NASA--the road not taken

We're saving the Orion capsule...

My biggest problem with this is that it's essentially giving the ability to explore space to the private sector.

When private businesses realize the cost of going into space won't really pay off in the long term, Obama's gutting of the NASA budget will just set us back even further.

Enough of the shuttle and enough of the space station. We need to start working on getting manned vehicles to Mars. We need more testing on how much the human body can take for extended periods of time in space and we need more funding to develop new technologies for our astronauts to use once they're there.

Um, wouldn't a space station be a good place to do that testing?

I was excited we were developing new spacecraft, even if it was a 20th century rehash of old technology. It was still a step in the right direction for deep space exploration.

Now, Obama has thrown a wrench into the whole works and it's gonna be at least another 10 years before we see a manned spacecraft blast off from US soil.

Manned flight will get there, but it'll probably be low earth jumps "touristy" stuff that makes the money.

One big question or hurdle of deep space travel that has yet to be answered is how humans will deal with solar radiation. Right now I think all of our manned space flight has been within the protection of earth and we haven't really exposed our astronauts to the really dangerous stuff out there. I'm no expert on this, so I'm just going by what I've heard.

I have a friend who does work in a new field called astrosociology, which is dedicated to such things as testing how long people can survive in space along with other stuff as well.

He told me the international space station would be a decent place to start (which we have), but eventually we've gotta branch out and go beyond stationary objects.

He informed me that going to Mars isn't a problem technologically (all NASA needs is proper funding and time), but the ability for the human body to extend from Earth for a very long period with little human interaction is something they've gotta spend a great deal of time on. Of course, that doesn't include the massive amount of space radiation entering a space capsule for that amount of time. He mentioned to me that an extended period of time in space could grow a human mind to unbelievable amounts of crazy regardless of the radiation seepage.

The Ares program was thrown together after the Crew Exploration Vehicle was canned by Bush. There has been no legitimate space shuttle successor since then. No one wants to go to the Moon. We've been to the Moon. It's going to cost a couple hundred billion to go back to the Moon, at least, and Bush had budgeted a couple billion. Not gonna cut it.

The question then becomes: do we want to go back to the Moon (for whatever half-assed reason), or do we want to keep running the ISS (which we've already spent $100 billion+ on)? Unfortunately, the resources do not exist to do both.

The Heavy Lift rocket, which is a critical component of getting to Mars, is still being funded. Manned flight hasn't been abandoned, but the pipe-dream of going back to the Moon on an 'Apollo on Steroids' sort of program has thankfully been scrapped, because there isn't a damned thing we can do on the Moon that we can't do with robots. Constellation was, and always has been, a smoke and mirrors move to punt the real cost of space exploration down the road to someone else.

I don't know that the CEV was the right way to continue space travel either, but when that got axed, so did the American manned launch program. Constellation just doesn't make sense in any context. If we're going to Mars, we're going to go to Mars (on the back of the Heavy Lift Rocket, not Ares) - there's really no reason to spend a hundred or two hundred billion dollars to go back to the Moon first. We've already planted our flag, played golf, hopped around. Who gives a shit. Do it big or don't do it at all: that's the only way to justify spending these huge amounts of money anyway.

Let's also not cry too much about having to hitch a ride with the Russians. For all the problems their program has had, at least their launch modules to the ISS haven't disintegrated over North Texas or exploded over the Atlantic.

What makes you say that?

This is Obama's blunder that pisses me off the most. To paraphrase Penn Jilette, it may be ridiculously expensive, but IT'S FUCKING SPACE.

ETA: The moon. It's my understanding that we need to go back to the moon to establish a much less expensive base of operations. Isn't this the big reason?

This is all civilian anyway. Air Force launched their manned LEO X-37B yesterday. It's not like the US is out of options.

EDIT: Air Force says the X-37 isn't 'meant' to carry people. The decision to make it autonomous is more blackworks/DoD shit. It was designed as a manned craft, it'll carry people.

They would say the same about riding the Space Shuttle, I guess. Obviously there have been more deaths in the Soviet program, but the Russian Federation program (and the elements of Soyuz that have specifically worked the ISS) has a better track record than ours. Really, if it's safe enough for billionaires with cash to burn, it's probably safe enough for people specifically trained for the job.

So Doctor, Pomp, just to be clear....

You're *for* pumping money into NASA, but *against* any kind of government assistance with the recession and healthcare?

Someone really needs to pull an Ozymandias here and convince the world that there are aliens out there in space out to kill us.
Budget increase would skyrocket.
The thing that bothers me the most is that EVERYONE knows that eventually, in MILLIONS of years, Earth is going to get fucked by the Sun.
So, why halt progress onw hat should be one of every generation's priority?
Eventually, we gonna need to leave this piece of rock.

This is really depressing, but I hold out hope that you'll see great strides made this century in the private sector. There's been a lot written about how you can run a successful engineering company out of your garage recently, and Richard Branson is pretty committed to a) figuring out affordable and cost-rewarding green technology and b) regular space flights. The question then becomes "once you can make space tourism affordable, where do they go?"

I know that's a wildly idealistic and potentially misguided statement, but I think the history of exploration has always been about adventure, sure, but not without some type of financial backing behind it.

I leave you with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU

My understanding is that Obama has killed Ares but has actually increased NASA spending.

Here's what makes me rage though: this privatization movement. I think it goes against the spirit of what has made NASA such a huge success. I hate to sound like an Avatard, but the push towards privatization facilitates the privatization of space itself (as illustrated in Avatar), which is not private corporations' to claim.

That said, there's a tremendous amount of waste and good ol' boy boondoggle networking that goes on with this kind of funding, so I can understand the desire to take a comprehensive step back to reevaluate. But I'm absolutely opposed to leaving innovation in space exploration to private corporations, who as far as I'm concerned have utterly screwed the pooch in 21st century America (not all, but certainly the top guys).

Well yes and no.

I'm a really big supporter of governmental access to space. I think it's clear that governments should either work separately or work together for us to have a better future in regards to space exploration/space travel/space in general.

What I'm against, in regards to space, is the free market. I'm not a full on Libertarian like many of the Ron Paul wannabes in America. I understand that government should have a role in certain aspects of our lives. I just think that it should be done by a case-by-case basis, not done through an entire political philosophy, Liberal or Libertarian.

I was against the bank bailouts, but I understood why they had to be done. Now, I'm in favor of major financial reforms in order to destroy "too big to fail." In a capitalist system, no corporation should be "too big to fail."

As for the car companies, I could give two shits if they collapsed. I have no interest in propping up companies that make shitty products, no matter how many American jobs are on the line. Hire them and pump the money into building high speed rail (which is something we desperately need in this country to save our economy and our environment.)

As for space, I see it as too dangerous of an environment to allow the free market access.

I also grew up with a large interest in space and I also grew up and still am a Trekkie. I think its our responsibility as a society to explore new reaches of the horizon, regardless of the costs. I think space exploration generates interest in science for our youth and it helps create products we simply cannot live without in today's world.

Which is remarkably similar to what was said about air travel in the first half of the 20th century (granted, the free market is seriously bent when we're talking about the airliners, but it's ultimately the same concept). I mean, if you go down in a jet liner, you're just as dead as if you go down in a suborbital ship.

The American civilian space program has been chugging away for 60 years. I don't think opening it up to the private sector is a real problem, because honestly, the U.S. has other things to worry about in space - namely, China. It's going to be a full on military approach to that, and it should be. China's already fired the first shot, by destroying an orbital satellite.

Well... I don't mean that necessarily either.

I mean free market access to the Moon and other planets. Letting them run ramshod across the galaxy without proper governmental regulation.

Haha, but then how will we ever realize the dream of Privateer?

But what government? The country of the head office? The UN?

I don't see developing nations (e.g., India, China, Russia) being that gung-ho about their companies heading up their and exploitin' as much as possible. Hell if there was oil up there, the Canadian government would be launching Western Red Cedars packed with Albertans right now.

The US blew a satellite out of orbit too.

One of my law professors is really involved in studies on space law. From reading some of his stuff and my friend's journal articles, it seems space law would fall into international law territory and developed with a similar outlook.

Space .... the final legal frontier .... these are the voyages of the starship, Emminent Domain ...

This is such fucking bullshit.

You know we found water on the moon, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/1...asa/index.html

10 NASA Inventions You Might Use Every Day
10. Invisible Braces
9. Scratch-resistant Lenses
8. Memory Foam
7. Ear Thermometer
6. Shoe Insoles
5. Long-distance Telecommunications
4. Adjustable Smoke Detector
3. Safety Grooving
2. Cordless Tools
1. Water Filters

Now, wonder what will not be invented with the new path we're taking. Each time we go in space, we learn something new. Each time we go in space, there is a specific purpose of discovery and innovation. That just isn't going to happen anymore.

I'm one of the biggest NASA supporters you'll find, but to me, that list isn't as Earth shattering as it should be, considering that I recently learned that Tigger invented an aritifical heart.

Going to the ISS doesn't count as going into space? (especially since the overwhelming priority of the shuttle has been, as of late, servicing the ISS)

I am well aware we found water on the Moon. A kamikaze robot found water on the Moon. No one has articulated what we can do by going back to the Moon that robots can't do. There's ice on Mars as well. I think there's a far more compelling argument to be made for going to Mars than for going back to the Moon. It's not like you're going to be able to do both concurrently, and it's not like going to the Moon somehow going to get us to Mars quicker. The argument that it's a 'stepping stone' is the bullshit argument, not the argument for prioritization. The Moon isn't any significantly closer to Mars than, say, the ISS, or Florida really.

I call the Trojan points -- I'll set-up a mini mall and make millions of space bucks!

The moon does have the whole 'lower gravity = less reaction mass to achieve escape velocity' thing going for it. Yeah, we could use stations like the ISS as platforms for interplanetary exploration, but we'd have to constantly be resupplying them with things like water by lifting it from Earth. A permanent launch facility on the Moon, with ready access to the water supplies there is cheaper in the long run (the water can be used to manufacture fuel, as well as supporting base personnel). Personnel would still have to be transported, but that wouldn't be happening with the same frequency as supply runs to orbital platforms.

As I've said before, sending three or four people to the moon or Mars serves no purpose. If you want to colonize other planets, sending people is the last step. What you want is a fleet of ten ships with ten people each, heading for a colony already built by robots that have been busy. We have a long, long way to go before a colony is anything but fiction.

If the private sector can figure out a way to profit from space travel, good for it. I don't really forsee the corporatization of space where us poor groundhogs are at the mercy of Virgin Galactic whereas the elite look down on us from their luxurious cabins on the space stations. I seem to remember that NASA would still be in the research business anyway, just not so much development. Space shuttles are not cheap.

Quite frankly, sending people to space isn't really doing science anyway. There's more bang for the buck in robots and telescopes. I was far more distressed at the downsizing of the Terrestrial Planet Finder than learning NASA was shifting its focus away from going to the moon again.

Build a really serious radio telescope out of a crater on the far side of the moon. If we could do that we could, and would, certainly control it remotely. I don't know that robots could build it, though. Another use would be as the jumping-off point for the rest of the solar system. Still, the sending of people would be the last step in developing either of these. I'm all for colonizing the moon; a future with 30 million people living there would be a good future. But that's not the program Obama cancelled. He cancelled something that's pretty useless right now. When you've managed to have a bunch of people live in a Mars colony in Antarctica for ten years, then it'll be time to worry about how to get them to Mars.

Thing is the private sector is profitable. The only part of the UK's economy to remain profitable (in fact it grew) during the recession was its space industry. It's why we are finally getting our asses into gear and getting a proper space agency - the government want to capitalize on it.

Going back to the Moon is still a good idea, because it can serve as a trial run for Mars, and asteroid manned missions. We've done it before, but we would still need to test out new spacecraft. Computer simulations and unmanned simulations can only get you so far.

People who are for privatizing prisons are against privatizing space exploration. Weird.

We need a prison in space! How about that? Then just slowly send it towards an orbit around the sun and just forget about it.

That's actually the plot of a movie being made. And it sound magnificent.

I'm a huge SF buff. I love the idea of the space program. But this piece pretty much convinced me that deep space (extrasolar) colonization is a pipe dream, and even colonization within our solar system seems unlikely.

Also, I love the black humor in this:
The whole thing is really, really worth a read, as are the comments.

There's also his more recent post on the myth of the starship which contains nuggets like this:
Basically, taking Stross's points into consideration, I'm not too worked up about this decision. Which, honestly, kind of shocks me.

^ As far as the possibility of manned Space Travel goes, I think that author forgets just how many "impossible" technological developments made crossing the Oceans possible: Starting with the Lighthouse at Pharos, through the invention of Longitude, Ships that could make the voyage, navigate using the stars etc.

As for Obama's decision, yeah it's disappointing, especially since if anyone could rekindle NASA a la Kennedy it would be him.

One point I would make though: there have been a lot of people advocating that we go snag some asteroids and mine them for our mineral resource needs, and leave the Earth alone. That is a near term goal that makes practical sense, and if NASA can demonstrate that it's possible, you will see a new Gold Rush by both Government and Private sectors.

Mid-term we should go to Mars. There are questions that need answering, like about that Meteorite found in the Antarctic that may contain fossils from Mars, this proving a) there was once life there and b) life may actually migrate between planets and perhaps solar systems (and yeah I know the current evidence leans against that Meteor being actual Martian life, but still.)


Long term, how can we just turn our back on the future?!

One of those people being the President.

America should visit Mars. The main argument against it, which has recently been propagated by Bill Maher, is that everything in the world is not perfect enough so that such a trip is worthwhile, when considering the time and money it would take - as if humanity will reach a point that everything is perfect, to enable worthwhile space travel. This is obviously unrealistic. But visiting Mars could be realistic, and this is a distant planet that humanity has gazed at throughout its existence. How are people not excited about putting a man on Mars? They're dispiriting and, well, I feel sorry for those people. Such an achievement would enrich the whole of humanity. It's difficult to comprehend how amazing that feat would be. I'd also like to note that, while we're on Earth, the existence of people is definitely finite.

I totally agree. I never understood the argument on why we should ditch space and use all that money to help people here on earth. Nothing is ever going to be perfect. Hell, the United States was still sending people to the moon while we where fighting in Vietnam.

I believe that missions to the moon and mars will do more good for this country and humanity as a whole. Being united if only for a moment is better than nothing.

Speaking as a citizen of a smaller nation, I doubt this sort of thing is practical from a political or fiscal standpoint unless it's a multinational effort.

Likewise the benefits of the achivement are more than proportional if it's shared among many countries.

OK so Obama does want to go to Mars but not just yet:

President Barack Obama yesterday insisted that US astronauts will reach Mars by the mid-2030s, during a speech in which he stressed "nobody is more committed to manned spaceflight, to human exploration of space than I am".

From The Register

In regards to a moon mission...maybe I'm being naieve here. But if we were able to succesfully do Apollo 40+ years ago. Why can't we do now. I mean what would be so hard about just rebuilding the Saturn V rocket, the lander, etc... and blasting off.

I know i'm simplifying it alot but I just can't grasp how if we could do it 40 years ago why would it be so much more difficult now.