Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

[Uraniun235]

My real question is, does Obama really think this is the best way forward for manned exploration? Or is this just the closest to canceling manned spaceflight that he thinks he can get away with?

[Coyote]

Or is this just the closest to canceling manned spaceflight that he thinks he can get away with?

Probably this. He's probably trying to curry favor with conservatives by cutting both a "bloated government spending program" and "science" at once.

But I still way wait and see-- Florida is heavily Republican, but also would not accept scrapping the space program. It is also a key vote state. Stay tuned.

[Cecelia5578]

My real question is, does Obama really think this is the best way forward for manned exploration? Or is this just the closest to canceling manned spaceflight that he thinks he can get away with?

Well, as a long time browser of the left wing blogosphere, I've noticed that there is no enthusiasm whatsoever for manned spaceflight; its one of those weird moments when lefties (contrary to their public image) start to get all fiscal conservativey, and whatnot. I imagine part of it has to do with the connotation that many on the left have of "manned spaceflight=somehow run by the military." Go to a mainstream left wing blog and bring up points like Shep is doing, and you'll (regardless of your other views) probably not be treated nicely.

Its one of those few areas (nuclear power, BMD being the others) where I actually, in a sense (though not entirely) agree with the right.

[Coyote]

I imagine part of it has to do with the connotation that many on the left have of "manned spaceflight=somehow run by the military." Go to a mainstream left wing blog and bring up points like Shep is doing, and you'll (regardless of your other views) probably not be treated nicely.

Its one of those few areas (nuclear power, BMD being the others) where I actually, in a sense (though not entirely) agree with the right.

I have noticed much the same trend in the Left, which I also find odd; but usually the line I hear associated with manned space flight is how "all that money could have gone to feed the poor" or how each rocket that goes up is "another ten million that won't be going to schools". Never mind the irony of that statement.

[Flagg]

The real issue is that all this talk of returning to the moon and going to Mars was a bunch of pie in the sky horseshit dreamed up by the Bush administration in order to win Florida in the 2004 election. Why do you think he set every single goal to be met until well after his second term would be up? So NASA spent a fuckton of it's budget designing and prototyping launch vehicles and habitats that may or may not have even been used. And with the economy Bush left Obama with, what do you expect? I mean we're going back to the moon at some point. But it's not going to be within the next 10 years.

[montypython]

My real question is, does Obama really think this is the best way forward for manned exploration? Or is this just the closest to canceling manned spaceflight that he thinks he can get away with?

Well, as a long time browser of the left wing blogosphere, I've noticed that there is no enthusiasm whatsoever for manned spaceflight; its one of those weird moments when lefties (contrary to their public image) start to get all fiscal conservativey, and whatnot. I imagine part of it has to do with the connotation that many on the left have of "manned spaceflight=somehow run by the military." Go to a mainstream left wing blog and bring up points like Shep is doing, and you'll (regardless of your other views) probably not be treated nicely.

Its one of those few areas (nuclear power, BMD being the others) where I actually, in a sense (though not entirely) agree with the right.

Left-wing 'statists' tend to be more supportive of spaceflight development than the more left-wing hippie sorts as a general rule, as the hippies are Malthusian in outlook whereas the 'statists' are more dialectical materialist in mindset (i.e, material progressivism).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who cares? Who gives a shit? The program ought to have been cancelled a long time ago, and had it been so done under Bush, you'd now be championing it as exemplary of his fiscal responsibility. Constellation was a massive waste and I'm glad to see it go.

I do. I want to see humanity eventually colonize space and this is a good first step.

Not especially. I'm a layman in the field, but a fairly well-read one, and nothing I've read indicates to me that the Moon is an essential stepping-stone on our way to the stars. Despite the fairly-well wanked over helium-3, it doesn't offer any real benefits: by the time we're ready to colonize anything we'll be ready to tackle Mars, which offers a Hell of a lot more without the drawbacks usually associated with hard vacuum.

The same usable spaceframes and heavy lift vehicles and usable experience and expertise in the field that one requires for Mars will inevitably include the Moon. It makes perfect sense to develop a more local spaceflight capacity before starting one-offs to goddamn Mars. If you think this represents a net gain toward space colonization - especially civilian space colonization, you're mad.

EDIT: I there anything even remotely on the pipeline which can carry crews to LEO from the "private spaceflight" groups? Any lefties who support this are allowing their seduction by "privatization" bullshit. Which of course carries the dark pall of probable military take-over.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, and politically: Obama just lost Florida. Heaven forbid for his sake he keeps moderating on Cuba, or its going to go solid Red.

[Tanasinn]

NASA is in the unenviable position of being a "luxury" expense in the public's eyes, and every time they bungle something they only get regarded as more worthless. I personally support continued manned exploration of space (and the moon factors into that for obvious reasons), but I can see the administration cutting it in these times because doing otherwise invites conservative scum to wave it around as a waste of money while "main street Americans" do without.

That Armstrong spoke out surprised me, too; I'd been of the impression that he just wanted to be left the hell alone. If he's speaking out, I'm inclined to think that these changes really suck.

Things like this make me yet again imagine how different things might be if the Chimp had insisted on only one Sand Adventure instead of two.

[Skylon]

Or is this just the closest to canceling manned spaceflight that he thinks he can get away with?

Probably this. He's probably trying to curry favor with conservatives by cutting both a "bloated government spending program" and "science" at once.

But I still way wait and see-- Florida is heavily Republican, but also would not accept scrapping the space program. It is also a key vote state. Stay tuned.

Yes, this is exposing just when Republicans like jobs programs (which to be blunt, is the issue at stake here...the Shuttle workforce that is less than a year from being laid off). They also like it when they can handwave and say "RAR! We're gonna rely on them Ruskies!"

To blame that on Obama is being totally dishonest though. There was a gap between Shuttle and Orion under Bush's plan. Hell, I argue we have depended on the Russians from day one of ISS, as Soyuz is the ONLY lifeboat.

He's also hurting himself with democrats here though. And as far as science, NASA actually is getting a budget INCREASE...it just won't be directed at maintaining a manned spacecraft.

The concession for the stripped down Orion is a start, it leaves the chance of a more capable vehicle to be produced later. The question is, even for the lifeboat only Orion, what the heck do you launch it on?

[MKSheppard]

He's probably trying to curry favor with conservatives by cutting both a "bloated government spending program" and "science" at once.

Actually, there is a bipartisan consensus on manned spaceflight, as he's finding out. And guess what? The claims of increases of NASA funding under Obama's program are just that -- bullshit -- he's taking the money away from the manned spaceflight division and putting them into the sciences/earth sciences division.

[Sarevok]

I dont believe in any positive feel good messages from NASA anymore. It costs thousands of dollars per kilogram to reach space. Who cares about constellation, ares or whatever ? Tiny little payloads into space do not contribute towards space colonization which is what long term vision should be about. The effort that is required is not another gimmicky rocket but a concrete plan. There must be a way to lift tens of thousands of tons into space to get started. Otherwise manned space exploration is a dead end. Robots are getting better every year and are superior for science and exploration mission. It does not make sense to waste billions on sending such tiny little capsules into orbit when you are not even inching closer to building anything sustainable offworld. If there is no big plans then why bother ? Stick to cheap probes instead of expensive manned circus shows in low earth orbit.

[MKSheppard]

Hey Sarevok, you know what NASA proposed using the Saturn V for?

Flinging, not one, but TWO 2,000 lb landers onto Mars.

By Comparison:

Viking: 1,200 lbs
Mars Science Lab (Nuclear powered Rover) 1,980 lbs

Sending a human anywhere means heavy powerful boosters. Boosters that can be used to toss giant robots somewhere, instead of tiny robots.

[Samuel]

I dont believe in any positive feel good messages from NASA anymore. It costs thousands of dollars per kilogram to reach space. Who cares about constellation, ares or whatever ? Tiny little payloads into space do not contribute towards space colonization which is what long term vision should be about. The effort that is required is not another gimmicky rocket but a concrete plan. There must be a way to lift tens of thousands of tons into space to get started. Otherwise manned space exploration is a dead end. Robots are getting better every year and are superior for science and exploration mission. It does not make sense to waste billions on sending such tiny little capsules into orbit when you are not even inching closer to building anything sustainable offworld. If there is no big plans then why bother ? Stick to cheap probes instead of expensive manned circus shows in low earth orbit.

You do realize it takes repeated testing and experience for us to make rockets that can do that? Specifically heavy lifters because you want to be able to move large amounts into orbit without it exploding. Which is what is being cut.

As for expense, NASA is 18 billion dollars... or about 60 dollars a person.

[MKSheppard]

To blame that on Obama is being totally dishonest though. There was a gap between Shuttle and Orion under Bush's plan.

A gap of five years between 2010 and 2015.

We've gone through this before; with the retirement of the last Apollo hardware at the end of the ASTP in 1975; and the first Shuttle flight in 1981 -- that was six years.

Obama has NO PLANS pretty much for post-shuttle era, other than vague noises of picking a final design of an unnamed booster by 2015.....at the point when manned Orion/Ares would be flying; if he hadn't cancelled it.

[MKSheppard]

The concession for the stripped down Orion is a start, it leaves the chance of a more capable vehicle to be produced later.

You mean like how we built Block III and Block IV Apollo CSMs; or Block II Shuttle Orbiters?

Oh wait, we didn't.

The question is, even for the lifeboat only Orion, what the heck do you launch it on?

Booster using magic pixie dust from unicorns as propellant? Most likely it will be launched on an existing EELV; but that isn't man-rated; which mean's we'll be reliant on the Russians forever to put men in space for us, since we will have no american manned space launch capabilities with the death of Orion/Ares.

[eion]

And the Moon has an atmospheric pressure of - oh, right, imperceptible.

Let me sum it up in small words:

Surface of Mars = you need a pressure suit or you die.
Surface of the Moon = you need a pressure suit or you die.

What's the difference? Absolutely zero.

By contrast, you need an atmospheric pressure of about 5,500 pascals if you just want to wear a heated suit plus suck on an oxygen mask. And the highest pressure on Mars is 66 pascals. So, you're stuck wearing a pressure suit no matter what.

What Mars' atmosphere does offer is some very nice free radiation shielding. Makes growing crops and insulating your hab easier. On Mars you can build your greenhouse on the surface and using 1-mm plastic, on the Moon because of the lack of any atmosphere to shield you from solar flares, you have to use 120-mm glass, which is a lot heavier and will likely crack due to thermal stress. Then there’s the issue of the light cycle, and the need for artificial lights on the Moon…

The atmosphere also offers abundant CO2 feedstock for oxygen extraction, fuel production, and ballooning.

We don't need to go to the Moon for any logistical reason, but the long distance training might be of use, though you can do the same thing in Antarctica (Where the environment is more like Mars than the Moon is) at a tenth of the cost.

On the OP: Hopefully Obama is slowly backtracking and will relaunch a SDLV (Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle) program in the near-term, but without an ambitious goal like Mars, a heavy launch vehicle just doesn't have the payload manifest to support the cost.

I'm absolutely alright with the Russians charging us $50 mil a seat; gives NASA all the more incentive to fund commercial space-taxis.

[MKSheppard]

What Mars' atmosphere does offer is some very nice free radiation shielding.

You think 60 pascals of atmospheric pressure will offer any appreciable protection from radiation? Dirt is cheaper in both locations, and you can simply pile up more in both locations.

On Mars you can build your greenhouse on the surface and using 1-mm plastic, on the Moon because of the lack of any atmosphere to shield you from solar flares, you have to use 120-mm glass, which is a lot heavier and will likely crack due to thermal stress. Then there’s the issue of the light cycle, and the need for artificial lights on the Moon

Repeat after me: I will not place large transparent domes with large habitable volumes in a hazardrous environment.

Placing them underground in hydroponics/soilponics labs with precisely controlled lighting will ensure a greater turnaround in plant lifecycles, and as a bonus, you can access it even in times of heavy solar flares, and you gain extra protection against random events like meteorite strikes, a lander going awry, from knocking out your food/air supply.

The atmosphere also offers abundant CO2 feedstock for oxygen extraction, fuel production, and ballooning.

Hey wow, so does the lunar regolith.

Hopefully Obama is slowly backtracking and will relaunch a SDLV (Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle) program in the near-term

Considering the shuttle production line has long been shut down it would cost more than Orion/Ares to restart the line.

but without an ambitious goal like Mars, a heavy launch vehicle just doesn't have the payload manifest to support the cost.

Wrong. There's a long list of scientists who would KILL to have the heavy lift capability of Ares V to loft giant radio observatories, telescopes etc into space. Imagine something like hubble; but ten times bigger.

I'm absolutely alright with the Russians charging us $50 mil a seat; gives NASA all the more incentive to fund commercial space-taxis.

As a short term thing, yeah, we can pay the Russians $50M a seat while we wait for our new launcher to come online -- but Obama just lengthened the delay from five years to more like ten-fifteen years with his dumbassedry.

And Space Taxis? LOL. I dare you to man rate SpaceX's Falcon 9 Heavy.

[ShadowDragon8685]

This may sound retarded, but...

What is all the business of "man rated" versus not in terms of a lift vehicle? All the stuff I can find seems to be talking exclusively about things people are intending to stay in for quite some time, not launching something from the ground.

Does it have to do with acceleration; IE, you can put cargo through harder accelerations than you can safely put humans through? Or is it something more nebulous?

[MKSheppard]

Manrated means everything is held to much higher standards. Because someone is going to be riding it into orbit or into space. So it spontaneously exploding is not good.

[Commander 598]

Wrong. There's a long list of scientists who would KILL to have the heavy lift capability of Ares V to loft giant radio observatories, telescopes etc into space. Imagine something like hubble; but ten times bigger.

And just think: Sea Dragon...

[Uraniun235]

I have noticed much the same trend in the Left, which I also find odd; but usually the line I hear associated with manned space flight is how "all that money could have gone to feed the poor" or how each rocket that goes up is "another ten million that won't be going to schools". Never mind the irony of that statement.

I know you're not arguing it yourself, but this is one of those things that really drives me nuts. We could cut the military in half and the schools/poor/whatever wouldn't necessarily see another penny because that's not how the god damn Congress budgets things.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Manrated means everything is held to much higher standards. Because someone is going to be riding it into orbit or into space. So it spontaneously exploding is not good.

I wouldn't think anything spontainously exploding is good. Even for the rockets we use for cargo now, what are the actual failure rates?

Nothing is 100% safe. Human hubris is always present (Challenger,) but even the most cautious and humble humans can't prevent everything (Columbia.) But are the cargo rockets so heinously unsafe that nobody would be willing to think about riding them in a hypothetical interim?


Obviously, I think canceling a heavy lift vehicle that's almost ready is about as bad an idea as bad ideas get, short of "let's just dump this glowing crap in the ocean." But if it's absolutely going to happen, would it be possible to use the currently-existing heavy lift vehicles to continue to get people to the ISS and such, instead of buying seats? Or are they just unsafely designed and we're willing to accept losing 10% of the cargo we send up for some inane reason?

[Guardsman Bass]

Oh, and politically: Obama just lost Florida. Heaven forbid for his sake he keeps moderating on Cuba, or its going to go solid Red.

That's probably half, if not more, of the reason why they're trying to "walk it back" without actually doing so (the whole "keep it as an emergency ride down" bit). Obama's people put it out there, and then presumably one of his political advisors told him that killing a couple thousand jobs in a crucial swing state (particularly in a high-profile, high-paying industry like the space business) would be a bad idea.

The supporters of Constellation really need to play up the whole "Florida" bit more. If there's one thing that first term Presidents take very seriously, it's potential issues with their re-election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, nice try championing "to the asteroids, and MARS"; because you imbecile, that was the PLAN ALL ALONG for Constellation -- land on the moon, get experience, and then use the hardware to go ever further away from earth, to the asteroids, and then to Mars....just like Apollo Applications.

Bush II set his sights on the moon as a first objective, because he rememered his daddy's NASA plan; which had MARS as Step 1; which got nowhere.

I'm 95% sure this is wrong. Bush I's plan had Mars as an objective, with stuff in orbit and on the Moon as intermediate steps. Bush II's plan was essentially daddy's with the price adjusted for inflation as far as I could see.

That said, wasting the development done so far would be stupid. Obama's a smart and well-educated man overall, but I don't think he understands the space program.