Neil Armstrong: Obama NASA plan 'devastating'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/

by davidcann • 16 years ago

25 30 16 years ago

msnbc.msn.com

_delirium• 16 years ago

This seems like another skirmish in a fight that's been simmering for ~20 years within NASA over its various missions. One side, which most of the astronauts (incl. Armstrong) are on, thinks that manned exploration ought to be paramount, and therefore supports things like a return to the moon, a manned mission to Mars, etc. Another side, made up mostly of scientists, thinks collecting interesting data ought to be paramount, and tends to believe the most cost-effective way of doing that is via probes, satellites, and robotic rovers.

Bush mostly sided with the first group, making a manned return to the moon as a stepping-stone to a manned trip to Mars the centerpiece of his NASA policy. Obama's mostly siding with the second group.

houseabsolute• 16 years ago

As cool as manned exploration is, it's hard to see what real benefit it brings besides that a lucky few get to experience space firsthand. Not worth the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs.

ryanwaggoner• 16 years ago

Ah, if only it was hundreds of millions :)

derefr• 16 years ago

I believe there's a direct correlation between the number of new objects NASA has filmed astronauts landing on, and the number of people wishing to go into the astronomical sciences and the aerospace industry.

pfedor• 16 years ago

According to Steven Weinberg's essay in "Lake Views", Bush's idea of returning to the Moon etc. was never anything but a smoke curtain, i.e., they wanted to cancel a number of scientific projects planned by NASA (e.g., an experiment aimed at detecting gravitational waves) but didn't want it to look bad. So they came up with this ploy of announcing we're going to Moon and Mars, and all the cost cutting was justified by saying that all other NASA efforts had to be deprioritized to focus on the president's vision, while in reality never even a half-hearted effort was made to make the vision any closer to reality.

Bjoern• 16 years ago

This article gives more context and seem an more interesting read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_scien...

While Armstrong is on one side, Aldrin is on the other:

On the other side of the debate, the most outspoken Apollo-era advocate of NASA's new policy is the man who was Armstrong's co-pilot for the first moon landing: Buzz Aldrin.

"Many said the president's decision was misguided, short-sighted and disappointing," Aldrin wrote in an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal. "Having the experience of walking on the moon's surface on the Apollo 11 mission, I think he made the right call. If we follow the president's plan, our next destination in space, Mars, will be within our reach."

What is the Constallation program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

An excerpt from the wikipedia page:

President Obama's argument[32][2] is that the lifetime for the International Space Station would be extended by an additional 5 years and an additional US$6 billion would be paid to private companies for shuttling astronauts to and from it after the Space Shuttle program ends while NASA develops new technology for future space exploration missions. According to Obama, his vision embodies a "bold new approach to human space flight that embraces commercial industry, forges international partnerships, and invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration."

CamperBob2• 16 years ago

The first time one of those private companies blows up a rocket and kills a crew of astronauts, the resulting public outcry will put NASA back in the astronaut-launching business instantly.

And if that doesn't turn out to happen, so much the better.

It's possible Obama is calculating enough to see this.

pavs• 16 years ago

Accidents happen. You can't calculate for accidents. Currently Space exploration are very centralized around government's willingness and ability to invest on it. For long terms sustainability and for space program to really expand we need more than a few players.

We need heavy investment from private sectors. This will happen eventually, why wait?

khelloworld2• 16 years ago

If anything, I think it will encourage private enterprise to work harder.

kierank• 16 years ago

3 people were killed in the Mojave desert after an explosion at a Virgin Galactic facility.

c1sc02• 16 years ago

I think our society's risk aversion is one of the major reasons holding back progress.

anigbrowl• 16 years ago

I'm totally with Obama on this. I'm crazy about space and although I'll almost certainly never go I'd love to see us on Mars or with orbital colonies before I die. Open sourcing NASA and treating commercial space ventures on an equal footing would be a great step towards that.

wtn• 16 years ago

He pretty much lost me with his "the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity" and the "to be without carriage to low Earth orbit ... destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature" lines.

In an environment of extreme political and economic turbulence, the status of the space program is about the last thing I'm concerned about. The space program was a useful ideological tool when it was fresh. Now any state with enough cash can launch.

melling• 16 years ago

How many nations have put a man into space? I think we're up to three.

I can't say I'm all for a race to Mars, but I think need to make constant progress, and we can't let the program fall apart. It will cost even more money and years to restart it.

As it currently stands, we have a space station and for the next few years America won't own a ship to get there.

khelloworld2• 16 years ago

This is what worries me the most:

http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/12041303534

Until we get out of our comfort zone, we won't make much progress.

AngryParsley• 16 years ago

On the bright side, we have launched probes out of the solar system. New Horizons will reach Pluto in 5 years.

The problem with human spaceflight is that humans are hard to keep alive in space. We need air, food, water, constant exercise (or artificial gravity), and protection from cosmic rays. All of this support equipment has mass. More mass means bigger rockets full of more fuel. The Saturn V only launched three guys to the Moon and it was 110 meters tall. It was practically a skyscraper built to explode in just the right way so that the top floor ended up on the Moon.

On the other hand, probes just need a radioisotope thermal generator or solar panels. Not to mention that probes don't mind one-way tickets. And family members don't cry when a probe is lost in an accident.

Barring new propulsion technologies (NERVA? Unlikely in this political climate.), humans won't be going anywhere.

A pie-in-the-sky solution would be to put a brain in a vat and shoot that into space. (A simulation of a brain would be even better, but's probably farther off.) A brain doesn't have bones that weaken in microgravity. 3lbs of brain needs fewer resources than 170lbs of meat. Also, I'd bet on brain-machine interfaces advancing before space propulsion.

c1sc02• 16 years ago

Or make manned missions one-way only? Send out humans, bring back the data they collected?

jsz0• 16 years ago

It's tough to question Neil Armstrong but to me $50M/seat for launch seems like a bargain compared to the alternative. Just based on the $10B we've spent on Constellation so far that's 200 seats. I don't know how much Constellation is supposed to cost in the end but let's say it's another $20B for the sake of argument. Do we have a pressing need to send 400 people into LEO over the next 5-10 years? Over the next 20 years? Maybe we should just consider dusting off the Apollo.

metamemetics• 16 years ago

Going commercial for land-to-orbit ferrying makes sense: it's a proven concept that's been done plenty of times and just needs to become more efficient.

Building land-to-deep space vessels makes little sense. It unnecessarily reinvents the land-to-orbit step. The launch rockets are one more thing to invent and maintain. Every space mission needs to get into orbit: don't "roll your own", factor it out and let industry tackle it.

NASA should go commercial for ferrying and focus on robots and proof of concept projects. Manned deep space missions should be launched starting in orbit from starports, and are unnecessary before then. They can be assembled modularly in space.

As far as pragmatic and profitable reasons to go into space, mining is probably the biggest. Asteroids often contain rare metals in abundance and are worth trillions. Space mining will only develop if we first invest in: 1) Making orbital ferrying as cheap as possible 2) Orbital facilities to serve as launch platforms for research and ventures. 3) Advanced Robotics

I think NASA's new plan is doing everything right and heading in this direction.

zackattack3• 16 years ago

Shouldn't we continue to invest in long-term infrastructure development (education, research) before shedding cash for hyperexpensive space trips? I'm just about efficiency

zackattack3• 16 years ago

Would love a polite answer to my question.

nfg2• 16 years ago

Why choose to cut space exploration? Surely there are a myriad of more "worthy" targets to cut in favour of social programs?

motters• 16 years ago

It all boils down to whether you believe that activities in space should consist of a series of big grandstanding stunts, or whether you think that space should become just another place where people live and work - expanding human horizons. It seems clear that the sorts of missions upon which Armstrong embarked, though pioneering at the time, were not sustainable. The main reason for this lack of sustainability was that the hardware was bespoke and too expensive, and required too large a ground crew to operate. What we should probably be working towards are sustainable and increasing levels of human activity in space. This means working towards lowering costs and standardising hardware, and greater commercial involvement.

nfg2• 16 years ago

Some context: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/is-a-human-spac.html (definitely worth reading the comments on that too)

Neil Armstrong: Obama NASA plan 'devastating'

Related Stories