Slashdot Mirror
Texas Lawmakers Press NASA To Base Lunar Lander Program In Houston (arstechnica.com)
Eric Berger writes via Ars Technica: The Apollo missions that flew to the Moon during the 1960s were designed and controlled by what is now known as Johnson Space Center, the home of the famous "Mission Control." Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis that styles itself "Space City." Times change, however. In recent months, the politically well-positioned Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama, has been quietly pressing leaders with NASA Headquarters for program management of mid- to large-size landers to the lunar surface, which would evolve into human landers. Sources indicated this effort was having some success.
However, Texas legislators have now begun to push back. On Tuesday, both of Texas' senators (John Cornyn and Ted Cruz), as well as three representatives with space-related committee chairs (John Culberson, Lamar Smith, and Brian Babin), wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We support NASA's focus on returning to the Moon and using it as part of a stepping stone approach to place American boots on the surface of Mars in the 2030s," the Texas Republicans wrote. "As NASA reviews solicitations for lunar landers, we write to express our strong support for the establishment of NASA's lunar lander program at the Johnson Space Center." The letter reminds Bridenstine of Houston's strong spaceflight heritage.
However, Texas legislators have now begun to push back. On Tuesday, both of Texas' senators (John Cornyn and Ted Cruz), as well as three representatives with space-related committee chairs (John Culberson, Lamar Smith, and Brian Babin), wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We support NASA's focus on returning to the Moon and using it as part of a stepping stone approach to place American boots on the surface of Mars in the 2030s," the Texas Republicans wrote. "As NASA reviews solicitations for lunar landers, we write to express our strong support for the establishment of NASA's lunar lander program at the Johnson Space Center." The letter reminds Bridenstine of Houston's strong spaceflight heritage.
The Johnson Space Center is a fitting name for something as phallic as rockets.
If they still have the talent and facilities in Houston, leave them there.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
There are zero near Earth objects with the exception of the Moon, which is rocky junk lets face it. You can invest to build a moon base there, for some unknown purpose, over the course of decades, sure. Why now?
There's plenty of interesting stuff to do in space, enough for multiple mission control centers spread all over the country. But as long as the NASA budget is so tiny, you're all squabbling over breadcrumbs at the table.
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences. It'll be a hard sell given the current anti-science political climate, but if you're looking for a serious injection of public money, it's the only way. Taxation is a finite cake.
How is this a good idea, bullets and spacecraft are not a good mix!
Why the nuts boot on Mars thing, so last millennium. You know what counts, who made the hardware, who cares whose pair of feet are there, tens of millions of people are quite capable of filling those boots, what counts is who designed and built the space craft, that is all that counts. Space craft to get to the moon, space craft to get to Mars and space craft to get to the stars. That is all that really counts, that space infrastructure to, well, it the most barest of capitalist terms, the infrastructure required to invest in and benefit from, well, as much of the galaxy as is we are able and is of greater benefit.
Commercialising space means competiting space craft, not some idiots, first boots on the ground, dominate space, conflict. Bugger off with the silly shite. Make space real means providing competiting access to space. Who can provide the greatest lift capacity, at the lowest price, safely and over the long term, probably quangos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to start with and than more commercial space craft over time (each stage sort of thing, moon stage, mars and asteroids and then other star systems).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences.
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program. If that sounds silly to you then consider that Texas has more people and money than many nations on the planet, and some of those nations smaller than Texas sent stuff into space. The government doesn't have to fund everything, just make some deals with private companies to get them to launch from there and use Houston as a base of operations.
Just voting money out of the military and into space exploration won't necessarily make missions to the moon orbit around Houston. If they want to be in on the deal then they need to make an offer that NASA cannot refuse. I'm thinking that means government spending on the state, county, and municipal levels, not federal. Texas is a big state but they don't have enough votes to divert federal funds on their own.
When it comes down to it the REAL money isn't in the budget for NASA, or even in the total budget for the federal government. The real money is in the private sector. Get private businesses interested in missions to the moon, make Houston a good place to do business, and people will be standing in line to hand out money.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
... the Moon, which is rocky junk lets face it. You can invest to build a moon base there, for some unknown purpose, over the course of decades, sure. Why now?
Iron, massive amounts of solar power, experience in vacuum-proofing things and a low-G place to retire when you get to the age where you need a scooter to get about. Also if the Americans get uppity, you can throw rocks at them... what do you mean, you haven't read that book?
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program
The senators want to receive federal money, not spend their own.
The government doesn't create jobs. We're told this over and over. The Cato Institute says so. And they're not alone. A quick search shows a multitude of people all saying the government can't create jobs.
So why the big fuss over where a non-job producing venture is to be placed? It's not like anyone is going to get a job out of this.
Texans don't believe in space unless they get nice juicy FedDollars.
Oh we all like FedDollars,
They seem to be free,
We'll bend over for FedDollars,
Just give them to me.
If they still have the talent and facilities in Houston, leave them there.
Only if this results in the most economically effective outcome. If it makes economic or functional sense to have it elsewhere then move it where it needs to go. I that happens to be Houston that's fine but all reasonable options should be considered first. We definitely should not do what we did 50 years ago just because some well connected political leaders want to pander to their constituencies.
Is there some element of this story that is controversial?
Should Houston sit back and give some other city a chance to host Mission Control?
Is it inappropriate for Texas lawmakers to suggest re-establishing mission control in Houston, where it had been for the previous half century?
Is the two Senators sending a letter to NASA supporting this idea somehow unusual?
This is basic politics, nothing even slightly inappropriate is hinted at in the story, and no better suggestion is made. This strikes me as a 'Dog bites Man' story, not the other way around.
Ken
Put in Puerto Rico, then at least they'll get a reliable power grid and some jobs.
There seems to be an inference that mission control was put in Houston because the astronauts just happened to all live there.
The only reason NASA mission control was put in Texas was because then-VP Lyndon Johnson was from Texas. The astronauts were in Houston because that's where mission control was. The astronauts were also in Florida because that was where the launches were.
There is nothing nearby due to current propulsion/distance limitations.
Currently true but so what? 100 years ago I could have said the same thing about traveling by air. Now I can be almost anywhere on the globe within 48 hours whereas 100 years ago the trip would have taken weeks if not months. I'm not about to bet against our ability to develop technology to get us to Mars and beyond. It won't happen overnight but I could easily see it being semi-routine within another 100 years.
We don't have any rationale for going to Mars right now except bragging rights and it would inevitably cost lives to achieve.
You could have made the same argument for crossing the Atlantic ocean 500 years ago. Here's the thing about exploring. You don't know what you are going to find so you cannot say that there is no rationale for going. We might find and incredibly valuable reason for going but the only way we will know that is to go and look. Yes it will cost lives but those lives will be volunteers who understand the risks they are taking. Exploration always comes with a body count and that HAS to be acceptable for us to progress as a society. The reliable airplane you board today was made so by brave people risking their lives in pursuit of larger goals.
What's the purpose now?
There are many to choose from. Pick the one that suits you. Protecting the species, economic gain, scientific curiosity, because it's there, protecting your tribe, advancing technology, etc. If you cannot find a purpose that matters to you, don't worry about it because other people have already found theirs. I don't have any interest in sailing across oceans myself but I'm grateful we have people who do.
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Ummm, there would need to be a "Space Force" first. There is no such entity currently regardless of whether or not there should be.
Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis
This line of reasoning makes no sense.
The Moon landings were over 40 years ago (the first one will celebrate 50 years, next year). It is unlikely that any of the staff, equipment or "know how" that contributed to those few missions still exists in Houston - or has any relevance now.
What would make sense would be to spread the largesse around. Find some other place that hasn't benefited from the NASA pork barrel and build the new centre there.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
In his novel From the Earth to the Moon - Wikipedia Jules Verne wrote a whole chapter about the struggle between Florida and Texas, to host the location for the "Columbiad" gun that would shoot a projectile to the Moon.
Verne's portrait of representatives from Texas and Florida arguing on this is... humoruous.
(Florida won the match, and IIRC the location chosen by Verne was not that far from Cape Canaveral.)
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
Houston is not just hot, but it is going to see major storms. AGW will only make storms worst
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
that the blue state big gov't haters are the ones that get the most in federal money
It looks like Cape Canaveral is a degree closer to the equator. That makes a real difference in the delta vee needed to achieve orbit, and even more of a difference in fuel costs and workin gpayload for a launch that must reach escape velocity to achieve a lunar landing. Even small differences in fuel use are critical for such a large launch. It would seem to make no sense to use an even slightly more off-the-equator launching pad.
Of course, the Texas Lawmakers' letter speaks nothing of WHY the program should be based in Houston, nor how Houston as a location has better technical merit for the program.
If these lawmakers loved their country, they would press NASA to choose the location that is best for the success of the program.
If you want to play that game, then pick anything impossible or claimed to be impossible. Then claim it won't always be so.
Spare us your misplaced snark. Sending a spacecraft to Mars has already been done. Sending a human into space for long periods has already been done. Sending a human to the moon and back has already been done. It's not a significant stretch of the imagination to envision us sending a human to Mars and possibly beyond. Cripes if we weren't overly concerned about them surviving the trip we could do it today. The only thing really holding us back is that we're still developing the life support systems - we already know how to do the rest of it to a reasonable approximation. I'm not talking about some Star Trek level of science fiction here or intergalactic travel. I'm talking about plausible levels of technology advancement within the next several decades and the rationale for doing so.
There is no logical reason at all to split the launch site (Cape Canaveral, FLA) and the mission control site (Houston, TX) except so Texas can get a piece of that NASA money. As others have said, Johnson did that in the 60's because Texas was his home state. There is no reason to repeat this foolishness.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Saying "In the 1960s we wuz where y'all got y'all's ast-er-nerts" carries only dead weight.
Texas is not the soul of modern astronomy or flights to space. GSFC and KSFC are.
Sorry, Texas, you, and your corrupt politicians (why don't you go elect another Trump, to show the world how inbred you are)
have nothing to contribute.
Kindly be quiet... stop killing immigrants... and electing racist a-holes...and STFU.
E
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences.
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Before we sink money into the modern day equivalent of the atomic airplane or SLAM, we might want to figure out what to do with all of the 20 some thousand miles per hour debris that will be orbiting earth when out intrepid space cadets start making things go kablooey (technical term) in earth orbit. When they inevitably do this,ARES (apparently NASA is recycling Initialisms) will show a fairly solid shell of areas to avoid. I've always said that our first war in space will be our last for possibly several hundred years, until the debris de-orbits. Then we can blow up more and start the process all over.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program. If that sounds silly to you then consider that Texas has more people and money than many nations on the planet, and some of those nations smaller than Texas sent stuff into space.
Hold on there Sparky. This will involve state taxes, and all taxes and regulations are bad, amirite? Texas is happy to take taxpayer money at the federal level because a lot of it comes from out of state people, but the concept of using their own money is a real non-starter.
Really, although the space program can be a great source of inspiration, Texas actually just wants the money.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's such a retarded comment. Take 5 seconds and look at any budget year and see that that the DOD is 3% of the gross US budget allotment:
DOD budget 2017 - $582.7 billion
Welfare budget 2017 - $732 billion
Social Security budget 2017 - $13.230 billion
Other budget 2017 (unemployment/fed retierment/vet benefits/etc) - $614 billtion
Non-defence budget 2017 - $610 billion.
Net Interest payments budget 2017 - $263 billion
Welfare/Other/Non-defence is the lion's share of the budget at over 1 trillion which is the official free handout categories.
Bleed money out of those programs and then your talking real money.
There's a US space force already.
No there is an Air Force which has a space focused command - not the same thing and certainly not an integrated service. The Navy also has a similar command. Plus various other defense oriented federal agencies have their own capabilities. There is no Space Force branch of the military at this time - just a bunch of capabilities spread across a variety of federal agencies.
With the possibility of a new branch of the military comes the possibility of new facilities for it. Houston might be a good place for that.
Certainly possible
For defense, your leaving out the "Department of Homeland (IN)Security" and all the off-budget shenanigans to fund our special forces and endless undeclared wars. Add those back in, and you're well over a trillion a year to subsidize the empire. Social security isn't funded off the general budget (by law) - the only reason the politicians want to pillage it is because it isn't pouring a multi-billion surplus every year into the federal treasury like it once did.
The military is too large, and the contractors too powerful. The rest of the world gets by collectively with less "defense" than the US has. There's plenty of money there that could be better spent almost ANYWHERE else.
Besides, I though that Texas was going to secede from the Union again.
We could only hope... ;-)
Old favorite joke of mine. A delegate from Texas was holding court at a political convention and bragging about how big everything in Texas was. Eventually the delegate from Alaska tired of listening to this and told him he should shut up or Alaska would cut itself in half and Texas would only be the third biggest state.
I wonder if they will ever actually go to the moon?
Operationally it could be better simply to base everything out of KSC and the Orlando area so the control center and the launch site are not separated by 1000 miles. You could also say manufacturing should be based in the KSC/Orlando area so you are not forced to truck in big components halfway across the country. Just put everything around the launch sites. Orlando even has UCF which was set up for training astronauts and engineers to supply the space program
`
Sorry, but being a Huntsville resident for decades, Houston didn't do all that anyway. All of the propulsion systems and crafts were designed and managed in Huntsville. Houston had oversight over the program and was Mission Control. But Huntsville did all the work for the actual shots. The rockets themselves were managed and monitored by Huntsville as well and Huntsville engineers went to all the shots (tests and lift-offs) in FL when they happened. As a matter of fact, all the current resources are still in Huntsville. Makes more sense to leave it all Huntsville to do it in future than actually move all of it from there to Houston. Saves money that way too.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program
The senators want to receive federal money, not spend their own.
The Senators and (especially) the US Representatives trying to steer this toward Texas don't "receive" federal money, they spend it.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Big government is ok now as along as the hypocrites get their slice.
as long as it's in my lifetime. I want to be part of the experience of watching humankind land on the moon, and if I'm lucky enough Mars too. If my dad could survive to witness it would be awesome. If they make it to Mars in that timeframe, all the better. This is the time in humanity where space exploration grows at an exponential pace. Once it reaches critical velocity, the moon and Mars two navigation routes will be widely used, and colonization and huge planetary cities are inevitable. What an amazing future of potential humanity has in store for itself.
Closer to the sound stage.
Have gnu, will travel.
Sounds stupid, and will never be respected.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Any state whose constituents and politicians consistently pushes anti-science political agendas that use as their justification the existence of a magical being should be excluded.
Except that we pretty much know exactly what we'll find on Mars.
No, we know SOME things we will find on Mars. There are undoubtedly countless things we are completely unaware of and will be amazed. It's an entire planet that we've barely explored. Heck we haven't discovered everything there is to find here on Earth yet and we've had thousands of years to look. Your argument is akin to flying to another country and snapping a few photos in while on a short vacation and then declaring that you've seen everything there is to see.
A place far more inhospitable than the worst place on Earth.
I assure you that there are places on Earth that will kill you (or anything else) dead just as fast as anyplace on Mars. We're better adapted to most of Earth but not all of it.
The Apollo lunar landers development was a mess, the first one produced was literally a death trap. If I remember correctly it had faulty wiring & major design flaws. I don't even think suited astronauts could fit through its hatch. They basically had to scrap most of it and throw together a bare bones version at the last minute.
The rest of the world gets by collectively with less "defense" than the US has.
Because the US has such defense.
You think your ass won't be crack up in a ditch somewhere without Pax Americana? Think again, pleb.
Unmanned rovers are good enough for that.
Not always and in many ways they are slow and limited.
Much cheaper and quicker.
That's only true currently because we haven't yet developed the life support systems to sustain a human on Mars. A human geologist on Mars could accomplish multiple orders of magnitude more useful work per unit time than any robot we are in danger of developing any time soon. The argument that we shouldn't go anywhere we could send a robot is a flawed argument. The bottom of the ocean is incredibly hostile but there still are good reasons to send people there, not the least of which is simply because we want to go. There are many good reasons to send a robot and there are also many good reasons to send a person. This is not an either/or proposition unless we needlessly make it one.
Also provides incentive for better AI to do autonomous exploration.
Human missions of that sort of duration will require robotic support so this simply isn't true. Plus much of the best technology we've gotten out of the space program has come from the manned programs. If we want it to be more than an academic exercise sooner or later we need to go in person if we possibly can.
Heaven forbid NASA decides what it should do based on facts and which location would give them the most favourable result.
But no, all the state politicians care about is making sure they get the pork.
> Get private businesses interested in missions to the moon.
There is no profit in that.
The only money in it what the government spends on it. SpaceX is an exception, but it to got where it is because of money that NASA spend on it, first by developing the tech on which SpaceX build, then by paying them for their services.
Typical American sissy talk. All the bad guys coming to get us....who exactly? Venezuela? Cuba? Yemen? The parent poster is 100% correct. There's nearly a trillion dollars in defense spending that is mostly going down the tubes. For a fraction of that price we can have
1.) A modern reliable and deterrent nuclear force including nuclear subs. That takes care of an existential threat from China/Russia, no massive Army or Naval fleet required. Likewise the wannabes N. Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran.
2.) A small, nimble, modern defensive military. The defense spending gets crappier every year. Investing in Top Gun airplanes when the future is clearly drones. And while one hope was that Trump would be the budget hawk (Air Force One too expensive, lets pull out of Afghan.) he's turned out to be a flip/flopper on that front too.
What we don't need is to interject the US into every regional conflict, or worse start regional conflicts. Syria's gone to sh-t...too bad. South Sudan in trouble, not my fight. Crimea...Ukraine you better make friends with new USSR.
Didn't someone just drop off a $60 million supercomputer in Texas?
You didn't capitalize "arigato" yet you capitalized all the other languages. You are a racist douche.
Russia would have expanded into the rest of Europe without NATO and its big daddy backer the USA.
It's an enormous leap in the amount of payload needed, and the net expenditure of energy, an increase of at least 100 in payload requirements and of roughly 1000 in propellant requirements.
There is nothing about the payload requirements for a manned mission to Mars that our current technology cannot manage. It's not going to be done on a single huge spacecraft so I'm not really clear what you are worried about. Supplies and fuel will be sent via separate missions (probably multiple) most likely and the craft to ferry the humans very likely would be built via multiple launches similar to the ISS. The limitations on such a mission are really just budgetary and life support. The former is a matter of political will and the later is the one major technical hurdle we have yet to overcome though it too probably is just a question of budget. If the mission design requires generating propellant on Mars then that is an additional technical hurdle to address.
The cost and difficulty of launching such a mission from Earth's surface are so large that I do not see how a manned Mars mission is feasible without a permanent station in Earth orbit, one at which large scale construction is possible, to build the spacecraft already in orbit.
I guess you don't work at NASA then because the people actually working on the problem don't seem to regard that as a problem. If you are talking about colonizing Mars you might have a point but to just get boots on the ground is a FAR simpler task and certainly doesn't require building an orbiting factory. Most of the heavy launch capabilities should be available via SpaceX BFR and Falcon Heavy (and similar) long before any manned mission would get off the ground. Even with a crash program we're not sending people to Mars sooner than the mid 2030s unless we make it a one way suicide mission and more realistically it would be 2040s or 2050s probably.
Taxation is a finite cake?
Not when there are federal workers to steal from!
No cumulative COLA in order to pay for the 1.5T tax cut, 88% for the top 1%?
No problem
The astronaut training program is based at JSC and the nearby Ellington Air Force Base. Therefore, astronauts have to live nearby. The location of Mission Control doesn't really affect that.
(Score: -1, Stupid)