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.
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.
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.
Cody shows how far the stars are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.