Obama to kill Moon mission?

[Lonestar]

Time

Does Obama Want to Ground NASA's Next Moon Mission?
By Jeffrey Kluger Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008


Getting into a shouting match with the HR rep is not exactly the best way to land a job. But according to the Orlando Sentinel, that's just what happened last week between NASA administrator Mike Griffin and Lori Garver, a member of Barack Obama's transition team who will help decide if Griffin keeps his post once the President-elect takes office. If the contretemps did occur, it could help doom not only the NASA chief's chances, but the space agency's ambitious plans to get Americans back to the moon.

The mere fact that the story is making the rounds reflects the very real friction between NASA and the transition team — which has sparked a groundswell of support among space agency employees to keep the boss. Within NASA, there is a real concern that while the Obama campaign rode the call for change to a thumping victory in November, change is precisely what the space agency does not need. (See photos of different countries' space programs here.)

The stagnant NASA of the past 20 years has been poised to become a very new NASA — thanks, in many respects, to the outgoing Bush Administration. In 2004, the President announced a new push to return astronauts to the moon and eventually get them to Mars. Many skeptics saw the hand of political whiz Karl Rove in that, suspecting that the whole idea was just a bag of election year goodies for space-happy states like Florida and Texas, as well as for voters nostalgic for the glory days of Apollo. But Bush, NASA and Congress did mean business, and eventually came up with a plan under which the space station would be completed and the shuttle would be retired by 2010. That would free up about $4 billion per year, which would be used to pay for a new generation of expendable boosters as well as a 21st century version of the Apollo orbiter and lunar lander for those rockets to carry. (Read about the space moon race here.)

"At the time, the shuttle had flown 290 people, and out of those 14 were dead — nearly one in 20," says Scott Horowitz, a four-time shuttle veteran who designed the Ares 1, one of the new boosters. "We needed something that was an order of magnitude safer."

NASA has moved with uncharacteristic nimbleness in the last five years and is already cutting metal on the new machines in the hope of having crews in Earth orbit by 2015 and on the moon by 2020. Schedules have slipped some — the original plan was to launch the orbital missions in 2014 — and costs have swollen, though so far not dramatically. (See the Top 50 space moments since Sputnik.)

"We've been moving in the right direction since the Columbia accident [in 2003]," says Chris Shank, NASA's chief of strategic communications. "The concern is that we'll lose that." Lately, that concern appears well-placed.

The Obama team picked Garver to run the NASA transition, in part because of her deep pedigree and long history at the space agency, which saw her climb to the rank of associate administrator. But Garver started as a PAO — NASA-speak for a public affairs officer — and never got involved in the nuts and bolts of building rockets. She is best known by most people as the person who in 2002 competed with boy-band singer Lance Bass for the chance to fly to the International Space Station aboard a Russian rocket. Neither of them ever left the ground.

Garver's lack of engineering cred is especially surprising in light of the eggheads with whom Obama has been surrounding himself — most recently, Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu, who has reportedly been tapped to be Secretary of Energy. Garver is also not thought to be much of a fan of Griffin — who is an engineer — nor to be sold on the plans for the new moon program. What she and others are said to be considering is to scrap the plans for the Ares 1 — which is designed exclusively to carry humans — and replace it with Atlas V and Delta IV boosters, which are currently used to launch satellites but could be redesigned, or "requalified," for humans. Griffin hates that idea, and firmly believes the Atlas and Delta are unsafe for people. One well-placed NASA source who asked not to be named reports that as much as Griffin wants to keep his job, he'll walk away from it if he's made to put his astronauts on top of those rockets.

NASA is right to be uneasy about just what Obama has planned for the agency since his position on space travel shifted — a lot — during the campaign. A year before the election he touted an $18 billion education program and explicitly targeted the new moon program as one he'd cut to pay for it. In January of 2008, he lined up much closer to the Bush moon plan — perhaps because Republicans were already on board and earning swing-state support as a result. Three months before the election, Obama fully endorsed the 2020 target for putting people on the moon. But that was a candidate talking and now he's president-elect, and his choice of Garver as his transition adviser may say more than his past campaign rhetoric.

The dust-up between Griffin and Garver is said to have occurred last week at a book launch party in Washington when, according to the Sentinel, a red-faced Griffin told Garver she was "not qualified" to make engineering decisions. Horowitz, who was not at the party but knows the NASA boss well, says he doubts that Griffin raised his voice.

"I think that's bulls---," he says. "I believe that anything he was asked he was very honest in answering because he's a systems engineer. And Lori Garver is not equipped to make technical judgments on the architecture of a space exploration system." The unnamed NASA source concedes that Griffin can be brutally honest and occasionally tactless, but insists that his shouting is simply improbable. The Obama transition office did not return an e-mail seeking comment from Garver.

For now, says the NASA source, both present and former astronauts as well as some NASA contractors are quietly — and sometimes not so quietly — lobbying for Griffin to stay. But the incoming administration is not saying anything so far. It was President John F. Kennedy who famously committed Americans to reaching the moon. Now it is Obama — who so often invokes the themes and style of JFK — who may decide if we go back.

Change...you can believe in!

[CmdrWilkens]

that's odd because most of the previous words that I heard were that the staff sceintists hated Griffin and accused him of cutting every corner imaginable along with suppresing any scientific work that the administration did not approve of first. I don't know about the moon mission but since funding has been shrinking everywhere the article's neat little claim about the supposedly huge support for the mission already has me skeptical.

[Coyote]

Isn't half his Moon Team putting in extra hours, unofficially, on a different Moon project that they feel is better?

[Lonestar]

Isn't half his Moon Team putting in extra hours, unofficially, on a different Moon project that they feel is better?

(1)I don't know, and (2)What does that have to do with the price of beer?(no shuttle replacement, in-coming administration wants to kill moonshot)

[Xenophobe3691]

Isn't half his Moon Team putting in extra hours, unofficially, on a different Moon project that they feel is better?

I think that Obama would benefit more from actual engineers leading on these projects, than on the graft that's developed around the M-I complex.

Unfortunately, in Central Florida, that complex is the graft. Their efforts need to be directed somewhere effective in exploration, as opposed to effective in "White Elephants."

[Fire Fly]

I'll be pretty pissed if the incoming Obama administration decides to slash NASA projects and funds. The guy has already been tap dancing around the NASA issue multiple times and I don't blame NASA administrators of being protective of their in the works projects. I'm still expecting him to double science funding like he promised but the realist in me says he won't.

[Shroom Man 777]

Can't you people do a Moon mission after your economy stops crapping up?

[Junghalli]

Can't you people do a Moon mission after your economy stops crapping up?

I think NASA is something like 1.5% of the budget. I suppose cutting it would help in the sense of "all money helps", but it's not like it's a titanic money-pit on the grand scale of things.

[SirNitram]

...

'Are believed to'.

The only direct quote is from a guy who saw none of this supposed 'exchange', but 'knows Griffin very well'.

Well, first, let's remember that one half of the accusation is Griffin and his pals. Griffin is one of those looney-tunes who thinks there's still a question of if the global climate is changing, and the guy who altered the mission statement of NASA to remove any pesky reference to monitoring and combating such.

Second, I present a second peice on the same, from an Orlando paper's website: Link

CAPE CANAVERAL – NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.

In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.

In addition, Griffin is scripting NASA employees and civilian contractors on what they can tell the transition team and has warned aerospace executives not to criticize the agency’s moon program, sources said.

Griffin’s resistance is part of a no-holds-barred effort to preserve the Constellation program, the delayed and over-budget moon rocket that is his signature project.

Chris Shank, NASA’s Chief of Strategic Communications, denied that Griffin is trying to keep information from the team, or that he is seeking a meeting with Obama. He also insisted that Griffin never argued with Garver.

“We are working extremely well with the transition team,” he said.

However, Shank acknowledged Griffin was concerned that the six-member team – all with space policy backgrounds – lack the engineering expertise to properly assess some of the information they have been given.

Garver refused comment about her conversation with Griffin -- and his remark that she is “not qualified” -- during a book-publication party at NASA headquarters last week. Obama’s Chicago office – which has sent similar transition teams to every federal agency – also had no comment.

People close to Garver, however, say that she has confirmed “unpleasant” exchanges with Griffin and other NASA officials. “Don’t worry, they have not beaten me down yet,” she e-mailed a colleague.

And this week, Garver told a meeting of aerospace representatives in Washington that “there will be change” to NASA policy and hinted that Obama would name a new administrator soon, according to participants.

Those who spoke for this article, including a member and staff in Congress, NASA employees, aerospace executives and consultants, spoke only on condition that their names not be used.

Garver’s team is one of dozens of review panels that over the last few weeks have descended on every government agency. Armed with tough questions, they are scrutinizing programs, scouring budgets and hunting for problems that may confront a new president.

Though their job is to smooth the transition between administrations, their arrival also brings a certain level of anxiety, particularly when programs face tough questions, as at NASA.

Said John Logsdon, a George Washington University professor who co-wrote the book honored at the NASA party, "There is a natural tension built into this situation... Mike is dead-on convinced that the current approach to the program is the right one. And Lori’s job is to question that for Mr. Obama. The Obama team is not going to walk in and take Mike’s word for it.”

The Bush White House has pledged cooperation, and many agency leaders have told staff to cooperate fully. Griffin himself sent a memo urging employees “to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately.”

At the same time, he made clear he expected NASA employees to stay on message.

For example, transition-team interviews have been monitored by NASA officials “taking copious notes,” according to congressional and space-community sources. Employees who met with the team were told to tell their managers about the interview.

The tensions are due to the fact that NASA’s human space flight program is facing its biggest crossroads since the end of the Apollo era in the 1970s. The space shuttle is scheduled to be retired in 2010, and the next-generation Constellation rockets won’t fly before 2015.

Nearly four years ago, President Bush brought in Griffin to implement a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 as a prelude to going to Mars. Griffin and his team selected Constellation, with its NASA-designed Ares I rocket and Orion capsule, as cheaper and safer than existing rockets. Constellation – especially Ares 1 -- is the center of what Griffin sees as his legacy to return humans to the frontiers of space.

Griffin has made no secret that he would like to stay on but only, as he recently told Kennedy Space Center workers, "under the right circumstances," including being able to finish Constellation.

But budget problems and technical issues have created growing doubts about the project. Griffin has dismissed these as normal rocket development issues, but they’ve clearly got the transition team’s attention.

When team members arrived three weeks ago, they asked the agency, among other things, to quantify how much could be saved by canceling Ares I. Though they also asked what it would take to accelerate the program, the fact that the team could even consider scrapping the program was enough to spur Griffin and his supporters into action

According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives.

The companies, worried that Griffin may remain and somehow punish them if they ignore his wishes, have by and large complied.

One consultant said that when Garver invited “several” mid-level aerospace executives to speak to the team, their bosses told them not to go and warned that anything said had to be cleared first with NASA because Griffin had demanded it.

Documents and e-mails obtained by the Sentinel confirm NASA’s efforts to coordinate what’s said.

A Dec. 3 e-mail to Constellation contractors from Sandy Coleman, an executive with Alliant Tech Systems, the prime contractor on the Ares I, said that Griffin wanted NASA to pre-review any materials given to the team.

“Phil [McAlister, the NASA contact for the transition team] relayed a request by Mike Griffin that if we plan to provide the Transition Team any reports or studies that were performed under NASA contracts that we provide them a copy first … ,” Coleman wrote.

The e-mail followed two teleconferences set up by Shank and another NASA official, Gale Allen. According to documents produced from the teleconferences, the point was to “to develop a strategy for promoting the continuation of Constellation in the next administration.”

Among the ideas agreed on: tell the team that an Obama White House “could take ownership of the [Constellation] program and ‘re-brand’ it as their own with minor tweaks.”

Another set of talking points, presented during a Nov. 21 teleconference, was called “Staying the Course on Constellation.” Among the points: Ares 1 had been thoroughly studied “and is sound” – and any change would make NASA look bad. “If NASA appears to be wavering by not staying the course … this would cause a loss of public and stakeholder confidence in NASA,” it said.

Shank said that the contractors – not NASA -- had requested the teleconferences. “We do not seek to intimidate at all," he said.

Tensions were on public display last week at the NASA library, as overheard by guests at a book party.

According to people who were present, Logsdon, a space historian, told a group of about 50 people he had just learned that President John F. Kennedy’s transition team had completely ignored NASA.

Griffin responded, in a loud voice, “I wish the Obama team would come and talk to me.”

Alan Ladwig, a transition team member who was at the party with Garver, shouted out: “Well, we’re here now, Mike.”

Soon after, Garver and Griffin engaged in what witnesses said was an animated conversation. Some overheard parts of it.

“Mike, I don’t understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood,” Garver said.

“If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar,” Griffin replied. “Because it means you don’t trust what I say is under the hood.

I love the last quote. What type of engineer is 'DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT MY WORK!', precisely?

[Singular Intellect]

Can't you people do a Moon mission after your economy stops crapping up?

I was just going to say...

All the shit going down with the recession, job losses, unemployment crisis, energy shortage, massive war incurred debt...and people are worried about a fucking moon mission?

Give me a fucking break, the US is either in deep shit or they're not. If they waste time worrying about going to the moon, either this is one big fucking deception or one big fucking mountain of stupid.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can't you people do a Moon mission after your economy stops crapping up?

I was just going to say...

All the shit going down with the recession, job losses, unemployment crisis, energy shortage, massive war incurred debt...and people are worried about a fucking moon mission?

Give me a fucking break, the US is either in deep shit or they're not. If they waste time worrying about going to the moon, either this is one big fucking deception or one big fucking mountain of stupid.

I'm inclined to agree that the Moon mission is not the best use of Government funds. Space exploration, however, is a critical government expenditure in the sense that it represents a nessissary long-term investment. Waiting until all our other problems are solved isn't an option, because its not going to happen, and we're on a planet with finite resources that are probably going to run out soon.

The problem with the Moon is that its probably not the most valuable place to focus our efforts on, in terms of resources, scientific interest, or suitabillity for a sustainable colloney.

That said, if Obama cuts space funding generally, or fails to push NASA to move forward as opposed to circling in orbit for another 20 years, I'll be pissed.

[Shroom Man 777]

But then again, if America sent another man on the Moon, it'll make people really proud of the US of A and they can go "America fuck yeah!" while their homes are foreclosed.

[The Romulan Republic]

But then again, if America sent another man on the Moon, it'll make people really proud of the US of A and they can go "America fuck yeah!" while their homes are foreclosed.

Well like I said the Moon's not worth that much, but come on. Their is a lot more to the space program, even as it relate to the Moon, than "America fuck yeah!" I should hope that few people would fall for such simplistic and cliche attitudes in a place such as this, which puts such a premium on scientific knowledge and logic.

We'll have a lot more to worry about than forclosed homes when this planet's finite resources start to really run out. Once again, the space program represents a long-term investment for our civilization's survival, for those of us to whom pure research for the sake of enhancing scientific knowledge is an insufficient motivation.

[Singular Intellect]

Space exploration, however, is a critical government expenditure in the sense that it represents a nessissary long-term investment. Waiting until all our other problems are solved isn't an option, because its not going to happen, and we're on a planet with finite resources that are probably going to run out soon.

You know, long term planning is great.

But this situation is like a student who gets riddled with bullets in a drive by shooting and insists they need to make it to class before checking into the hospital to get twenty bullets removed. Correctly pointing out education is important is beside the point...

[The Romulan Republic]

Space exploration, however, is a critical government expenditure in the sense that it represents a nessissary long-term investment. Waiting until all our other problems are solved isn't an option, because its not going to happen, and we're on a planet with finite resources that are probably going to run out soon.

You know, long term planning is great.

But this situation is like a student who gets riddled with bullets in a drive by shooting and insists they need to make it to class before checking into the hospital to get twenty bullets removed. Correctly pointing out education is important is beside the point...

Your example is not analagous. In your hypothetical, getting the nessissary medical help and getting to class are mutually exclusive goals. Unless you can provide evidence that fixing America's economic problems and letting NASA have its scraps from the Federal table are mutualy exclusive goals, your "analogy" is questionable to say the least.

[Guardsman Bass]

Space exploration, however, is a critical government expenditure in the sense that it represents a nessissary long-term investment. Waiting until all our other problems are solved isn't an option, because its not going to happen, and we're on a planet with finite resources that are probably going to run out soon.

You know, long term planning is great.

But this situation is like a student who gets riddled with bullets in a drive by shooting and insists they need to make it to class before checking into the hospital to get twenty bullets removed. Correctly pointing out education is important is beside the point...

I would say it's more like totaling your car, then raiding either your pension fund or Health Savings Account to buy a new one. It's not a major current expense, and cutting it is nothing but idiocy and damage for you in the long-term.

[CmdrWilkens]

Alternatively think of it this way:

You have just had your savings wiped out, you don't have a penny to your name and fresh out of college you have lots of student loans coming due and a crappy job that doesn't really pay the bills. Do you cut:

1) Your Lamborghini in the back yard (Defense)
2) Your Lamorghini Maintenance Bills (VA)
3) Your savings plan (SS)
4) Your health plan (Medicare)
5) Your food budget (FDA, FTC, FCC, etc)
6) Your rent (HUD, HHS, etc)
7) Your professional association dues (NASA)

Well sure cutting your professional association dues would save you (and depening on whether its CPA, Legal, or even my field of Faclity Managemnt the price varies) but its good long term cash invested in terms of staying ahead of the curve AND even if you cut our your spending there is a shitload more of your money going elsewhere. As a matter of return on investment your best chance for cost cutting is Defense, Medicare, Social Security and the VA. Since all of those are fraught with political peril you either can make some hard choices about the remaining agencies or you can take the risk and cut ten billion here and there from the defense budget...or you can take out more loans and keep plugging away waiting for a better job to kick in and the pay rate to raise.

[Themightytom]

Does this article reek of speculation to anyone else? I feel like Time magazine wanted to win its own little space race in finding "The way obama would let us down" first.

personally, i don't care either way, we go to to the moon? Sweet! people are thinking about space again, We stay in near earth orbit and shore up xisting projects so we don't have to send Astronauts on rediculously risky hail mary missions? Also good. Space tourism can develop maybe start exploring some other practical ideas that have been tossed about but ignored (orbital mirrors space elevators ion engines robot probes whatever), but either way I doubtObama will "cut" nasa, as he seems to recognize people need an example in order to pursue exucation, and as a nation we DEFINITELY need to encoruage better success in education. I doubt he will cut it, but he may redirect it, which would explain why he puts someone with more of a PR bent, into that position, beause she can better explain to the american people, in an accessible way what is going on "up there"

[Shroom Man 777]

Well like I said the Moon's not worth that much, but come on. Their is a lot more to the space program, even as it relate to the Moon, than "America fuck yeah!" I should hope that few people would fall for such simplistic and cliche attitudes in a place such as this, which puts such a premium on scientific knowledge and logic.

We'll have a lot more to worry about than forclosed homes when this planet's finite resources start to really run out. Once again, the space program represents a long-term investment for our civilization's survival, for those of us to whom pure research for the sake of enhancing scientific knowledge is an insufficient motivation.

How can America concentrate on advancing science with its space program to pursue this long-term investment if the country ends up in another Great Depression? You can't make great leaps and bounds when your people are in tent cities, eating from soup kitchens.

Once the economy is fixed, then you will be able to successfully pursue those great scientific endeavors and go where no man has gone before. That's why the massive leaps and bounds in science and technology, from the atomic bomb to space rockets, came after the financial crisis of the Great Depression, when everyone has recovered.

There are immediate needs, and there are future needs. If you can't meet your immediate needs, you won't be able to progress to the point where you're bothered by future needs because you won't have a future. How can you make a great success out of yourself later in life when, earlier on, you can't even afford food, clothing and shelter?

[CmdrWilkens]

Well like I said the Moon's not worth that much, but come on. Their is a lot more to the space program, even as it relate to the Moon, than "America fuck yeah!" I should hope that few people would fall for such simplistic and cliche attitudes in a place such as this, which puts such a premium on scientific knowledge and logic.

We'll have a lot more to worry about than forclosed homes when this planet's finite resources start to really run out. Once again, the space program represents a long-term investment for our civilization's survival, for those of us to whom pure research for the sake of enhancing scientific knowledge is an insufficient motivation.

How can America concentrate on advancing science with its space program to pursue this long-term investment if the country ends up in another Great Depression? You can't make great leaps and bounds when your people are in tent cities, eating from soup kitchens.

Once the economy is fixed, then you will be able to successfully pursue those great scientific endeavors and go where no man has gone before. That's why the massive leaps and bounds in science and technology, from the atomic bomb to space rockets, came after the financial crisis of the Great Depression, when everyone has recovered.

There are immediate needs, and there are future needs. If you can't meet your immediate needs, you won't be able to progress to the point where you're bothered by future needs because you won't have a future. How can you make a great success out of yourself later in life when, earlier on, you can't even afford food, clothing and shelter?

Except that the basic research breakthroughs that made those applied science breakthroughs possible relied on funding in the 1920s and 1930s. The point being that you don't stop funding basic research or fundamental infrastructure (including intellectual and institutional infrastructure) when the long term goal is valuable. That's aside form the fact that these govenment contracting programs employ people in a whole HOST of well paying jobs that help keep the economy running. Just as the TVA was an infrastructure project so too can NASA be an infrastructure project.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, CmdrWilkens already provided you with an excellent answer, but since this post was adressed to me I suppose I shoud respond.

How can America concentrate on advancing science with its space program to pursue this long-term investment if the country ends up in another Great Depression? You can't make great leaps and bounds when your people are in tent cities, eating from soup kitchens.

And those people will be wishing they had soup kitchens if we're stuck on one planet when its resources run out or a big asteroid hits.

Once the economy is fixed, then you will be able to successfully pursue those great scientific endeavors and go where no man has gone before. That's why the massive leaps and bounds in science and technology, from the atomic bomb to space rockets, came after the financial crisis of the Great Depression, when everyone has recovered.

How long will it take to recover? At what point are our problems adequately resolved on Earth that we can afford to pay attention to the rest of the Universe, or to making long-term plans for the future? Do we have the time to wait? Why can't we make progress on solving our pressent problems by investing in the future, with the result that we will improve education and employ many people, while ultimately allowing us to develope new technology and access new resources?

There are immediate needs, and there are future needs. If you can't meet your immediate needs, you won't be able to progress to the point where you're bothered by future needs because you won't have a future. How can you make a great success out of yourself later in life when, earlier on, you can't even afford food, clothing and shelter?

You are acting like we must choose between the two. In what way is the space program nessissarily so expensive that funding it and fixing the economy must be mutually exclusive goals?

[Shroom Man 777]

How long will it take to recover? At what point are our problems adequately resolved on Earth that we can afford to pay attention to the rest of the Universe, or to making long-term plans for the future?

Well, the 90s were a pretty financially stable time, it was an optimistic one too - with the ISS and the Shuttle-Mir programs.

You are acting like we must choose between the two. In what way is the space program nessissarily so expensive that funding it and fixing the economy must be mutually exclusive goals?

I'm not saying we stop all space programs and do what the ancient Chinese did and burnt their entire exploratory fleet.

It's a hard time, economically, so it's understandable that the Moon mission would get a little delayed and that there would be some tightening of belts and budgets (not the complete cessation of the space program). It's not just the space program, but for a lot of things. When the economy gets better, then the world can go back to what it was doing - increase the budgets, plan more programs (like the ISS, but implement it better of course), etc.

Just because people have to conserve money for the short-term doesn't mean our future in space will be forever jeopardized and it doesn't mean all research and development will be killed. Besides, with all the controversies in NASA, maybe this short break can be used to re-organize the organization into something more efficient and less bloated.


EDIT:


But if the space program can be used as Wilkens says to reinvigorate the economy, then that's great!

[Tanasinn]

But then again, if America sent another man on the Moon, it'll make people really proud of the US of A and they can go "America fuck yeah!" while their homes are foreclosed.

Not likely, considering we've been there and done that with computers weaker than what, an average cell phone? To try and make a parallel: no layman gave a damn who the second man on top of Mount Everest was, or the second man to the north pole, or the second pair of guys to build a real working airplane. Even here, when the issue of countries going to the moon comes up, you can count on at least a few "oh hey, only a few decades behind!" posts. I seriously doubt a moon mission would garner interest in other space exploration in the public. (Yes, I'm aware you're being sarcastic...)

[Nephtys]

Advancing space-related technologies help development in all sorts of high technology fields, from computers to chemical engineering. I don't see why not, if we can use the same argument that building nuclear submarines stimulates the economy, why can't building advanced spacecraft and probes do the same?

One doesn't cut funding to such things, especially as it's a small part of the overall budget, just because you'd never get it started again. There's always 'something' that one can see as a problem that needs money thrown at it. Be it the war on terror, or now the economy.

[Bounty]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a moonshot program be a major source of new jobs? If this really involves building multiple new one-use boosters, that's a pretty big construction project - one that can soak up all manner of personnel who might otherwise be shit out of luck. Yes, the cost will be high, but a lot of it is going to trickle directly back into the economy on a level where it can make a genuine difference.

And I don't think you can easily discount the morale aspect of such a mission. Even if it is a big feel-good project, hey, it's a feel-good project. America is going to need those if it's not to slink into a collective depression. At least it's better entertainment than X-factor...