Obama explains his new plan for NASA

[warpus]

Winner, that letter you just posted (from the apollo mission commanders) was written by them in February, way before this announcement was made.

They didn't know any details, except that constellation was going to get scrapped.

How? Detailed answer, please.

Unsustainable financially

 

[NBAfan]

I agree with a lot of what Winner says.

I don't like having to rely on Russia to get into space.

 

[JollyRoger]

I agree with a lot of what Winner says.

I don't like having to rely on Russia to get into space.

Pull yourself up there by your bootstraps. Why do you want the government to do something that the private sector can handle?

 

[NBAfan]

Pull yourself up there by your bootstraps. Why do you want the government to do something that the private sector can handle?

When did I say the private sector can/should handle everything?

 

[Winner]

Winner, that letter you just posted (from the apollo mission commanders) was written by them in February, way before this announcement was made.

So what? The basic outline of the new plan was known then. Obama didn't really say anything new at KSC (except that NASA will develop the stupid Orion-Lite variant "lifeboat").

They didn't know any details, except that constellation was going to get scrapped.

False, the basics were known and repeatedly defended by Bolden. The details of the plan are not ready yet and will be made along the road, probably.

Unsustainable financially

Very detailed indeed

Sorry, you didn't address any of my points whatsoever. You seem to have read some anti-Constellation article and now you're giving me all the political pseudo-reasons.

Constellation was unsustainable under the current budget, yes. Or more precisely, it wouldn't do the things it was supposed to do by the deadlines that were set, so in other words, the programme would get delayed. But (!!), the increases needed to speed things up were not really unrealistic and even the Augustine committee which reviewed the US space programme concluded that with a relatively modest increase in budget (3 billion a year - nothing against the huge increases in military spending) it would be back on track. Of course there could be compromises - less money, more delay, it's a sort of direct proportionality.

Obama simply killed a viable project because he didn't want to allocate enough money. Everybody would accept changes in some parts of the programme (and some were indeed needed), but to kill it altogether was an insane decision. Not only the money previously invested will be partially lost, but there will be further costs in terms of cancelled orders, job losses, transit fare paid to the Russians, etc.

In the end, what's different? Obama still wants a heavy lift rocket - Constellation was supposed to produce it. Obama still wants to travel beyond LEO - Constellation was supposed to give NASA this capability. Obama wants to go to Mars - so did Constellation. Obama wants to develop new technologies - yes, that was a part of the Constellation project too.

This is why it doesn't makes sense. He could have altered the programme (for example by cancelling the part involving the return to the Moon and refocusing on other goals, which is what the Augustine committee suggested) instead of killing it completely.

 

[Winner]

When did I say the private sector can/should handle everything?

A better question would be: can the private sector do it faster and better (and substantially cheaper)?

Because we don't know the answer to that question yet. No private company has ever launched a crewed spaceship to space independently (and I'll shoot anybody who mentions Virgin Galactic) - what we have so far are promises.

Relying solely on private companies AT THIS POINT would be like scuttling all ocean liners in the 1920s because some embryonic airline companies promised us to transport people using long range aircraft that haven't even been developed yet.

In short, it's laughable.

 

[JollyRoger]

A better question would be: can the private sector do it faster and better (and substantially cheaper)?

Because we don't know the answer to that question yet. No private company has ever launched a crewed spaceship to space independently (and I'll shoot anybody who mentions Virgin Galactic) - what we have so far are promises.

Relying solely on private companies AT THIS POINT would be like scuttling all ocean liners in the 1920s because some embryonic airline companies promised us to transport people using long range aircraft that haven't even been developed yet.

In short, it's laughable.

Let the other countries waste their treasure on this and rely on the superior espionage efforts of U.S. private sector players to close the gap when it matters most.

 

[Winner]

Moments like these I wish Europe got its act together and went forward with developing independent human spaceflight capability. 2011 is the year when the decision will be made. Given how ESA was treated by America recently, maybe there will be political will to get on with it. I'd of course fully endorse it

 

[Riffraff]

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.

It's actually very simple. You have a project at a certain stage with irretrievable costs already spent (as is the case here). You should ignore those costs and continue with the project only if its entire worth is greater than the remaining cost.

It has nothing to do with "continuing in something that brings no benefit".

This might or not be the case here, however simply saying we spent 10 billion $ is an insufficient argument.

 

[Winner]

It's actually very simple.

It is, which is why it baffles me that you don't understand why you're wrong.

You have a project at a certain stage with irretrievable costs already spent (as is the case here). You should ignore those costs and continue with the project only if its entire worth is greater than the remaining cost.

Yup - you continue only if it makes sense, not because you've already spent the money.

It has nothing to do with "continuing in something that brings no benefit".

It's the same thing in different wording.

This might or not be the case here, however simply saying we spent 10 billion $ is an insufficient argument.

It would be an insufficient argument if it was the only argument. Which is not the case here, ergo you were wrong about calling sunk cost fallacy.

 

[Riffraff]

It's the same thing in different wording.

.

edit: fair enough, had read that part wrongly.

Your last point is correct, but the other points (from NA) were political and of little substance. If the tangible benefits of the current mission were to have been mapped against the future costs, that would have been an adequate discussion.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Amen brother - and when we're at it, we should also end all government support for sports and culture - such a waste of money which could be better used to feed people all around the world. Call of the World Cup, Olympics and other events.

Why the ? I wholeheartedly believe that the government (at any level) should cut off any support for such things.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I hate all this BS.

There is no practical purpose for moon or mars missions but there is never end to the outcry if spending is cut. Oh wait, but spending isn't actually being cut.

The usual arguments:

But tech advances! This is BS, sure if you get a bunch of the brightest engineers together they are going to come up with neat stuff. But it is not like these engineers would sit on their butts all day if it weren't for NASA. It is just that they wouldn't be working on comparably useless endeavors such as shooting rockets and blowing stuff up.

But we need to live on other planets! This is BS too. There is nothing we could do to this planet that would make it desirable to move off it. If we let off every nuke, melted every iceberg, and decided to fertilize our crops with arsenic the Earth would still be 10000 times more hospitable than anywhere else in the solar system.

But there is resources in space! Yes but it is prohibitively expensive to get them. Sure certain asteroids might have an unimaginable of metal resources. So does the Earth's core. That doesn't mean it is worthwhile to go after.

But space things are amazingly cool and their subsidy increases demand for me and my friends professions. So I suppose I should be thankful as our salaries are getting artificially boosted and it satisfies our nerdy passions at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Icekommander]

But tech advances! This is BS, sure if you get a bunch of the brightest engineers together they are going to come up with neat stuff. But it is not like these engineers would sit on their butts all day if it weren't for NASA. It is just that they wouldn't be working on comparably useless endeavors such as shooting rockets and blowing stuff up.

NASA provides several advantages over... whatever else these engineers might otherwise be doing. The first is that space travel encompasses a wide range of fields. If these engineers all changed work to airline companies, we would get better aircraft, but there would be very little tangible benifit in other areas. Second, NASA has specific goals. For example NASA needs new alloys that can soak up the heat of entering and leaving the Earth's Atmosphere. This allows very devoted research towards areas. A bunch of misc reseachers at many different universities lack this drive towards one goal, so things waver and can fall off track.The third is funding. NASA gets government money, so their are fewer budgetery concerns (for the individual), people aren't going for the most cost effective solution they go for the best.

But we need to live on other planets! This is BS too. There is nothing we could do to this planet that would make it desirable to move off it. If we let off every nuke, melted every iceberg, and decided to fertilize our crops with arsenic the Earth would still be 10000 times more hospitable than anywhere else in the solar system.

Even if you discount the massive amount of hyperbole and the fact that this would instantly kill off all of earths population, this is still massivly untrue. Ever read Sci Fi? Many of the authors detailing earth/moon put a lot of effort into research (True many don't, but many still do), and there are another of potential terraforming ideas. In addition, what happens if something does destroy earth? Personally I'd rather see humanity survive. (It is worth noting that the asteroid threat is blown massivly out of proportion. The time between large enough impacts to have a terminal impact on our race is measured in millions of years for a reason)

But there is resources in space! Yes but it is prohibitively expensive to get them. Sure certain asteroids might have an unimaginable of metal resources. So does the Earth's core. That doesn't mean it is worthwhile to go after.

This is true. Looking for resources at this point should be a side note. If we can get viable sttlements off earth, then we can start looking to get off earth reasources. Until then it just isn't worth it.

 

[azzaman333]

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

You might want to prove ftl travel is possible first.

 

[Theige]

We're just waiting for someone to compete against.

It's no fun when there is no competition

@ Winner, I'm sure you've been told this 100 times, but Obama has proposed the cancellation of Constellation. The budget is passed by Congress, not Obama, and something like this will not be a budget proposal deal-breaker.

 

[Winner]

@ Winner, I'm sure you've been told this 100 times, but Obama has proposed the cancellation of Constellation. The budget is passed by Congress, not Obama, and something like this will not be a budget proposal deal-breaker.

It's now almost sure to be passed.

 

[Winner]

There is no practical purpose for moon or mars missions but there is never end to the outcry if spending is cut. Oh wait, but spending isn't actually being cut.

In relative terms, it has been declining for the last... 20 years or so.

The usual arguments:

But tech advances! This is BS, sure if you get a bunch of the brightest engineers together they are going to come up with neat stuff. But it is not like these engineers would sit on their butts all day if it weren't for NASA. It is just that they wouldn't be working on comparably useless endeavors such as shooting rockets and blowing stuff up.

Yeah, they'd waste their skills and potentials doing some mundane stuff that doesn't really help us move forward. And you know, there are scientists too, who need engineers to do their jobs. Oh, and many of these engineers went to engineering because they we're inspired by the advances in space exploration. If it wasn't for it, they'd do something else, something potentially much less productive (like being lawyers, business executives or financial advisers at Goldman Sachs).

But we need to live on other planets! This is BS too. There is nothing we could do to this planet that would make it desirable to move off it. If we let off every nuke, melted every iceberg, and decided to fertilize our crops with arsenic the Earth would still be 10000 times more hospitable than anywhere else in the solar system.

That's so not the point. Space exploration is an investment in the future. True, Earth will remain habitable no matter what we do. Of course there will be no resources to sustain a technological civilization there.

Sooner or later, we will have to look for key mineral resources in space. The environmental and economic benefits are enormous. Therefore, humanity should steadily push deeper into space, even though it doesn't really bring benefits right now or in the short term.

But there is resources in space! Yes but it is prohibitively expensive to get them. Sure certain asteroids might have an unimaginable of metal resources. So does the Earth's core. That doesn't mean it is worthwhile to go after.

Could there possibly be a more stupid comparison? Anyway, this isn't an argument against space exploration, it's an argument for it. How do we make space resources more accessible? By kneeling and praying to God that he frees us from gravity? The only way is to develop better and better technologies which will eventually make space viable economically.

But space things are amazingly cool and their subsidy increases demand for me and my friends professions. So I suppose I should be thankful as our salaries are getting artificially boosted and it satisfies our nerdy passions at the expense of everyone else.

I don't even know how to respond to sheer ignorance like this. Even if it was just for the knowledge we gain, it would be totally worth it compared to the other activities human waste their money on.

 

[RedRalph]

Winner, have you done any research into opinion-powered space vehicles yet?

 

[Winner]

No, but I have designed a prototype of a device I call evil-o-meter. It's very scientific