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.
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.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program
The senators want to receive federal money, not spend their own.
There is nothing nearby due to current propulsion/distance limitations. We don't have any rationale for going to Mars right now except bragging rights and it would inevitably cost lives to achieve. What's the purpose now?
Because it's there. The same reason go to climb mountains or dive in the sea. Mars is just a higher mountain or deeper ocean.
A smokescreen for other things.
I'm sure that it is. I'm not sure how that makes any difference on people wanting to try. In fact some hidden motive only makes more people want to try, and do so with greater vigor.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
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.
I see you are joking, but just to sharpen the point a bit, that damn interstate highway system never created one job, damn them for building it. And that science government funds, nothing ever comes of it, it should be scrapped because the private sector will create all the science we'll ever need. And DARPA, imagine creating things like the internet, nothing of economic value will ever come it and certainly no jobs.
Let's worry about that when we actually have a need for iron at those other sites.
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.