The US Space Program

[Coito ergo sum]

Word was, a few months ago, that the United States was canceling the US program to send humans back to the moon, and build a base at Clavius crater. There were some lofty words about manned missions to Mars, new propulsion systems and manned orbital missions to Mars by 2035-ish, but not much in the way of specifics other than sort of generalized statements in a stump speech.

Does anyone know what, specifically, the United States' Executive Branch is proposing to do in terms of manned space flight? Time lines? specific proposals, etc.?

[klr]

Word was, a few months ago, that the United States was canceling the US program to send humans back to the moon, and build a base at Clavius crater. There were some lofty words about manned missions to Mars, new propulsion systems and manned orbital missions to Mars by 2035-ish, but not much in the way of specifics other than sort of generalized statements in a stump speech.

Does anyone know what, specifically, the United States' Executive Branch is proposing to do in terms of manned space flight? Time lines? specific proposals, etc.?

You're asking us?

Well, maybe Ian has some contacts in the know, but that's about it. Me, I don't know more than what de interwebz will tell me . I wish I did ...

With the retirement of the Shuttle fleet, NASA won't be able to send anyone into space by itself for a while. It'll have to be Soyuz, or a future commercial operator. But we know this already.

[Coito ergo sum]

Conspicuously absent from the whitehouse.gov page is any mention of actually going anywhere in particular at any time in the near future. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet ... ment_nasa/

[Coito ergo sum]

Word was, a few months ago, that the United States was canceling the US program to send humans back to the moon, and build a base at Clavius crater. There were some lofty words about manned missions to Mars, new propulsion systems and manned orbital missions to Mars by 2035-ish, but not much in the way of specifics other than sort of generalized statements in a stump speech.

Does anyone know what, specifically, the United States' Executive Branch is proposing to do in terms of manned space flight? Time lines? specific proposals, etc.?

You're asking us?

Well, maybe Ian has some contacts in the know, but that's about it. Me, I don't know more than what de interwebz will tell me . I wish I did ...

With the retirement of the Shuttle fleet, NASA won't be able to send anyone into space by itself for a while. It'll have to be Soyuz, or a future commercial operator. But we know this already.

Yeah there are some Americans here, and I've been looking. I've only seen reports that amount to a hill of bullshit.

[klr]

Word was, a few months ago, that the United States was canceling the US program to send humans back to the moon, and build a base at Clavius crater. There were some lofty words about manned missions to Mars, new propulsion systems and manned orbital missions to Mars by 2035-ish, but not much in the way of specifics other than sort of generalized statements in a stump speech.

Does anyone know what, specifically, the United States' Executive Branch is proposing to do in terms of manned space flight? Time lines? specific proposals, etc.?

You're asking us?

Well, maybe Ian has some contacts in the know, but that's about it. Me, I don't know more than what de interwebz will tell me . I wish I did ...

With the retirement of the Shuttle fleet, NASA won't be able to send anyone into space by itself for a while. It'll have to be Soyuz, or a future commercial operator. But we know this already.

Yeah there are some Americans here, and I've been looking. I've only seen reports that amount to a hill of bullshit.

I get the impression that everyone is marking time at the moment. The money just isn't there, or the motivation. Kennedy could sell going to the moon, but then and now seem to be just completely different. Of course there are no Commies to race against (except maybe the Chinese ...), but there must be more to it than that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Word was, a few months ago, that the United States was canceling the US program to send humans back to the moon, and build a base at Clavius crater. There were some lofty words about manned missions to Mars, new propulsion systems and manned orbital missions to Mars by 2035-ish, but not much in the way of specifics other than sort of generalized statements in a stump speech.

Does anyone know what, specifically, the United States' Executive Branch is proposing to do in terms of manned space flight? Time lines? specific proposals, etc.?

You're asking us?

Well, maybe Ian has some contacts in the know, but that's about it. Me, I don't know more than what de interwebz will tell me . I wish I did ...

With the retirement of the Shuttle fleet, NASA won't be able to send anyone into space by itself for a while. It'll have to be Soyuz, or a future commercial operator. But we know this already.

Yeah there are some Americans here, and I've been looking. I've only seen reports that amount to a hill of bullshit.

I get the impression that everyone is marking time at the moment. The money just isn't there, or the motivation. Kennedy could sell going to the moon, but then and now seem to be just completely different. Of course there are no Commies to race against (except maybe the Chinese ...), but there must be more to it than that.

The money not being there is false. The budget was submitted and NASA got an increase for 2011 over 2010 by something like 1.2 billion dollars.

Constellation already had us going back to the moon, and the Ares rocket was under development along with the Orion capsule, etc. The executive branch canceled, if their budget is approved by congress, the program to go to the moon.

And, the "just no money" thing doesn't make sense. A year ago there was a trillion dollars, almost, borrowed for "stimulus" funds. What a better job creator than the space industry, which requires every level of job from high level physics and engineering, chemistry, chemical engineering, electronics, electrical engineering, robotics, fluid technology, materials science, metals, plastics, computers, and the list goes on and on..... we spent $600 million on converter boxes for people to get HDTV....

[klr]

...
I get the impression that everyone is marking time at the moment. The money just isn't there, or the motivation. Kennedy could sell going to the moon, but then and now seem to be just completely different. Of course there are no Commies to race against (except maybe the Chinese ...), but there must be more to it than that.

The money not being there is false. The budget was submitted and NASA got an increase for 2011 over 2010 by something like 1.2 billion dollars.

Constellation already had us going back to the moon, and the Ares rocket was under development along with the Orion capsule, etc. The executive branch canceled, if their budget is approved by congress, the program to go to the moon.

And, the "just no money" thing doesn't make sense. A year ago there was a trillion dollars, almost, borrowed for "stimulus" funds. What a better job creator than the space industry, which requires every level of job from high level physics and engineering, chemistry, chemical engineering, electronics, electrical engineering, robotics, fluid technology, materials science, metals, plastics, computers, and the list goes on and on..... we spent $600 million on converter boxes for people to get HDTV....

Hey, we want our HDTV!

Seriously, I don't think it's a question of short-term financial (and political) commitment. Any decent space program is a long-term effort, and the US seems to have enough on its plate just now: The War on Terror, the health care system, the global financial morass, climate change, etc.

Yes, a really brave leadership would press ahead and try and push for ambitious programs with long-term and wide-ranging benefits. But the body politic seems to be gun-shy of arguing for big strategic projects on the space exploration front. That's just my view from a distance.

[Coito ergo sum]

...
I get the impression that everyone is marking time at the moment. The money just isn't there, or the motivation. Kennedy could sell going to the moon, but then and now seem to be just completely different. Of course there are no Commies to race against (except maybe the Chinese ...), but there must be more to it than that.

The money not being there is false. The budget was submitted and NASA got an increase for 2011 over 2010 by something like 1.2 billion dollars.

Constellation already had us going back to the moon, and the Ares rocket was under development along with the Orion capsule, etc. The executive branch canceled, if their budget is approved by congress, the program to go to the moon.

And, the "just no money" thing doesn't make sense. A year ago there was a trillion dollars, almost, borrowed for "stimulus" funds. What a better job creator than the space industry, which requires every level of job from high level physics and engineering, chemistry, chemical engineering, electronics, electrical engineering, robotics, fluid technology, materials science, metals, plastics, computers, and the list goes on and on..... we spent $600 million on converter boxes for people to get HDTV....

Hey, we want our HDTV!

Seriously, I don't think it's a question of short-term financial (and political) commitment. Any decent space program is a long-term effort, and the US seems to have enough on its plate just now: The War on Terror, the health care system, the global financial morass, climate change, etc.

Yes, a really brave leadership would press ahead and try and push for ambitious programs with long-term and wide-ranging benefits. But the body politic seems to be gun-shy of arguing for big strategic projects on the space exploration front. That's just my view from a distance.

The current administration claimed 5 months ago that it was spearheading an even more ambitious program.

Plus, it wasn't a question of increasing the NASA budget - it was a question of what to do with the money currently allocated.

[klr]

...
The current administration claimed 5 months ago that it was spearheading an even more ambitious program.

Plus, it wasn't a question of increasing the NASA budget - it was a question of what to do with the money currently allocated.

Maybe they just really want to have a rethink about where they're going, strategically speaking. Going back to the moon (especially establishing a permanent base), or going to Mars are the two "obvious" goals. But the money ... everything seems to be so much more expensive these days ... and more costly ... and more complex. To think that they went to the moon with virtually no computing power to speak of, and damned near ran out of fuel on the Apollo 11 descent.

[Coito ergo sum]

...
The current administration claimed 5 months ago that it was spearheading an even more ambitious program.

Plus, it wasn't a question of increasing the NASA budget - it was a question of what to do with the money currently allocated.

Maybe they just really want to have a rethink about where they're going, strategically speaking.

That's not what they said. Not sure why we would want to dispute what they themselves said.

Going back to the moon (especially establishing a permanent base), or going to Mars are the two "obvious" goals.

Quite obvious. One, the moon is "only" 250,000 miles from Earth, or thereabouts, and is itself a fantastically complex and dangerous endeavor/our. Venus is the next closest planet, but is 600 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface, or more, so we can't really hang out there. Mars is the next closest planet after that, and ranges between 40 million miles and 150 million miles away from Earth. Million. Not thousand. Million. The circumference of the Earth at the equator is less than 25,000 miles. Where else are we going to go first besides the Moon or Mars? Mercury? Jupiter or its Moons? Saturn? New Horizons mission to Pluto is the fastest probe ever and still has 5 years to go to get to Pluto and was launched several years ago. It went past Saturn a while back, after being in space for 5 years or thereabouts.

A trip to Mars is estimated, give or take, at about 260 days each way. Maybe 300. Maybe 220. So, we've gone to the Moon a few times, and the trips lasted only a matter of days each. Apollo 11 lasted 8 days.

So what are we going to do? Go to Mars - an 18 month trip (there and back) - BEFORE we get used to the Moon?

There isn't a choice, man. The Moon MUST come first because it is the only one we can possibly do. If you go to Mars before going back to the Moon, or if you go tot he asteroid belt before the Moon, and there is an accident, what will everyone say? "Why didn't you try the easier trip to the Moon to get your space legs?"

Any other manned missions besides a manned mission to the moon is smoke and mirrors and bullshit snowjobs designed to get the critics off the President's back and give him "plausible deniability" to the effect that he's not really canceling US manned space missions, he's just redoing it to make it bigger and better. Yeah, right.

But the money ... everything seems to be so much more expensive these days

Repeat - they INCREASED NASA's budget. And, they did not cut one dime by canceling the moon program.

... and more costly ... and more complex. To think that they went to the moon with virtually no computing power to speak of, and damned near ran out of fuel on the Apollo 11 descent.

We must go back. If the West is to remain at the forefront of science and technology, we must go back. I don't care if the US partners with other countries. Cassini-Huygens was cool. Let's merge North America's efforts and Europe's efforts and move the fuck forward. Do not "leave it to the Chinese." I'd even be cool with partnering with the Chinese, except that their space program is secret, while the West's programs are pretty much wide open. That's not fair, and unless they open up, then they need to be on their own.

I find it hard to believe that I am in such an extreme minority when it comes to the space program. Nobody cares, not on the left and not on the right. Most of the left and the right pay bullshit lip service to the idea of the importance of "math and science," but when it comes to the point of actually supporting something that requires the best of math and science, everyone's like "ho hum what do we need that for" or "it's just an ego thing..." What the fuck do kids need to learn science for if they're not going to build careers out of it? What are they going to do? Conduct complex integrations and derivations of how many burgers they flip on a daily basis? Accounting doesn't need high level math or science.

We have a chance to create for a generation of children a goal, a dream, something to work for - and those are the best catalysts toward education that can possibly be. It's not "fun teachers" or "pat me on the head self-esteem." It's "I wanna be an astronaut" - and "o.k. son, here's what you have to do to be one..." -- then go!

[Azathoth]

The major barrier to a mars mission is the physiological effects of such an extended period of time in zero gravity. The astronauts would be incapable of doing anything when they did get to mars and had to operate under gravity again.

[Coito ergo sum]

The major barrier to a mars mission is the physiological effects of such an extended period of time in zero gravity. The astronauts would be incapable of doing anything when they did get to mars and had to operate under gravity again.

...which is one of the main reasons we need to have astronauts doing extended stays between the Earth and the Moon, or on the Moon, before a Mars mission. Being between 50,000 and 250,000 miles from earth is a lot easier for training purposes than 50 million....to 150,000,000...miles from Earth.

[Clinton Huxley]

The major barrier to a mars mission is the physiological effects of such an extended period of time in zero gravity. The astronauts would be incapable of doing anything when they did get to mars and had to operate under gravity again.

...which is one of the main reasons we need to have astronauts doing extended stays between the Earth and the Moon, or on the Moon, before a Mars mission. Being between 50,000 and 250,000 miles from earth is a lot easier for training purposes than 50 million....to 150,000,000...miles from Earth.

Being on the ground is even easier. Lock 6 astronauts in a caravan for a year. You could put it on a turntable and make them eat cheese out of a can. Be just like the real thing.

[Bella Fortuna]

The major barrier to a mars mission is the physiological effects of such an extended period of time in zero gravity. The astronauts would be incapable of doing anything when they did get to mars and had to operate under gravity again.

...which is one of the main reasons we need to have astronauts doing extended stays between the Earth and the Moon, or on the Moon, before a Mars mission. Being between 50,000 and 250,000 miles from earth is a lot easier for training purposes than 50 million....to 150,000,000...miles from Earth.

Being on the ground is even easier. Lock 6 astronauts in a caravan for a year. You could put it on a turntable and make them eat cheese out of a can. Be just like the real thing.

Just like this.

[klr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11518049

Obama signs Nasa up to new future

By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News

The US space agency (Nasa) has been given a new direction, one that will seek to put astronauts in orbit using privately run launch services.

The change comes into effect with the signing by President Barack Obama of the Nasa Authorization Act 2010.

The legislation, passed by Congress last week, mandates the agency to fly the space station until 2020 and to launch one extra shuttle next year.

It also instructs Nasa to start work on a rocket for deep-space exploration.

The president's signature on the act brings to an end eight months of fractious debate on Capitol Hill about the future course of the agency.

Nasa's Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters: "Our nation's leaders have come together and endorsed a blueprint for Nasa, one that requires us to think and act boldly as we move our agency into the future. This legislation supports the president's ambitious plan for Nasa to pioneer new frontiers of innovation and discovery."

The act will mark a sea change in the way Nasa does some of its business, particularly in the realm of human spaceflight.

The legislation calls for $1.3bn to be allocated to the development of commercial crew services over the next three years.

The money will seed private companies to design and build rockets and capsules capable of delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).

The legislation also signals a formal end to the Constellation programme begun under President George Bush that sought to return humans to the Moon with a new spaceship called Orion and two new rockets called Ares 1 and Ares 5.

Some $9bn was spent on Constellation. Much of its technology and know-how will now be directed into an alternative rocket system big enough to launch a spaceship, or at least some of its elements, on missions that go far beyond the ISS.

These ventures are likely to include asteroids and, eventually, Mars.

Legislators want Nasa to receive $11.5bn over the next six years to have the new heavy-lift rocket ready for operation by 31 December 2016.

Some critics of the legislation have questioned whether the funding being requested is sufficient for the task, but Florida Senator Bill Nelson who helped build bipartisan support for the legislation said it should be ample.

"If we can't develop a new rocket for $11.5bn, building on a lot of the technologies that were already developed in spending $9bn - if we can't do it for that then we ought to question whether we can build a rocket."

The act authorises $19bn for Nasa in the federal year 2011, a significant increase on 2010.

This would allow the agency to expand its activities in a number of areas, including in Earth observation where some missions have been allowed to run past their nominal lifetimes without replacements being ordered up in time to prevent data gaps.

"I think it's wonderful that we're now at this stage," commented Dr Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of a group of experts tasked by President Obama with reviewing human spaceflight policy when he came into office.

"The extensive discussion of the president's budget and the deliberation of the elements of this bill I believe have resulted in legislation that will strengthen Nasa and the space programme."

The $19bn is not completely guaranteed. The money still has to be allocated by congressional appropriators, but Senator Nelson said he thought wide support on Capitol Hill for Nasa would ensure its activities were not denied funding as a result of more general arguments over federal spending and the need to reduce the nation's deficit.