Starship Asterisk*

----------------------------------------------
Space review panel says moon, Mars out of reach
By Irene Klotz (Reuters) Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:27pm EDT

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 will not happen without a big boost in NASA's budget, leaving only the International Space Station as a viable target for the country's human space program, according to a presidential review panel.

The Human Space Flight Plans committee, which presented its preliminary findings to the White House on Friday, concluded that a human mission to Mars currently would be too risky.

Developing new spaceships to replace the retiring space shuttle fleet and bigger rockets to reach the moon would require about $3 billion more per year, the panel headed by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine said.

The only human space program affordable under NASA's existing budget is an enhanced space station, one that has a side benefit of seeding a commercial passenger-launch services market, said the panel, which completed a series of public meetings this week.

NASA spends about half of its $18 billion annual budget on human space flight to fly the space shuttles, build and operate the space station and develop new vehicles in a follow-on program called Constellation.

The committee said the new U.S. exploration initiative -- aimed at landing astronauts on the moon by 2020 -- is doomed because its 10-year, $108 billion budget has been shaved by about $30 billion.

"We can't do this program in this budget," said panel member Sally Ride, a former astronaut. "This budget is simply not friendly to exploration."

ULTIMATE GOAL

Even with additional funds, heading to the moon may not be the best choice for human missions, the panel concluded. More economical and potentially more galvanizing to the public would be flights to asteroids and other destinations, it said.

The ultimate goal of future U.S. endeavors should be excursions to Mars, but the money and technologies needed to do so are not currently available, the panel said.

"We think to go direct to Mars with today's technology and money is riskier than we would want to be associated with," Augustine said. "It would likely not succeed."

NASA for decades has explored Mars with unmanned spacecraft and rovers that have roamed the Red Planet's surface.

NASA already has spent about $9 billion on Constellation, a project to build a capsule, rockets and lunar landers like those developed for the 1960s-era Apollo moon program.
----------------------------------------------
The outlook for missions beyond Earth's orbit turned even bleaker when the committee added funding to keep the space station operational through about 2020, as the station partners, including the United States, have said they would do.

NASA currently has no funding in place after 2015 for the space station, a $100 billion project of 16 nations.

Construction of the station is scheduled to be finished next year after seven more flights of the space shuttle, which orbits 225 miles above the planet.

After the shuttles are retired, NASA plans to pay Russia to transport crews to the station. The panel's recommendations include adding $2.5 billion into NASA's budget between 2011 and 2014 for commercial launch services to the space station.

"We'd like to get NASA out of the business of flying people to low-Earth orbit," Ride said.

The board's final report is due on August 31.
---------------------------------------------------------

"We'd like to get NASA out of the business of flying people to low-Earth orbit,"

Look to me that they order that presidential review panel to make sure it shut down human flight to low earth orbit even before they start the earing.

As i said: It look to me ...

Just an opinion.

come to think about it, this was your decision. as in: decision carried out by people representatives elected in one-and-only true democratic process, or by people assigned by those elected, etc, etc. in the end, this is what you voted for, implicitly.

not that I wouldnt agree with it (were I american) - people have plenty of more important things to spend billions for.

Gotta keep our fat people fat and fatter, mak.

makc wrote:come to think about it, this was your decision. as in: decision carried out by people representatives elected in one-and-only true democratic process, or by people assigned by those elected, etc, etc. in the end, this is what you voted for, implicitly.

not that I wouldnt agree with it (were I american) - people have plenty of more important things to spend billions for.

A representative will tell you what he will do on a few subject only. Once elected , he do what he wish on all the other subject. It's our vote yes but for whoever you vote, you just dont know what he will do after the election. A representative will say that you vote for him and then what ever he decide to do, it will be with your support that he is doing it. In fact we do not support what he do on all subject but hey thats democratie. If you agree or not dont count. So, dont forget that democratie is just barely a tiny fraction better then communism. For now we still have the freedom to say we do not agree as other have the freedom to say they agree. For what it is worht.

Lets hope that free enterprise will soar to send human to low earth orbit.

Let's think about this for a moment.

NASA is spread too thin. The budget they receive is not large enough to properly fund all facets of their operations; so in the end they have to cut corners on missions all the time.

So here's my question: why do we need low-orbit missions?

Right now manned missions drain a very large portion of the budget. For what? In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, what are all these shuttle missions getting us? Granted, special missions for, say, repairs on the Hubble Telescope require a team of astronauts. But launching satellites and trips to the space station can be done with less expensive vehicles.

And speaking of the ISS, other than a 'practice facility,' what good has the space station really done considering how much we've spent?

As I've mentioned in posts before, I don't think we are at the point where manned missions are practical. For science, I'd rather see the money spent on more sophisticated robotic missions. Right now we try to build robotic missions as cheaply as possible. If we really invested in these missions they could produce much greater results. If you're going to invest in tickets to fly to Greece, why stay for two days when you could spend some real time there?

Nope, I'd say "nuts" to constant 7-person flights into low orbit. If we are really serious about sending humans into the solar system, we need to learn as much about it as we can. We won't do that by cutting budgets from the one type of astronaut we can send there now...robots!

As for the private sector, don't expect 'sea change' here. Simple economics: the risk is huge, the payoff unknown. There have been some interesting ideas, such as Cosmos 1 http://www.solarsail.org/, a private mission to test a solar sail powered vehicle. Unfortunately the Russian launch vehicle failed and it never got far. While it was no fault of the engineers who build Cosmos 1, imagine yourself in their shoes trying to get funding again. "Yeah, er, you know those millions you gave us to build the space ship? Well, er, we kinda sorta...lost it and need another check to start over."

Right.

EDIT

I guess they have build Cosmos 2. http://www.planetary.org/programs/proje ... 80623.html

But of course they are still trying to get the money together to launch it...

I think solar sails are pretty cool, so I wish them luck.

As I sit here reading these posts at 2 a.m., 2001: A Space Odyssey is running behind me for the 100th time. God bless cable tv. I just feel better in a world that is probing the universe at all times. By my way of thinking, an attribute of an advanced civilization is that it considers further advancement important and acts and spends accordingly. Yes, there is advancement to be had right here on Earth, but look at the stars and tell me that ain't where the glory is.

---

geckzilla wrote:Gotta keep our fat people fat and fatter, mak.

IMDB (WALL-E plot summary) wrote:a large space cruise ship ... is carrying all of the humans who evacuated earth 700 years earlier ... people of earth ride around this space resort on hovering chairs which give them a constant feed of TV and video chatting ... drink all of their meals through a straw out of laziness and/or bone loss, and are all so fat that they can barely move

geckzilla wrote:Gotta keep our fat people fat and fatter, mak.

well according to this manned mission to mars funds could pay the entire african debt to western nations or feed every child on earth for a few years. on the other hand, what would we get if we actually send someone to mars? oh yeah, another rock or two to add to the bag sure we would learn some new stuff, but that would hardly help with hunger or poverty... at most, 50 years after some megacorporation would already know where to dig for uranium. yeah. such a great promise.

(that's not to say that if we're not going to mars, all these money would be spent in africa - in fact, they most certainly wouldn't, because frankly most of tax payers could not care less about africa, neither in USA nor anywhere else... TIA, nobody cares about it)

apodman wrote:As I sit here reading these posts at 2 a.m., 2001: A Space Odyssey is running behind me for the 100th time. God bless cable tv. I just feel better in a world that is probing the universe at all times. By my way of thinking, an attribute of an advanced civilization is that it considers further advancement important and acts and spends accordingly. Yes, there is advancement to be had right here on Earth, but look at the stars and tell me that ain't where the glory is.

------------------------------------------

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080507.html wrote:
Explanation: Is the night sky darkest in the direction opposite the Sun? No. In fact, a rarely discernable faint glow known as the gegenschein (German for "counter glow") can be seen 180 degrees around from the Sun in an extremely dark sky. The gegenschein is sunlight back-scattered off small interplanetary dust particles. These dust particles are millimeter sized splinters from asteroids and orbit in the ecliptic plane of the planets. During the day, a phenomenon similar to the gegenschein called the glory can be seen in reflecting air or clouds opposite the Sun from an airplane.

------------------------------------------

• `...that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents -- '
  
  `Certainly,' said Alice.
  
  `And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
  
  `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
  
  Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
  
  `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
  
  `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
  
  `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
  
  `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
  ------------------------------------------

neufer wrote:`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

Charles de Lorraine, Duke of Mayenne: Knock-knock.
Julia Ward Howe: Who's there?
Charles de Lorraine, Duke of Mayenne: Mayonnaise.
Julia Ward Howe: Mayonnaise who?
Charles de Lorraine, Duke of Mayenne: Mayonnaise have seen the glory ...

makc wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Gotta keep our fat people fat and fatter, mak.

well according to this manned mission to mars funds could pay the entire african debt to western nations or feed every child on earth for a few years. on the other hand, what would we get if we actually send someone to mars? oh yeah, another rock or two to add to the bag sure we would learn some new stuff, but that would hardly help with hunger or poverty... at most, 50 years after some megacorporation would already know where to dig for uranium. yeah. such a great promise.

(that's not to say that if we're not going to mars, all these money would be spent in africa - in fact, they most certainly wouldn't, because frankly most of tax payers could not care less about africa, neither in USA nor anywhere else... TIA, nobody cares about it)

Except you can't eat money and after those funds run out even under the assumption of 100% efficiency in converting money to food that doesn't spoil before it reaches a mouth they'll pretty much be right back where they were before. Africa needs to advance past tribal warfare and become self-sustaining. And just for the record my "fat" post isn't so much about fat people as it is about a fundamental philosophy here in the States. I could complain about it but this really isn't the place. Sorry I posted it.

geckzilla wrote:they'll pretty much be right back where they were before. Africa needs to advance past tribal warfare and become self-sustaining.

yes, money circulate... but so does water; you could argue there's no point in irrigation since in the end water goes back to oceans, and those stupid plants should learn to grow on its own.

If the US stops spending the money required to send humans into orbit, others will pick up the flag and fly it. So in the long run, it matters not for humanity. It'll just be a loss for the US.

Of course, the obvious answer is to spread out the cost across the whole human race, but as a species we're not ready for that level of cooperation yet.

As for space vs food... that is such a tired old argument, long ago refuted by economists. The money doesn't get boosted into space, it's spent right here on earth, buying goods and services from real people who then spread around the money in all the usual ways. A government-supplied budget is just seed money. It is not consumed; it does not disappear. The money can still be spent on food for starving children, et al. But only if there is a will to do so.

Rob

makc wrote:

geckzilla wrote:they'll pretty much be right back where they were before. Africa needs to advance past tribal warfare and become self-sustaining.

yes, money circulate... but so does water; you could argue there's no point in irrigation since in the end water goes back to oceans, and those stupid plants should learn to grow on its own.

So we're going to feed the children of Africa to grow them so we can eat them? Don't answer this, I'm being a wiseass.

rstevenson wrote:The money doesn't get boosted into space, it's spent right here on earth, buying goods and services from real people who then spread around the money in all the usual ways.

Oh yeah, nice thinking. Let's spend money on drugs and wars too - after all, they find their way in poor man pocket any way.

makc wrote:

rstevenson wrote:The money doesn't get boosted into space, it's spent right here on earth, buying goods and services from real people who then spread around the money in all the usual ways.

Oh yeah, nice thinking. Let's spend money on drugs and wars too - after all, they find their way in poor man pocket any way.

It is well known that both illegal drug markets and wars are powerful boosts to local, regional, and sometimes worldwide economies. You won't find many economists who disagree with that.

The same is true for money spent on research. Not only is it an investment, meaning it usually produces long term returns, but the immediate flow of capital is often very healthy for an economy.

In fact, the world economy is plenty strong enough that there is no reason for any human to be poor. The fact that there actually are poor people shows that something else is going on besides simple availability of resources.

Tinker, tailor,
Soldier, sailor,
Rich man, poor man,
Beggar, thief.

... astronomer, philosopher, anthropologist, economist, ...

Robert A. Heinlein (as Lazarus Long) wrote:A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

apodman wrote:Tinker, tailor,
Soldier, sailor,
Rich man, poor man,
Beggar, thief.

... astronomer, philosopher, anthropologist, economist, ...

Robert A. Heinlein (as Lazarus Long) wrote:A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Well, if you were as long lived as the legendary Howard families, you would probably have time to learn how to do all those things.

Chris Peterson wrote:The fact that there actually are poor people shows that something else is going on besides simple availability of resources.

I know this music sounds very similar to one conspiracy theory or two

makc wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:The fact that there actually are poor people shows that something else is going on besides simple availability of resources.

I know this music sounds very similar to one conspiracy theory or two

No conspiracy needed. There are many systemic reasons why food and other resources aren't getting where they're needed, and many good people working against great odds to try to make things better.

But as you no doubt know, this isn't the forum to discuss this issue.

Rob

yes, we stepped out of rules here (no politics, right) but hell, rules are boring anyone wants this thread locked?

Great topic makc

rstevenson wrote
Of course, the obvious answer is to spread out the cost across the whole human race, but as a species we're not ready for that level of cooperation, yet..

Indeed and such a shame that is, most especially when one considers that our Children’s, children’s children probably will be saying the same thing.

None the less I personally agree that our present mode of transportation, for lack of a more fitting word “sucks “ Dragging our feet from moon to planets and or etc at a whopping 25,000 mph is not going to cut it boys. Maybe in 10 or 20 years someone will have perfected any one of a number of different propulsion techniques that are currently being envisioned, I certainly hope so..
As for the time being, “ a moon base “ Boring,
Since “ If nobody has happened to notice “ There isn’t a whole lot there that’s exciting, to say the least. As for water being on the poles or maybe hiding in some deep craters on the dark side, again I say boring. Seems to me that there is plenty of water ice to be found on a good number of asteroids running around, round this here solar system from what I come to believe by way of this site in and of itself.
Let the Japanese, the Chinese, the” Who else ? “ India? Let them squander their billions on moon trips to frolic in that dust, we have been there and we will more likely than not, not be passing up a chance to better our technology by any leaps and bounds jumping on any moon bandwagon
Lets go visit a gang of asteroids boys, that’s where the thrill of something new lies at this time, to me anyhow. Mars too ? Yes eventually, but there is no need to do it rush order! How many billions of years has that red planet been there, How many more billions of years is it going to be there…….. Also, no need to be crying like a bunch of little girls with the old adage “ I want to see it happen in my lifetime thing “ Think beyond your own lives. So what if you are no longer here to witness the fact. “ And that looks to be the case with the entire worlds economy going south as of late “ Better that we go and all make it back home alive as apposed to the not making it back scenario. Relish in the fact that we WILL get there and ponder the idea of your Children’s, children being the ones doing so.

I never met a weapon I didn’t like. Ronald Regan ( 1989 )

THX1138 wrote:our Children’s, children’s children

Sounds like you're talking about a question of balance on the threshold of a dream.

apodman wrote:

THX1138 wrote:our Children’s, children’s children

Sounds like you're talking about a question of balance on the threshold of a dream.

The Eyes of a Child may not see Beyond the references, and will miss the Higher and Higher meaning. But never mind, the Sun is Still Shining.

Rob

There is one good thing to be gained from a permanent presance on the moon...a Launch base that enters space at vastly greater speeds that could be gained by leaving a gravity well 1/6th that of Earth (unfortunately, everything needed would likely require boosting out of Earth's gravity well first before lunar assembly could occur)