The Emperor's new Space Program

[emzie]

Why not build new shuttles? NASA says the Endeavor cost 1.7 billion. That's 5 shuttles that could have been built, with new airframes and new equipment.

Because robots worth of billions are unable to get out of a little hole in the ground filled with dirt, or to swipe dust from their solar panels, for starters. Seriously, if humanity plans to survive in the long term, it must expand to space.

I am trying to imagine people with Obama-like mentality ruling over 15th century Portugal or Castille-Aragon.

"I am sorry, Vasco, but your planned voyage to India is simply too expensive, you're over the budget. We have wars to pay for and the peasants are getting restless, we must throw them some coin. But don't worry, our explorations programme isn't over, we'll hand it over to private investors. In the meantime, we want our navy to focus on more closer-to-home activities, like fishing and patrolling "

There's little need to send people to space right now. Most of our research can be done much more cost effectively with probes. I speculate that you're right about space being a very important part of our lives in the future but that doesn't mean we must personally be there as a species at all stages.

 

[JohnRM]

It is not so much the cost of building new shuttles, but the cost of operating and maintaining shuttles that is prohibitive.

 

[trader/warrior]

President's budget request plans an investment of an additional $6bn in Nasa over the next five years - an overall $100bn commitment to the agency (its budget for 2011 would be $19bn).
He wants some of the extra funding to be used to incentivise private companies, to help them to bring forward a new generation of launchers to carry humans into orbit.

As well as being a customer for these rockets, Nasa would also set and oversee standards in the nascent market, especially in matters that concerned crew safety.

In addition, Monday's funding boost would enable America to extend the operation of the International Space Station from 2015 to at least 2020.

The changes fit broadly with ideas put forward by a special panel convened last year by Mr Obama to review US human spaceflight options.

The Augustine committee argued strongly in favour of giving the commercial sector a greater role in the nation's space programme. The panel members thought such an approach could reduce costs and even speed up the adoption of new technologies.

This part makes me think it was a good decision. Especially the longer lifespan of the ISS, I mean are they even finished building it yet? And they would scrap it in just 5 years?

 

[Winner]

The thing is there aren't billions of people out there on Mars and Venus to trade with.

We aren't close to establishing moon colonies, and we still won't be in 20 years.

Yes, especially since we're not giving enough money to GET THERE. What kind of circular logic is this?

I keep hearing how expensive space exploration is, but compared to other human activities (like warfare, bank bailouts, Olympic games, etc.) the costs are actually pretty moderate. Technologically speaking, there is nothing to stop us from building a self-sufficient base on the Moon within 10-15 years.

Another thing is that without practice, trial and error and active approach, we simply won't get any experience. You can spend years on Earth comparing different approaches of extracting water from lunar rocks, but until you get there and try it, it's all useless. The same principle guides million other things.

BTW, you still didn't refute my assertion that the US is giving up on human spaceflight.

 

[Patroklos]

Why not build new shuttles? NASA says the Endeavor cost 1.7 billion. That's 5 shuttles that could have been built, with new airframes and new equipment.

Thats like saying we should build new Saturn Vs. They are obsolete, we should be able to build a vehicle with the same money with many times the capability of the shuttles.

 

[Winner]

Yeah, cause that's the same thing.

No, but it is similar. In order to enable privately-funded activities, the government needs to pave the way. Initial European exploration of far away lands was pretty similar to our space exploration - it was dangerous, expensive and the kings and queens viewed it with suspicion. Only thanks to the competition between states and the sheer determination and foresight of some of the rulers did the Europeans find new trade routes to the Far East and discovered the Americas.

Why not build new shuttles? NASA says the Endeavor cost 1.7 billion. That's 5 shuttles that could have been built, with new airframes and new equipment.

Because Shuttle is obsolete and it failed to reduce the price of putting things to space.

There's little need to send people to space right now. Most of our research can be done much more cost effectively with probes. I speculate that you're right about space being a very important part of our lives in the future but that doesn't mean we must personally be there as a species at all stages.

Some science can be done by robots. Some can't. If you want to develop practical applications, human presence is indispensable.

This part makes me think it was a good decision. Especially the longer lifespan of the ISS, I mean are they even finished building it yet? And they would scrap it in just 5 years?

It's the only good thing about the proposal.

 

[emzie]

Thats like saying we should build new Saturn Vs. They are obsolete, we should be able to build a vehicle with the same money with many times the capability of the shuttles.

I'm not proposing something to last NASA until 2040. I'm proposing a stopgap that is, in my opinion, better than relying on the Russians.

 

[lovett]

Because robots worth of billions are unable to get out of a little hole in the ground filled with dirt, or to swipe dust from their solar panels, for starters. Seriously, if humanity plans to survive in the long term, it must expand to space.

Your using Spirit as an example of failed robotics?! This is a rover that lasted over twenty times as long as originally predicted and has been operational for about six years. How much would it cost to get the same benefit out of human research? Keeping a human alive on Mars is pretty expensive, and you need to bring them back. I doubt I need to explain the mechanics of space travel to you, but the main cost of every mission is getting out of a planetary orbit. It's actually easier to get to and from Phobos than to and from The Moon. Hence why it costs about $20,000 dollars per KG to get out of Earth orbit. That means every extra KG we need for oxygen, heating, food and sanitation because of a human cargo costs an awful, awful lot. I wouldn't be surprised if we could drop a thousand rovers on mars for the cost of a single manned expedition. Not to mention the fact that robotics is hardly a stagnant field.

I don't really buy this long-term argument. The Earth is going to be habitable for a really long time. Space colonization is hardly a pressing concern. If we really want to help mankind long-term prospects we'd probably be better off financing basic research (For example, Particle accelerators). Our technology will improve tremendously, and space will still be there.

 

[Benefactor]

ESA should get a human carrying spacecraft into commission as soon as possible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not proposing something to last NASA until 2040. I'm proposing a stopgap that is, in my opinion, better than relying on the Russians.

We already have a new boost vehicle that can accomplish the same basic functionality as the shuttle. The shuttle is hopelessly antiquated and overly complex. I think it is amazing that we have not had more disasters.

 

[emzie]

Poor Spirit

 

[Theige]

Yes, especially since we're not giving enough money to GET THERE. What kind of circular logic is this?

I keep hearing how expensive space exploration is, but compared to other human activities (like warfare, bank bailouts, Olympic games, etc.) the costs are actually pretty moderate. Technologically speaking, there is nothing to stop us from building a self-sufficient base on the Moon within 10-15 years.

Another thing is that without practice, trial and error and active approach, we simply won't get any experience. You can spend years on Earth comparing different approaches of extracting water from lunar rocks, but until you get there and try it, it's all useless. The same principle guides million other things.

BTW, you still didn't refute my assertion that the US is giving up on human spaceflight.

We could also build a colony at the bottom of the ocean, technologically speaking, and it would only take 5 - 10 years. Doesn't mean its a good idea, but its still a better idea than building a moon colony.

As far as refuting your claim, this is just an outlined proposal by Obama, the US Congress is in charge of actually producing a budget. I'm sure whatever way the budget turns out, NASA will retain significant human spaceflight capabilities for the foreseeable future.

 

[Luckymoose]

Billions of dollars for a probe that is so weak it has a life span of 90 days is one of the reasons I hate NASA. We have the tech it's just the money isn't being properly spent.

 

[Anonymoose]

But it lasted over 5 years.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think our space programs should have stable funding, with discretionary amounts available to the whims of government income. I also think they should focus on science, and offer prizes to the private industry for the spiffy landmark adventures. I think those prizes should be substantive, though.

Frankly, we don't need new technology to get people to the Moon. There's no point in detailing a government bureaucracy to doing so. What's needed is a private incentive. Offer ... I don't know, a "billion dollars" to the company that can put 2 people on the Moon for a week and bring them home safely. These companies are already motivated to do this for the tourist industry, and so seed money in the form of prizes will make people more adventurous.

 

[Bootstoots]

Billions of dollars for a probe that is so weak it has a life span of 90 days is one of the reasons I hate NASA. We have the tech it's just the money isn't being properly spent.

It's actually lasted over 6 years. I do think that NASA knew it was going to last well over 90 days assuming a successful landing, and claimed that number to hedge their bets a bit. Still though, 6 years is much longer than anyone expected it to last, and its twin rover Opportunity is still mobile and collecting data. The both of them together cost $820 million. Source

On topic, I'm glad this program got the axe. There is no reason for humans to go into outer space at a cost of dozens of times what it would take for a robot to do the same thing. Given NASA's budget constraints, they should stop doing human space exploration entirely and focus on unmanned craft - we would discover so much more if we didn't spend billions of dollars sending people into low-Earth orbit. Just think if all the money for manned spacecraft was instead diverted to build several probes to the outer solar system and a number of state-of-the-art space telescopes that could use interferometry to actually see planets around other stars...

 

[bombshoo]

It's not as if all the research done on this goes to hell just because the project is canceled. I'm sure we learned something and its not as if Obama said we're never going to the moon again, he simply ended this particular project. Maybe it'll get a reboot a few years down the road when the USA is in a better place socially and financially.

 

[sophie]

Spoiler :

Poor Spirit

Reminds me of WALL-E

 

[warpus]

Indeed. It is about time Obama abandoned GWB's cockamamie scheme to help win the 2004 election by pandering to all the space exploration buffs.

However, I don't agree with trying to "privatize" launch vehicles, especially by subsidizing them. If a company can provide a safe and effective alternative on their own, that's fine. But it shouldn't be done with taxpayer dollars.

They wouldn't be able to on their own yet, that's the thing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Because it is not economically feasible to do so. Until it is, I think private industry shouldn't have anything to do with launch vehicles that the government may possibly use. And even then there is the issue of safety. The reason we have not had far more disasters is primarily because there is a huge and incredibly expensive bureacracy present to try to assure those problems won't happen with manned space flights. That would be largely absent in a private endeavor.

OTOH, I certainly think we should continue to do basic research and unmanned space exploration. But I don't think we need to perform more incredibly expensive research-poor headline-grabbing Cold-War-winning gestures, like sending even more men to the moon, or even to Mars, for the forseeable future.