Slashdot Mirror
NASA Vets & Administration Clash Over Moon Plans
mattnyc99 writes "There's a serious feud brewing this week over the Bush administration's plan for a manned mission to the Moon as an eventual stepping stone to Mars. The Planetary Society, a top group of former mission managers, space-based scientists and NASA astronauts argues, is set to rebuke the Moon plan at a conference next month in favor of hopskotching an asteroid on the way to the Red Planet. Agency chief Michael Griffin issued an abnormally strong response to the society, calling it an overly political criticism of Bush for a plan that he says was 'the best legislative guidance NASA has ever had.' Either way, it's clear that the stars are aligning for the whole space race to be reconsidered as a new administration steps into the White House. So far Clinton and Obama (who just added his) are the only contenders with space proposals."
I'm sure they can find a good movie studio to shoot both projects
That's no moon... that's an overused joke.
for a moonshot. Its too far off to generate interest. We are also buried under a horribly long political process.
I am very convinced that if some of the leading candidates get in with all their promises of health care and expanded benefits there won't be any money for NASA to do something big. It will simply fall by the way side because it simply doesn't get Congressmen or Presidents votes.
The best thing has already been done, the hard choice has already been made, axing the shuttle. Hopefully that expense relief won't be taken from NASA but I fear it will. Without the costly expenditures needed the money will probably go elsewhere.
If the main opposition is truly because "BUSH" wanted it then it speaks volumes for just how juvenile the opponents have become. We need a direction, it has to come from the Administration, as Congress no longer attempts to lead anywhere but schemes to keep themselves perpetually in office. NASA has been wandering, stuck with two spruce gooses. The shuttle and ISS. The ISS could flourish without the shuttle and we can hope it will. Yet I am very sure that with all the promises being made by candidates that NASA is the least of their concerns. We are seeing the greatest promised expansion of Federal power over our lives and people are cheering it on as if it were the latest American Idol contest. That is not an avenue for great science to occur
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You obviously don't know Ron Paul enough because he does not believe in NASA!
But you were too busy trying to slander him.
One thing that really struck a cord with me was when I saw Carol Moseley Braun being interviewed on The Daily Show (14 January, 2004.) Somehow, the topic of space exploration came up. I believe it had to do with 'renewed interest' in going to Mars. If I recall properly, Jon asked her what she thought of going to Mars and if she had a plan to get us there. I think she said something along the lines of "Sure, I don't think we shouldn't go to Mars." But I remember her explicitly stating that there is so little we know about Earth. Specifically, she wanted to redirect our scientific efforts from focusing on outer space and focusing on Earth, and more specifically, underwater exploration. We know virtually nothing about our seas and oceans. And they're close. I believe Mosely Brown used the rational that it would take 18 months to get to Mars, but it would take only hours to get to the bottom of the Ocean. That, and what happens in the oceans affects us a hell of a lot more than what happens on Mars.
Kennedy said let's go to the Moon in 1962. So, fuck Bush, let's go to Mars. I'm just saying.
Sure, sure it is. What about that first moon trip?
I understand the desire to get to the moon because it has better public awareness the asteroid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What sort of value do this "guidance" of the government have to space science?
I somehow feel the scientists are more well introduced in what is the most cost efficient use of their budget, at the same time as I doubt landing on the moon will make a bang in the world like it did in 1969.
Sure, there'll be a lot of YouTube vids, funny amateur remixes, and so on, but really, it has already been done. So I think the PR part of the whole thing can safely be skipped here, and the US should rather strive to get to Mars ASAP. If the Moon isn't well suited for that as an intermediate step out of economy and perhaps other reasons (time?), then I think they should look for other ways, such as using asteroids. I mean, it's landing on Mars that hasn't been done and what will be of greatest scientific benefit. Well, and they might learn something from doing more intimate science with asteroids too. It sounds like a nice synergy there to me, especially if it will be wiser from an economy and time point of view as well.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Weird, they don't even address any of the technical of economic objections to the Moon vs Mars mission. The article misses a lot of key points.
1) There is very little technical overlap in designs between a lunar and martian based program. The Moon has no atmosphere. That means no atmospheric braking. A lander landing on the Moon is radically different than one landing on Mars since the lunar one has to use only rockets to slow its descent. The Martian one can use rockets and parachutes as well as glide. Also, the lack of an atmosphere means that the Moon can not as easily provide oxygen or fuel as Mars, where those products can be pulled directly from the atmosphere. The Moon requires regolith mining to obtain any materials.
2) The transfer vehicle to the Moon is going to be able to complete the trip within 120 hours, or 240 hours if you have to do a return. That is easily within the range of not needing to recycle. You can just load up with consumables and then replenish at either end of the trip. The Martian vehicle will have to have some pretty hefty recycling technology.
3) The day/night cycle on the Moon is vastly longer than that of Mars. Mars is pretty close to that of Earth. Solar power is not even remotely practical on the Moon. (Except in the polar regions where it s theorized that would be possible to find spots where you have continual daylight). If you want to go somewhere other than the poles on the Moon for any duration, you are looking at needing a new generation of nuclear power. Which would also be useful on Mars, but there is a tradeoff there in terms of mass and other factors.)
4) I am back to "There is no atmosphere on the Moon" because it keeps impacting multiple areas. One of the problems that needs to be solved is HVAC type issues. Keeping things warm or cold. The Moon has no atmosphere, hence no convective heat transfer. All heat transfer is radiative or conductive. That necessitates a completely different thermodynamic paradigm than would be possible on Mars.
5) In terms of Human factors, the Moon is 1/6th gravity and Mars is 1/3th. That means items on Mars weighs twice as much as that on the Moon. The lunar space suits can not be worn on Mars as they are too heavy. New ones need to be designed. (We're also back to "The Moon has no atmosphere". Space suits need to be able to maintain a steady temperature inside. Since a lunar space suit is essentially a thermos when you consider it is in vacuum, all you have to worry about it shedding excess heat. On Mars, you are essentially enveloped by a fluid - the atmosphere - which has a temperature and can carry away excess heat.)
Actually, the reason for the asteroid mission instead of the lunar one is simple. It will require essentially the same type of spaceship that is required to get to Mars. The lunar base only has about 20% overlap with Mars technologies and - honestly - for those 20%, Earth is as good an analog as the Moon. When you develop a technology to go to the Moon, that is what you are developing. You are not developing one for Mars.
Essentially, you get the Moon and Mars for only twice the amount as getting the Moon or Mars.
space proposals include the belief that "..the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth.."
He clearly hasn't had a chance to examine the latest Vulcan ballot rigging schematics that were rather controversially published in the Centauri Gazette last month.
"He Who Dares Wins"
The Planetary Society, a top group of former mission managers, space-based scientists and NASA astronauts argues, is set to rebuke the Moon plan at a conference next month...
What exactly are "NASA astronauts argues"?
Frankly, the US healthcare system is so ridiculously inefficient compared to everywhere else in the developed world, you should be able to fund universal coverage, and get better outcomes, and spend less than you currently do. Heck, we fund near-universal health care here in Australia for the same proportion of national income that you guys spend on Medicare and the VA health system.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Sputnik put USA on the back foot. With the whole Communism vs capitalist theme going at the time, the space program was wrapped up tightly with the US national identity (gotta show those Russians who's boss). Space was patriotic. Space was exciting. The USA were the people doing the space thing. Space was completely intertwined in the national identity as well as the identity of a generation (the kids who grew up in the space era).
The whole national obsession with the space program drove the interest in science which bootstrapped a generation of scientists and engineers. It was not space per se that did this, but the obsession that saw Apollo models hanging from the ceiling in every second kid's bedroom. That obsession was linked not only to science, but to selling cars, pens, breakfast cerial etc.
Just rolling out another space program will do nothing to help education and science unless it is accompanied by the passion. What are the defining obsessions of today?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
An asteroid has a much less steep gravity well than the moon. This would save a lot of fuel over a stopover at a moon base. The moon makes no sense as a stepping stone to Mars, but an asteroid might.
The Planetary Society published this (pdf) in collaboration with Griffin (he's listed as one of nine members of the 'study team') before he became head of NASA. The Planetary Society got their guy in and he's following the plan they sold to the administration and Congress. What the fuck is going on here?
If the peanut gallery over at the Planetary Society start jerking the Government's chain over settled NASA policy they're going to get stuff defunded. Most of our leading presidential candidates will take any excuse they can find to snatch away the funding and use it to buy votes some other way.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
It could be just me, but a bunch of robotic probes going from asteroid to asteroid to drill samples in search of useful ores would be really cool.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Frankly I have little faith in NASA. I'm sure there's going to be some attempt to go to somewhere in space someday somehow (their "new" space shuttle is having serious problems and not to mention it a mock up it of the Saturn rocket used decades ago). I believe that the private realm of business will become dominant over NASA in the coming years. There is definitely potential for profit in space and NASA is too concerned about analytical science to figure out how to answer the entrepreneurial aspects of space. For example on the moon an isotope of helium could be used to create pure burning fuel for nuclear reactors. It's been estimated that the amount of platinum on certain asteroids would have market value in the trillions. NASA is too busy fighting a stubborn bureaucracy to really tap space's potential. They are never going to make bring space to the common person. Rather, I believe that private industry will take over as the dominant space explorers. NASA should fill in as a watchdog over the private space industry. I believe NASA should foster the growth of the space industry.
I was always under the impression that the moonbase plan was not really a hopscotch for going to mars physically, but rather a proving ground to test, develop, and prove that it is feasible to set up permanent installations on other planetary bodies. If something goes wrong in a moon mission (i.e. that Apollo mission), it's only three days away, and there is at least a chance of bringing people back home. A screw up on a year-plus mission is more certain death.
I couldn't imagine trying to do something like that on an asteroid or going straight to mars until we have figured out how to get to the moon, and stay there for a while!
More Caffeine. NOW
As difficult as making fusion a viable energy source at least there is tremendous potential payoff. As to manned exploration of space it is only for the adventure. Robots can do so much better for so much less $$.
... one of assumptions.
If all you're going to do is a one-shot mission to the moon, mars or an asteroid, then it doesn't matter which one they do.
They'll go to the moon/mars/asteroid, come home and pat themselves for a job well done and if we want to go back we have to do the whole damn thing over again.
Heinlein said "Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere". We need a truck stop in LEO. If we have someplace in LEO where we can stockpile fuel, food and water, it becomes much easier to start a mission from there than to carry everything in one go from the ground (and no, the ISS isn't even close).
Oh please. NASA has very little to do with the development of missiles or fighter jets. All that stuff is done by the Air Force under separate contracts. Virtually all of NASA's money goes to manned spaceflight these days. The Air Force would like nothing better than to be rid of NASA, since using disposable launchers is much cheaper than using the shuttle. But they're forced to use the shuttle (or at least they were) to help justify its enormous expense.
NASA doesn't "work for" the Air Force, unless you intend the quotes to show the statement is blatantly false. It's not a defense program or even a science program - it's a jobs program. The purpose of NASA is to steer money to specific congressional districts. And that's why, no matter how little it does, it will never be cut significantly.
Finally, I was wondering where the Ron Paul's storm-troopers were...
What the hell is "hopskotching"?
You appear to be under the illusion that NASA receives more than a fraction of a percent of the US budget.
The industries that were created to make new technologies went on to make consumer goods. The tax from those goods has paid for the Sapce race 13+ times over.
Like any good investment, it made a hell of a lot of money.
Every bought a smoke detector? that industry exists because of development for NASA
There are hundreds of technologies that needed to be developed to get us to the moon.
"a looming social security crisis"
No, we do not. That is just republican fear mongering, and it's not new. The people that actually study it, as in it's there career, and they fully understand economics.
They have said there is no crisis looming, but were shut up by this administration.
"And you people want to blow ANOTHER hundred fucking billion dollars "
The last space race created a better education system, and great scientists and engineers.
Space exploration is great for education.
"Have any of you looked at what NASA conducts most of its research in? It ain't Velcro or Tang, boys. It's missiles and fighter jets. N"
That's just a lie.
You're stupid, spread lies and FUD. Please learn to think.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Looking at his voting record, there really is not need to make anything up. The guy is all for white male dominance in the name of Jesus.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
willl happen:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ow-PxJhDBuA
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What Griffin was referring to in his letter was the fact that, for the first time since 1962, NASA had been given a clear objective and the authority (although not quite all the funds) to follow it. No hemming and hawing over various shuttle concepts and bouncing around between interest groups. No toying with space station ideas with only half an idea what they wanted to do with it.
The Vision for Space Exploration set a direction for developing a replacement for the shuttle, something that needed to happen since the Columbia Accident Investigation Board mandated the shuttle be retired in 2010. By stating an objective, although not Mars as some had hoped, it mandated certain capabilities early on for NASA to work with. However, it does not prevent the technology being developed now from being adapted for a Mars mission (the CEV is being designed with re-entry from a Mars trajectory in mind).
Believe it or not, there is a lot we don't know about the moon, and a lot we can do there. Moreover, neither Bush nor even the big NASA supporters in Congress have the political will to launch a push for Mars that has any chance of lasting beyond the next administration. I don't give Bush credit for figuring it out, but the smaller scope of a new moon initiative stands a good chance of being upheld by the next presidency and future congresses.
By the way, NASA is currently still thinking about using Orion and Ares for asteroid exploration to a very limited degree. The space society is proposing they forego the moon altogether and just play on the asteroids. I'm not sure I understand their reasoning behind that.
My ass. The best guidance NASA ever had was when John F. Kennedy sent the United States to the moon.
This "guidance" is nothing more than the best idea a stupid chimp could come up with at the time to try to ride Kennedy's coattails.
As with just about anything Bush, going to the moon again is pretty stupid. What's the purpose? Hell, all we would need to do is just build a few new Saturn V's, a new LEM or two, and another couple of Lunar Rovers. We have all the plans and we know they work.
Wasting the time and money on doing something we did almost 40 years ago is typical for our diminutive presidenter.
Someone put him back on a Segway and hand him a pretzel.
You appear to be under the illusion that NASA receives more than a fraction of a percent of the US budget.
NASA receives about $16BN a year.
The argument that "that's a tiny fraction of the budget" is bullshit- the federal budget is divided into MANY slices, so yeah, individual departments don't amount to much.
It's still SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS, and one of the reasons the federal budget is so fucking massive is because everyone thinks adding in another billion here or there won't hurt.
Please help metamoderate.
Various space advocacy groups have been backing different visons of what type of exploration should be done for quite a long time.
Planetary Society has been pushing Mars rather than return to the moon since at least the late 80s.
At least part of that position was stated to be that a manned Mars mission could be a cooperative effort between the US and the Soviet Union. i.e. A political goal. That's an aspect that doesn't apply quite so much now.
Also, at that time, the Planetary Society was a lot less keen on manned missions than robotic ones. Friedman, Murry and Sagan (the notable founders) were all veterans of the highly successful unmanned planetary probe missions. They tended to view the manned program as a very expensive method that tended to take money away from the robotic probes.
Others disagreed with this viewpoint. The National Space Society, for example, (also populated with former astronauts and space scientists though no one as much of a household name as Sagan) tended to take a more pro manned space viewpoint.
The original Bush plan under Sean O'Keefe, to build nuclear powered spacecraft, and do JIMO, was ultimately the space program with the largest payoff. The solar system is -big-, and getting there means something more than chemical rockets. Nuclear is the best we have. Unfortunately, Zubrin and company convinced a Republican Congress and Bush that we should go back to the moon now, and to Mars now, which, at best will be the equivalent of sending two guys in a canoe across the Atlantic in the 11th century. Sure, you could do it, but it won't accomplish nothing. To really do Mars right, you need bigger and faster spaceships, and Prometheus is more of a stepping stone to that than Ares will ever be.
This is my sig.
I have been saying *all along* that Bush's Space proposal is *pure* vapor. He mentioned it once to leave a scant legacy, he never mentioned it again, and he very trivially increased NASA's budget.
I can't believe how many space enthusiasts took this obvious bait.
For most practical purposes Mars also has no atmosphere. It's just 0.6% of our, or in other words 99.4% not there. Yes, it does change the conditions a bit, but Mars is much more like the moon than earth..
With the moon as near to the sun as earth, but lacking clouds and atmosphere, it receives much more sunlight than corresponding spots on earth, and is therefore that much more suitable for solar energy. The 330 hour lunar night can be handled just like the 12 hour martian night, using battery technology.
Just like Iraq, Bush looked to a higher source of info for his spacey idea. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_Me_to_the_Moon for GWB's G2.
It won't be a windy day in Arizona, this time.
But, when I re-read the tag, I saw:
NASA, Vets & Administration Clash Over Moon Plans
I guess monkeys or apes will go on the mock runs... They'll return (after 5,125 years of suspended animalization), and find... Cornelius? Or, maybe a Charlton Heston statue half-buried in older New York...
Or, they'll find the Land of the Lost, with millions of sexually-incompatible Sleetaks groveling all over the Earth.
I think the NASA part will be: Continuous audio piping of "Hey Hey, we're the Monkeys!...."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
As for as the VSE, it's time to put it in the closet. The voters don't want it. No-one took it seriously. No-one but China can afford it. All roads lead to renewed basic science, low Earth orbit for humans, & a return to Sean O'Keiff style missions. Smaller, cheaper, full evaluation of all the options before committing money.
Griffin was like John McCain. Act first, then talk. My way or the highway. Maybe he'd be better off running China's moon program.
John F. Kennedy, 9/12/1962
I'm getting a lot of miles out of that speech. Going to Mars is hard. Going to the asteroids is hard. The treasure we might find there is nothing compared to the wealth in knowledge we earn along the way if we're bold enough to make the journey. We got far more value out of the moon effort than it cost.
One day children will be conceived and born in microgravity. They'll learn and live and love far from the planet we call home. They'll live out their lives and ultimately die having never set foot on any planet at all. We can't prevent this -- it is man's destiny. They'll think nothing of it because for them it will be the way things have always been. The question is: Will they be our children or someone else's?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
For less than the cost of one stadium.
How soft have we become? Where space travel was born they don't even have cars yet. But we need them to get to the space station? Come on, America! Let's go!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Unless I see the Government and Industries serious about a Lunar Base where they could mine the Moon, I doubt we'll ever see a Martian Mission, other than more deep probes.
Bush CUT NASA funding early on then he gave some of it back later with plenty of strings to undermine earth science. I vaguely remember this from his 1st term. Entering office he stopped a ready to launch mission and even refused to let Japan or the EU complete it (because it could have strengthened or weakened global warming theories.)
It is completely reasonable to question everything government does; but especially when IT IS so WRONG so OFTEN. The people questioning the planning are some of the best people to speak up about it and are less likely to do something for purely political reasons than most people (not to mention how political the Bush appointed people often are)
The launch vehicle problem is ROCKET SCIENCE. Contractors play a larger part, which makes it worse-- not because of the ideal situation which is better but because its never the ideal situation which leads to contractor problems that are bigger than the benefits.
I've always been against the moon and mars regardless of Bush; it totally makes sense for him to continue his record of pushing forward poorly debated bad policy. Man on Mars will happen when it makes sense to do so and it does not make sense at this time to do it; even then, as people are pointing out it makes more sense to hop off a rock than hop off the moon.
By the time humans get there, robots will likely out perform them as they do already today. You won't have anybody extending manned mars missions by even a week in 50 years. So a human does a years work in 1 month, you can't even get a human on mars for 20 years so there is no comparison. When its CHEAPER, SAFER, and EASIER go to mars, but not to explore it-- exploration is best left to cheap disposable robotics (which only get better with time and carry the same type of instruments the humans would need to use.)
Perhaps bush's worker program's lost money or some of that lost Katrina money is going into defending Bush; after all, they did PAY newspaper columnists for support... Anybody notice a recent increase in online support?
I was really wondering wat vetenarians had to do with missions to Mars. Does NASA plan to send animals along with the ride? Maybe for fresh milk and eggs? Of is it just an experiment to send live-stock up there to see what the influence of zero-gravity has on such animals?
Then it dawned upon me. This is a US site. A vet is something entirely different there.
Send that shaved-headed chick and her husband, FedEx, into space.
After all, they're halfway there already.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Not unusually strong but "abnormally strong"?
One can only imagine Michael Griffin gurning, blood vessels popping, perhaps some sort of fit...has someone got the utube clip?
Since traveling to the moon or Mars presents such a challenge, it would be better if a big space carrier ship was built; a ship that could allow for a bunch of people to travel to other bodies of the solar system.
This ship would be built in space, since it would be big and lifting it would be impossible.
Gravity would be simulated by rotating decks.
The ship could employ a variety of energy schemes, but nuclear energy seems the miscellaneous form of energy for this ship.
The ship would be big and comfortable, with enough spaces so as that people can live on it for a long time.
The ship would have docking stations for capsules that could travel on planetary surfaces.
Once such a ship is built, planetary missions would be trivial. It would not matter if the ship to Mars was 6 months or 3 years, because scientists and other personnel could live on it. Visiting other planets would be as simple as creating the appropriate capsule for landing and takeoff from the planet.
Creating a Mars base would also be much easier...since people would have actually landed on Mars, within one year's time it would be possible to know the requirements for the Martian base. It could then take 10 or 20 years to transport all materials and equipment to Mars using this carrier ship. But it would be much easier.
With such a ship, there would be no question on if we should build a Moon base before going to Mars.
Such a ship could also travel to other solar system bodies.
I think the rocket approach is wrong. We need a stepping stone for space exploration, and that can only be offered by a carrier spaceship. The rocket is a single one-use device from transporting us from point A to point B. It's not reusable.
The cost for building and maintaining a carrier ship is much less than building, maintaining and using rockets over a certain period of time. Once you build the carrier ship, all you need is small rockets to deliver payload and people to it. A single rocket for a Martian mission would cost less, but you can't reuse it...you have to build another rocket. In a few decades, the total cost of using rockets for exploring Mars would be much greater than maintaining the carrier ship.
I'm not sure which part of this is the troll, the abusive tone or the terrible Latin.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
It makes more sense to go to asteroid and pick up a couple of tonnes of Pt ore, and other rare earth material. If we can find (or have found) such an asteroid.
NASA has very little to do with the development of missiles or fighter jets. All that stuff is done by the Air Force under separate contracts.
That may be true these days; I don't know. Under its original NACA name (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, I believe), they did a lot of important aerodynamics research that did indeed have military applications.
Yes. In theory that's half of NASA's charter. And, to be fair, they do still have the odd high-speed wind tunnel project. Scramjets, too, which you could argue may benefit the military someday. Maybe.
But the shuttle is the Monster that Ate the Budget. Most of the aeronautic work has been defunded, and important scientific work like interplanetary probes and high altitude astronomy is hanging on a thread. This will only get worse. CEV's configuration was, in large part, chosen to ensure nobody who works on the shuttle will be put out of work. Since the 20,000+ people doing shuttle work comprise most of the shuttle's cost that's bad news for the agency's orphan children.
The idea NASA's budget is primarily spent on "planes and missiles" is laughable.
A good idea certainly, however "Nuclear is the best we have" is an outright lie becuase we do not actually HAVE it and are nowhere close to even having the first prototype on a testbed.