looking at 40 times the travel distance and 200 days travel time as opposed to 8 in the case of the moon.

Appearances are deceiving. Mission to an asteroid is more challenging only in terms of transit time (with all that comes with it - the need for more food, air, rad. shielding, etc.). In terms of delta-V (= the propulsion energy), it's actually much easier to go to an asteroid than to the Moon.

It is really quite a brilliant idea. The mission will require new deep-space propulsion technology,

Nope, it won't. It will most likely be done with the same chemical propulsion technology we've had since the 1960s.

pieces of which already exist in various other projects (i would imagine some of this already exists in constellation, the bloated and unsustainable thing that is getting scrapped).

Your view of Constellation is mildly amusing, sorry. Its problem was not the lack of innovation, it's problem was that it was realistic. In other words, expensive. And since it wasn't given enough funding, it has logically became delayed and over-budget.

BTW, a mission to an asteroid using the Constellation architecture was also planned - surprisingly it looks the same as the mission considered under the new plan. Uhm...

This sort of propulsion technology is required for a manned mission to Mars - going to an asteroid is a great excuse to finish developing it.

Not really.

You could do a Mars mission with chemical prop. only - it would just be more expensive since you'd have to haul all the fuel up to the low-Earth orbit. Using other types of propulsion (well, we really only have two other options - NERVA-like nuclear-thermal rockets and VASIMR-like magnetoplasma engines) would be less expensive in terms of the expended propellant, but there are also other difficulties - nuclear engines have not yet been tested in space and I have a gut feeling the public won't be happy about shooting nuclear reactors to space. There may be accidents, we can't expect to have a nuclear propulsion up and running in a few years without any mishaps. As for magnetoplasma engines, their problem is a very low thrust and very high energy demands - we'd need a very effective nuclear reactor to power them in space and it's not exactly clear whether we can make it light enough to actually get the weight-thrust ratio in the acceptable limits.

As I said, I am afraid asteroids were picked because getting to them is easy and it doesn't require much engineering and research. We could do it now in a modified Soyuz attached to some sort of hab module if we really wanted to.

Not only that, issues about deep-space radiation need to be figured out and implemented into the spacecraft design, as well as other things that need to be taken into consideration when transporting humans through deep space over hundreds of days. The lessons we learn here will all be useful for the Mars mission.

Yes. Then again, it depends on how seriously this asteroid mission will be taken. I am sceptical - I believe it will be a PR stunt to show that NASA is doing something, while in reality it won't bring us much closer to Mars.

That alone should make a plan to land on an asteroid a worthy one, but there is even more to consider. If we ever discover an asteroid on an intercept path with earth, we'll need to do this. We'll need to fly to the asteroid and potentially land people on it. If we ever do have to save the planet from a rogue asteroid, it will be way better to have had experience flying to one and landing on it already. This initial mission to an asteroid might end up being quite important.

This is true, in this perspective it might be useful.

And that's not even looking at the more scientific things that can be gained - such as a look into the distant past of the solar system, which is what can be achieved with a manned mission to an asteroid. Could even be a first step in some sort of a mining operation. (as in that they can figure out what exactly there is on an asteroid, how deep it is, how easy to get out, if there's even anything useful, etc)

I am sort of wary of these catchphrases As for potential industrial uses, we'd have to pick the right asteroid. Most of them are pretty useless rubble-piles.

So yeah, this is pretty damn cool.. I hope it all pans out. Constellation was unsustainable, both in terms of development and maintenance once it was finished.

How? Detailed answer, please.

The "flying around mars and not landing on it" thing is raising questions from people, but let's see what happens with the mission to the asteroid first. If we learn enough about deep-space travel and develop some new and exciting technologies, it might make it far easier to land on mars too - and that goal might get upgraded once we actually have reached that stage.

There is an awful lot of maybies in this. Which is why I fear it will eventually get watered down to something immensely pathetic.

Also, you know.. it's easy to say "we're going to land on mars". Any president could have said that. This seems like an actual plan. Obama's not just telling people what they want to hear. A lot of what he said is def. not what people wanted to hear. Heck, he got a letter from the first person to land on the moon, the last, and some other guys a while ago, in anticipation of this announcement, once it was leaked that constellation was going to get scrapped. It seems like Obama has a plan, and from where I'm sitting it looks not only pretty ambitious, but also quite realistic.

Uh uh...

The part that should be getting true Americans excited the most is a dedication to a free market solution to the problem of transportation to and from near earth orbit. SpaceX is contracted to provide this service to NASA for a couple years, starting late this year.

We'll see about that. I'll believe it when they actually deliver something more than promises.

Which is great, cause it could truly lead to private firms operating in space, attempting to make money, lowering costs. From what I read they think it's possible to reduce the cost of transportation of cargo to near earth orbit by a factor of 10.

That's bullcrap. Sorry, but I must be blunt here. I'd believe them if they said they'll launch things for half or even third the price Arianespace or the Russians normally offer. But let me be clear here - unless you find a better way to launch things to space than expendable rockets, the price can't be lowered beyond certain limit which reflects the basic physics of rocketry.

The founder thinks that private enterprise is more efficient than government bureaucracy, and that he can reduce costs to 10% of the current asking price. If that isn't something all Americans can unite behind, I don't know what is.

Well, Americans are good at believing in fairy tales as their high religiosity suggests , we know that. But believing in an empty promise isn't really going to help the US space programme.

Again, there is hard physics involved here - to get to a stable orbit, you need to expend a huge amount of energy. Today it means you need hundreds of tons of propellant and 2 or more rocket stages, which are usually irrecoverably lost after each launch. That's the main reason behind the high costs, not some government bureaucracy or lack of free market in the space launch industry.

I understand Elon Musk needs to fight for his place in the sun, but saying things like these isn't going to help him in the long term, because when he inevitably fails to deliver on these prices, people won't trust him (and other entreprenours) again.

 

[Winner]

I would put my signature on this without hesitation if I were a former moonwalker. I was waiting till Neil Armstrong finally comments, and he didn't disappoint:

Armstrong comes out against Obama's space plan

The first man to stand on the moon came out today against President Barack Obama's decision to cancel the return-to-the-moon Constellation program.

Neil Armstrong, who rarely makes any public comment, joined up with James Lovell, the commander of Apollo 13, and the last man to stand on the moon, Eugene Cernan, to warn that the president's plan could be "devastating."

They sent their statement to Jay Barbree, a longtime space reporter for NBC who lives in Brevard County and covered all of their missions.

Read their letter below.

The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous world wide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The program was named 'Constellation'. In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly., we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.


Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

Source

 

[Riffraff]

So the main arguments he brings forwards are either political (usa#1, russian dependancy) aswell as a sunken cost fallacy.

 

[Winner]

Sunk cost fallacy? Please, let's not use pseudo-cool terms where they don't belong.

As for the political implications, they're sadly indispensable.

 

[Riffraff]

"It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly., we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded."

Apart from the fact that the knowledge won't be wasted, it is exactley where this pseudo-cool term belongs..

 

[Winner]

No, it's not It only becomes a fallacy when it includes continuing in something that brings no benefit (and where the invested effort/money has been irrecoverably lost). Ergo, this term is misplaced here.

Investing 10 billion in a project which is entirely sound and then abandoning it is indeed a stupid thing to do. Saying what's obvious isn't a fallacy.

 

[JollyRoger]

Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan? Why are we listening to actors?