Today’s short-notice NASA press conference primarily covered organizational issues within the agency: which centers would be responsible for what aspects of the new plan. For example, KSC will host the Commercial Crew Development Program Office, with JSC serving as deputy; the roles are reversed for the Flagship Technology Demonstrations, with JSC in the lead. With a few minor exceptions (like Marshall taking the Centennial Challenges program office, which had been run out of Headquarters) there wasn’t much surprising there, and more importantly, no sign of any significant deviations from the original plan as rolled out two months ago. He also noted that this assignment of projects to various centers was done within NASA, without input from the administration or Congress.
During the Q&A, NASA administrator Charles Bolden was asked about the presidential space conference scheduled for a week from today in Florida (presumably at KSC). “It is a work in progress,” he said. There are several goals for the event, Bolden added, starting with giving President Obama the opportunity “to continue to conversation he has been having with members of Congress”; this will include some “private moments” with members of Congress who will be at the event. Obama will then give a “major space policy speech” that, Bolden said, is designed to try and convince people “that he is dedicated to exploration and to human spaceflight.” That will be followed by several breakout panels (he later said four) on programs in the budget proposal.
But who will be there? Bolden confirmed the event is by invitation only, but exactly who has been invited (or even if there have been formal invitations sent out yet) isn’t clear. “I’m not the writer of the guest list,” Bolden said, but expected that it would include members of Congress and the media. In addition, he said, “there will be people who are involved in future concepts, whether they are commercial spaceflight developers, scientists, engineers, representatives of academia”: what he called “a broad cross-section of people” to offer diverse viewpoints. “We’ll try to cover a lot of ground in a short period of time in the panels.”
See how Obama did with the GOP on the health care meeting and you will see how this is going to work.
Robert G. Oler
I am still angered with the possibility that President Obama will continue the cancellation of the Moon and try to divert us with ideas of Mars. America desperatley needs, in the interest of maintining the West’s space and engineering leadership and in the crucial need of invigorating our school’s science education, to continue our logical goal of the Moon.
Obama’s possible Mars talk is a decoy. Its a smokescreen for CANCELLATION –of up to 20 years– of ANY ambitious NASA hsf, and this was admitted by Obama’s deputy administrator who gave us such dates as “after 2030.”
In other words, Obama’s Moon cancellation/Mars decoy means NOTHING for our children, but maybe, possibly something for our grand or great grandchildren.
Unless another opportunistic President cancels all that. With China going to the moon 3 times in this coming decade, with our schools slipping and in need of the surge that only going to, and landing on, and beginning a science outpost on the moon will give (as Burt Rutan pointed out) it’s hardly time for our President to shine the fanciful bells and blow pie in the sky whistles of Mars while attempting to destroy the far more “do-able” goal of the Moon.
“I am still angered with the possibility that President Obama will continue the cancellation of the Moon”
He is cancelling the Moon now??? A powerful man indeed. Could not resist. But when you have logical goal of Moon it explains a lot.
“In other words, Obama’s Moon cancellation/Mars decoy means NOTHING for our children, but maybe, possibly something for our grand or great grandchildren.”
I have to disagree here: “In other words, Obama’s Moon cancellation/Mars decoy” only means NOTHING.
“With China going to the moon 3 times in this coming decade, with our schools slipping and in need of the surge that only going to, and landing on, and beginning a science outpost on the moon will give (as Burt Rutan pointed out) it’s hardly time for our President to shine the fanciful bells and blow pie in the sky whistles of Mars while attempting to destroy the far more “do-able†goal of the Moon.”
Wow! What a gem. School in need of “the” surge? What kind of surge is that?
I dont under stand why its “Invitation Only” if the public’s the ones that want to know what on earth the new budget means, and whats in it.
John Hansen wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Unless another opportunistic President cancels all that. With China going to the moon 3 times in this coming decade,..
you do understand that at best, that is with instrumented probes?
yikes
Robert G. Oler
Dragon_Kevin wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Hey Kevin,
Don’t worry, your President knows what he’s doing. He’s not going to cancel the moon or anything else (other than failing programs). You need to stay in school, study hard, and work on your punctuation. When you grow up you’ll have a chance to be part of the great adventure of science and space exploration.
Bennett
Junior high responses would focus on punctuation, etc.
But when President Obama moves to cancel the goal of returning crewed missions to the moon and the logical goal of a science outpost on the surface thereof, with a cancellation that amounts to, in the words of Nasa Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, NO ambitious NASA hsf until at least 2030, that is a cutting blow to kids, within a U.S. educational system marked by steadily slipping sci/tech/eng/math grades. While, yes, China has 3 probes slated for the moon involving a heavy and (likely) nuclear powered landing bus with advanced rovers — a great inspiration to American children from a totalitarian, oppressive regime featuring a bizarre propaganda agency which our kids will have to go through if they have any appetite for the highest adventure and exploration.
If you find it essential to fault the word “surge” in science education & inspiration, I’ll use longer sentence to appease your joyful fault finding.
Burt Rutan: “My basic concern is that the real value of NASA’s contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. How can we rationalize a surrender of our preeminence in human spaceflight?…[the] Forefront Manned Exploration that provided the inspiration for our youth to plan careers in engineering/science and that established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.”
Burt Rutan: “That would be a very big mistake for America to make, as we move into an era of real competition in space exploration as well as risk the loss of our leadership in nearly every other technical discipline.”
Burt Rutan: “Imagine how much better America could motivate our youth if we were spending the billions of Stimulus Package money on making real progress in our efforts to someday colonize off the planet.”
And finally, a quote more directly about a surge in educational acheivement vis a vis science and exploration, aslo from Burt Rutan…
“Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon, America led the world in awarding PhDs in science/engineering/math.
“Today we are not even on the first or second page and most of our University’s technical graduates take their skills back to their own countries to compete with us.”
“See how Obama did with the GOP on the health care meeting and you will see how this is going to work.”
You mean where Paul Ryan made the President look like a moron?
Actually, I doubt that it will be like the health care conflab. Anyone who could possibly ask hard questions or point out flaws will be excluded.
Expect Bolden to assemble a ‘Star Wars bar screen’ of diversity for this discussion. It won’t mask their true intent. The left is more interested in using NASA to further the global warming fraud than in expanding America’s exploration heritage. But this will be a hard sell in the electorally crucial Florida. Obama knows he doesn’t get re-elected without it.
@ John Hansen wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Much better. Puncutations or not you’d better be making sense if you want people to go along with you, regardless of whether I agree with your thesis or not.
The world “surge” has a lot of different meanings these days some of which I do not like and therefore react to.
China, ah China. Who the heck cares whether they put a probe or a man or even an entire colony on the Moon? Children are way beyond your ideas. China is slowly but surely opening to the world and no reek of Cold War is going to do anything about it. China is the strongest economic partner the US, and the West, have today. Without China there’d be nothing you enjoy such as all electronics, footwear, clothes, you-name-it. It would be far more impressive if you could show that you never pruchase anything from China but rather focus on items provided to you by the fre world only.
The space program as it has been run since Apollo has NOT provided any of those things you allude to. NOTHING. Get real: Go check the status of higher education today and where most graduates come from in engineering and then you’ll know. Constellation or not.
Burt Rutan at the TED’s and his thoughts on the Constellation program
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html
Burt may want to goto the moon, but he certainly wasnt in favor of constellation.
CS, the space program as it has been run is not what Rutan was talking about. However, President Obama’s total cancellation of our most logical and acheiveable goal of getting a NASA/allies science otupost on the Moon is a desperate concern to America. His possible Mars talk at the upcoming conference, mixed with vague flexible plans, is truly like robbing from our children.
Your comment, “China is slowly but surely opening to the world,” CS, is tremendously disconcerting. Where have you been during the Google controversy? What do you think of a propaganda agency that concocts space news stories on missions before they’re launched? About a nation whose space agency death tolls are unknown because of sequestering the media?
And another absurd comment you make, trying to divert those who with a passion for space & exploration, is this: “Who the heck cares…?” When America made one of the greatest acheivements in the world, bringing human beings to the Moon, those who love space believed that some form of settlement on our beautiful, nearby celestial neighbor was coming soon. Now as we were finally working toward that, the President wants to suddenly rip it out from under us.
Who the heck cares? I don’t know what you’re doing on this site, CS, but the ones who care about the President’s horrific attempt to derail the crewed lunar mission goal, are, of course, those who love space. Who know that the Moon is destiny and that, as Rutan has also said, other nations WILL be going there while Obama wants to forsake it for flexible plans & vague, more complicated, more costly and even more vulnerable talk of Mars (which equals a destruction of all ambitious nasa hsf for an unbearably long time).
But I didn’t get this. In your 2nd parag., CS: “The world surge”
Mr. Hansen,
Lori Garver didn’t say “Mars after 2030″. Administrator Bolden did. And he also said: we don’t really know, because the technologies haven’t proven themselves yet.
Please read Jeff Greason’s comment on the previous post. The Flexible Path doesn’t exclude the Moon. It includes both the Moon *and* deep space destinations (L1, NEOs, Phobos, Mars flyby) before going to Mars surface.
If you will give up some folks’ religious devotion to shuttle-dervied heavy lift, you’ll see Americans on the lunar surface early in the next decade. But if the Moon has to wait for NASA to turn the historic accident of the Shuttle’s design into the perfect launch system that NASA will have to pay the entire cost of operating, then you won’t see the Moon until after 2030, just as the Augustine Commission predicted.
Let’s see if you really care more about the Moon than about Constellation.
– Jim
Okay Vladislaw. But Rutan strongly states that giving up the Moon, and just, for some reason, skipping it, will give it to other nations, while we vaguely consider flexible plans and talk of Mars. A NASA/allies science outpost on the moon is concrete and achieveable for our youth and for our nation.
John Hansen wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“and (likely) nuclear powered landing bus with advanced rovers”
References? Please I wanna see the powerpoints they should be awesome!
Mind you *they* are still playing catchup what with Ranger, Surveyor,… LCROSS, LRO, Project M…
“a great inspiration to American children from a totalitarian, oppressive regime featuring a bizarre propaganda agency which our kids will have to go through if they have any appetite for the highest adventure and exploration. ”
A strange way to describe NASA. But yes, I can see your point.
Finally
“Burt Rutan: “My basic concern is that the real value of NASA’s contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. How can we rationalize a surrender of our preeminence in human spaceflight?…[the] Forefront Manned Exploration that provided the inspiration for our youth to plan careers in engineering/science and that established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.—
You missed a bit (a very important bit) out:
“Since the WSJ chose to cherry-pick and miss-quote my comments to Cong Wolf and since the blogs have taken that to further mischaracterized my comments, I am forwarding the Wolf memo in its entirety, in the hopes that some of this gets corrected. Some additional clarification of my thoughts follow: My basic concern is that the real value of NASA’s contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. How can we rationalize a surrender of our preeminence in human spaceflight? In my mind, the important NASA accomplishments are twofold: 1) The technical breakthroughs achieved by basic research (not by Development programs like Constellation)[my emphasis] and 2) The Forefront Manned Exploration that provided the inspiration for our youth to plan careers in engineering/science and that established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.”
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30293
Since Burt has been cherry picked and misquoted before; you, of all people, should know better!
Congratulations on the “Current GISS Global Surface Temperature Analysis” paper. Brilliant!
I just do not equate giving up constellation as giving up on the moon. I do not see how developing. for 35-50 billion, and launching the Ares I at a cost of close to a billion a pop, then developing for 40-50 billion the Ares V and launching that for close to a billion a pop….. and dumping EVERYTHING except for the return capsule, after every flight is a winning strategy for sustainablity. Throwing away almost 2 billion in hardware every flight will never cut it with taxpayers long term.
I don’t just want Luna, I want the entire inner solar system. I feel the only way to do this is if commercial comes along for the ride and we do it with space based, reusable, “gas & go” vehicles.
Any country with any size launch vehicle can sell fuel to a commercial fuel station. Until we let go of the Apollo model and adapt to a new infrastructure where exploration STARTS in LEO rather then terra firm we will never get anywhere.
The reason I am not hot for landing on the moon yet is i see it as a money pit that will end space exploration. There are over 20 lagrange points, two planets to orbit, 3 moons to orbit and almost 1000 NEO’s that we can explore in space.
For me, space exploration is not landing on the Luna. That is Lunar exploration, it also means not landing on Mars for the same reason, that is not space exploration, it is martian exploration.
I would like to see NASA exploring multiple points in space until we have fully resuable and reliable space vehicle(s). Lets take road trips near and far before we start talking about colonization, which can only be done by the private sector anyway.
I would prefer America work on reusable space vehicles. Space is rife for niche vehicles. Some should be commercial others by NASA.
John Hansen wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I actually thought Dragon was some kid put up to posting by his parents.
When I first heard of the new direction proposed by the Obama administration I was dismayed because I didn’t realize how badly Constellation was going. I also didn’t realize how much sooner the Augustine Commission’s recommendations would get us to not only the moon, but all of the other destinations spelled out in the option President Obama has embraced as the direction to take NASA.
I feel sorry for the folks who worked hard on Ares, and hope they find a place with a NASA contractor where they can contribute to HSF. I don’t feel sorry for all the folks who (have done a fantastic job) worked on the Shuttle, folks who knew this was coming and are just now understanding what President Bush meant by “retiring the shuttle in 2010″.
I want us to get OUT there. Constellation wasn’t going to do it, so let’s get on a path that will. I don’t give a rat’s ass if it’s a plan from a republican or a democrat, as long as it’s something that’s going to work, sooner rather than later.
Holding on to Constellation, despite the obvious reasons for moving on to something that will actually work, IS in the best interests of our children.
To assert otherwise is dishonest, and not worthy of someone “with a passion for space & exploration”.
Holding on to Constellation, despite the obvious reasons for moving on to something that will actually work, IS NOT in the best interests of our children.
CS, the space program as it has been run is not what Rutan was talking about.
Oh yes it most definitely was! See my previous post.
However, President Obama’s total cancellation of our most logical and acheiveable goal of getting a NASA/allies science otupost on the Moon is a desperate concern to America.
Nice to see that from an American: regarding the Russians as Allies even though they are Socialist! However I would suggest to you that, to the contrary, the great American public don’t give a rat’s arse about a science otupost on the Moon. Certainly the UKSA Space Cadets over here are more concerned that Buzz ‘twinkle toes” Aldrin was booted out of Dancing With The Stars. It’s all over the papers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1264124/Dancing-With-The-Stars-Buzz-Aldrin-voted-off.html
Can’t your President do something about that. Could our Queen help?
His possible Mars talk at the upcoming conference, mixed with vague flexible plans, is truly like robbing from our children.
And let’s face it, with the Federal deficit at record levels and two expensive wars they won’t have much money left. Perhaps America cannot afford grandiose Space exploration plans at the moment?
Your comment, “China is slowly but surely opening to the world,†CS, is tremendously disconcerting. Where have you been during the Google controversy?
What controversy? Tor Networking! Simples. China is already busted open. And what’s more they don’t need Google’s help. Give it time…
What do you think of a propaganda agency that concocts space news stories on missions before they’re launched?
That some junior intern did not read the embargo slip on a prepared press release.
About a nation whose space agency death tolls are unknown because of sequestering the media?
As your brilliant John Stewart would say: “Go on-n-n!”
And another absurd comment you make, trying to divert those who with a passion for space & exploration, is this: “Who the heck cares…?†When America made one of the greatest acheivements in the world, bringing human beings to the Moon, those who love space believed that some form of settlement on our beautiful, nearby celestial neighbor was coming soon. Now as we were finally working toward that, the President wants to suddenly rip it out from under us.
No. Johnson and Nixon did that, Bush the “Read my Lips” and Bush the “I have a Vision” were “full of sound and fury…” Your President Obama means what he says.
Who the heck cares? I don’t know what you’re doing on this site, CS, but the ones who care about the President’s horrific attempt to derail the crewed lunar mission goal, are, of course, those who love space. Who know that the Moon is destiny and that, as Rutan has also said, other nations WILL be going there while Obama wants to forsake it for flexible plans & vague, more complicated, more costly and even more vulnerable talk of Mars (which equals a destruction of all ambitious nasa hsf for an unbearably long time).
Don’t let Zubrin hear you say that otherwise he’ll be commenting here too! However to your more substantive point: we all know that the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. So we had better get it riight in LEO before we try to survive in LLO, L1, L2 and other crucial locations that will open up the Lunar Poles and points beyond.
Alas it falls to your President to perfect the technical and geo-political techniques using what we have got. Which ain’t much, what with Federal deficit at record levels and two expensive wars. And the Global Recession doesn’t help. So it’s going to be a cheap and cheerful vigorous Tele-Robotics program with bigger and better nuclear powered landing buses with more advanced rovers.
And lots of help from IPs.
Even the Chinese ones!
Hopefully the Kids will get to have a go too.
Even the Chinese ones!
But I didn’t get this. In your 2nd parag., CS: “The world surgeâ€
I think it’s a spelling mistake. Pot Kettle etc.
Just to clarify, Vladislaw and Mr Bennett, I’m not defending Constellation. I’m upset with the President’s slaughtering of the logical, reasoned MOON FIRST goal for NASA, with a smokescreen decoy using “flexible plans” and vague, vastly more complicated and vastly more expensive and vulnerable talk of Mars.
Such talk by the Administration means, in reality, destroying ambitious nasa hsf for generations of our youth, when we had already established the national objective of a science outpost on the moon (instead of these proposals for, possibly, maybe, perhaps for our grandchildren or great grandchildren, as the Administration is saying).
But Vladislaw, Bennett, you’re going along with the “vague & more complicated” instead of the solid. Space lovers hurt themselves when they recommend skipping the moon, our closeby neighbor, so ripe for our first beginning of scientific settlement, with such a skipping tantamount to, as Rutan said, giving it to our competing space powers.
Wait a minute. Brobof? common sense??? I think your two identities are mixing here, along with other things.
Jim Muncy, I didn’t see Greason on the previous post. But I beleieve part of Obama’s plans are actually to give lunar exploration to private companies. That’s an exciting, although iffy thing. And the destruction of NASA activity along those lines, just to allow $100 million ticketed passengers to go there, is an horrific travesty.
Brobof, for your inquiry about China’s lunar plans, with three complex missions including a heavy common lander bus using nuclear power and the rover & sample return ambitions coming up, see China’s lunar space website. It even provides songs such as Moon River! Their recent update includes the nuclear factor.
China’s lunar website is BEAUTIFUL and includes a flash intro leading to HUMAN FOOTPRINTS on the moon. I’m saying that to you, Brobof.
But I don’t want to keep having to reference such things over and over to our young people, which is what Obama and his Administration seem to want. More amplification of the rise fo China and fall of our nation.
John,
I don’t doubt your heart, but I doubt you understand how the cost of the VSE would be too much, no matter the “vision”. brobof nails it (several times), we can’t afford it, in two critical ways. First, we can’t afford it financially, the numbers are quoted in other comments.
If the President had suggested “staying the course” with VSE he would have been attacked for “irresponsible spending” and “running up the deficit”. This would have had the ‘baggers talking about how stupid it was to be spending money on space when we don’t have enough money for free pop tarts, or whatever.
Instead, he CUTS the projected pork party, brings in private industry to do what it knows how to do, on a fixed price basis instead of cost plus, and STILL he get attacked. But here’s why I think he did right:
All of those ‘bagger (or just republican) children are getting taught about how important the space program is! Win-win!
The proposed direction is only “vague & more complicated†if you don’t bother to learn the facts. They’re everywhere. Except on FOX.
Second: We can’t afford to fail, again. Canceling Constellation avoids that.
Since folks were making bold quotes of Rutan…
“…the important NASA accomplishments are twofold: 1) The technical breakthroughs achieved by basic research and 2) The Forefront [b] Manned Exploration that provided the inspiration for our youth to plan careers in engineering/science and that established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.â€
“…would be a very big mistake for America to make, as we move into an era of real competition in space exploration as well as risk the loss of our leadership in nearly every other technical discipline.â€
“Imagine how much better America could motivate our youth if we were spending the billions of Stimulus Package money on making real progress in our efforts to someday colonize off the planet.â€
“Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon, America led the world in awarding PhDs in science/engineering/math. Today we are not even on the first or second page and most of our University’s technical graduates take their skills back to their own countries to compete with us.†[/b]
So, the so called cherry picking is also inconsequential. When you read the letter to Rep Wolf together with the WSJ comments and others, which are all available, you know with CERTAINTY the following.
Rutan is (1) concerned with the President’s new vague plans that will leave a likelihood of no ambitious nasa hsf in his lifetime (2) concerned that these vague plans will give the moon to competing space powers (3) concerned with the educational & inspirational problems with this.
Hence my comments about an educational surge that could only come soon if President Obama continues the logical, reasonable MOON FIRST goal for NASA and for our nation. A goal that Obama may seek to slaughter and to cloud with flexible plans and vastly more complicated, costly and vulnerable talk of Mars.
From a political point of view and a NASA needs an overhaul point of view the plan makes sense. The jobs go to the hardest hit states. When you factor in the off shore oil drilling…it is a very well thought out plan. I doubt there will be much of a protest in Congress, except from KSC and JSC…and then only because elections are coming up. Like it or not, this is the way the cards will fall. Next up…Center reorganizations.
…and Third:
When in 2020, we land again on the moon, you can tell your kids “Yep, it was me and the teabaggers back in aught-ten, we made the President change his mind and cancel Constellation in order to pursue the Flexible Path Program that led to landing on the Moon in your lifetime.”
I won’t mind. I’ll just be glad things turned out the way they did.
P.S. ^5 to brobof for getting “…Harsh Mistress” in there.
John Hansen wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
“I’m not defending Constellation.”
Glad to hear, for that would be defending the indefensible:: ISS trashed 2016; Ares-I: 2017 (2019!) Ares-V: 2030’s and no money for a Lander or any infrastructure like Rovers and Suits before that! Personally I think that Augustine was too kind.
I’m upset with the President’s slaughtering of the logical, reasoned MOON FIRST goal for NASA, with a smokescreen decoy using “flexible plans†and vague, vastly more complicated and vastly more expensive and vulnerable talk of Mars.
And I would be too, IF the exorbitantly expensive MOON FIRST (ESAS) of Griffin had unfolded vs the modestly affordable MOON FIRST (VSE) of Bush (Marburger) The former needed to be “Slaughtered.” Although I prefer the term mercy killing!
What seems to have been lost in all the (partisan?) hyperbole and rhetoric is that the Augustine/Obama/FlexPath is closer to the original plan than the unsustainable trajectory of “Apollo on Steroids.” re: Commercial LEO; Rational HLV; ISRU, Advanced (SEP) Propulsion; Fuel Depots; Reusable Landers; Way Stations, Participation of IPs in the critical path; (Well OK not that one!)
No taxpayer, even an American one, could afford another Apollo program.
Rather than call it the Flexible Path, let’s call it the Affordable Path!
And as a bonus, instead of say: four sets of Boots n’ Flags (in the 2030s); we now have a pair of busy robotic settlements/ industrial complexes building the precursor elements to a Mass Driver. Regular cargo launches of refined products (LUNOX, Al, Silicon) to LLO. And all operated by your children from the safety of their schools! With the occasional adult visit to repair the Broken Bots, all the Lunar Surface HSF you need. Meanwhile more TeleBots are out harvesting the Meteoroids; prototype SPS platforms are being ‘hand’ built in GSO and the first International Space Ship is on its way to: ground truth the Water on Phobos; collect some ‘interesting’ Martian rock samples and get Spirit out of that $odding $andtrap!
The Really Big Hi-Def views of Mars live to your 3d Laptop are a mere courtesy detail. ‘Cos the Bots are on Phobos already building a cosy home away from home.
Ambitious enough for you John?
And way better than 15 civil servants and a token Brit on the Moon!
john hansen wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Brobof, for your inquiry about China’s lunar plans, with three complex missions including a heavy common lander bus using nuclear power and the rover & sample return ambitions coming up, see China’s lunar space website. It even provides songs such as Moon River! Their recent update includes the nuclear factor.
China’s lunar website is BEAUTIFUL and includes a flash intro leading to HUMAN FOOTPRINTS on the moon. I’m saying that to you, Brobof.
Where’s the PPT? Want PPT! NOW!
I repeat. LINK?
http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/cindex.html
Doesn’t do it for me
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
“See how Obama did with the GOP on the health care meeting and you will see how this is going to work.â€
you replied
“You mean where Paul Ryan made the President look like a moron?”
even if this were accurate (and I dont concede that) I hate to break it to you Mark but history is made by people who win political victories not people who stage theatrics.
As the GOP starts to imitate the Confederate Army after “Lou Armisteads” charge (it really should be named after him) retreating back toward ultimate defeat, the sound bites might sound great on Fox News…but Obama is changing the course of the nation.
That includes space policy.
Obama will (with some modest nibbling around the edges) get his space policy. Watch!
Robert G. Oler
Bennett wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
This space cadet has never been able to fathom why we don’t have a penal colony there by now. If we still had an Empire…
P.S. ^5
Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Space
“If we still had an Empire… ”
Too funny. You Brits…
xoxox from the US!
Mr. Hansen,
You are welcome to believe anything you want. However, I would HOPE that you would do a little more looking. In particular, since you haven’t seen it yet, I am linking to Rand Simberg quoting Jeff Greason (yes, I suppose I could link directly to the quote, but I know where to find this) that Mr. Muncy (Hi Jim) referenced. I strongly suggest you read it.
“America desperatley needs, in the interest of maintining the West’s space and engineering leadership…to continue our logical goal of the Moon.”
I am always amazed at how oblivious HSF fanboys are to the rest of the space industry. Commercial, military, and non-HSF civil space dwarf HSF. The commercial satellite market along in 2008 was $144 Billion per year. Compare that to the NASA HSF budget and you will realize that HSF has nothing to do with leadership in space.
Non-HSF space flight pays it’s own way by providing services – navigation, communication, reconnaissance, and earth observation – that would be prohibitively expensive or impossible to provide any other way. HSF doesn’t do that so it has progressively dwindled in importance over the past few decades.
Constellation in particular does little or nothing to advance the state of the state of the art in spaceflight. There is nothing in it that couldn’t have been built in 1975. A satellite program like TerreStar-1 does more to advance the state of the art than any element of Constellation.
Leadership is not redoing what you did 40 years ago with 35 year old technology. How is it inspiring to go where you have already gone before in pretty much the same way you went there the first time?
2nd Paragraph, 2nd Sentence – along should be alone.
Rhyolite, how dare you promote real space development. This blog is about the Exploration Directorate bringing old pulp astronaut heroics to life at taxpayer expense, and about juicy government contracts for our favorite contractors, not about boring space businesses that people can actually use and that pay for themselves. What are you, some kind of robot-hugging astronaut basher?
One point does deserve clarification. While comsat-centric industry is indeed that large, about 95% of that is the earth-side portion of the networks: the few content transmitters and many receivers of satellite TV (DISH Network, DirectTV, etc.) for example along with the content provision, installation and maintenance, and the like. Only $4-$5 billion of that per year goes to the comsat development and comsat launches themselves. You throw around figures over $100 billion and it will be twisted around into phony ammo for the HSF infrastructure-mongers who plan for us “logical” futuristic architectures that are several orders of magnitude too expensive and too large to actually serve real markets.
Nevertheless, comsats are a big market and a growing market. End customer subscriptions are booming despite the “Great Recession”. Comsats are getting more capable every year and more deeply embedded into our terrestrial comm networks every year. This is real self-sustaining space development, not the white elephants or bridges to nowhere or flag-n-footprint stunts we get out of astronaut fans.
$4-$5 billion of that per year goes to the comsat development and comsat launches themselves.
Another clarification, this is just commercial comsats. The figure doesn’t count military comsats or other kinds of commercial or military satellites.
googaw,
Fair enough, for reference the Satellite Industry Association breaks out the global commercial satellite market in 2008 as:
$ 10.5 Billion for Satellite Manufacturing
$ 3.9 Billion for Launch Industry
$ 46.0 Billion for Ground Equipment
$ 84.0 Billion for Satellite Services
Note that this does includes some commercial services purchased by government customers. Also of interest is that the growth rate of the satellite industry averaged more than 14% per year between 2003 and 2008.
For more information see:
http://www.sia.org/news_events/2009_State_of_Satellite_Industry_Report.pdf
It’s a pretty impressive showing for the industry overall. Our real leadership in space in the long run will depend on how much of this market we can capture and keep.
Indeed. So much for the claim that Exploration Directorate has to be the main source of cash for space development.
The next generation is fun to think about too: satellite radio to your iPod and iPhone, satellite TV and Internet to your iPad and laptop. The latter two devices, unlike the typical cell phone, have a form factor big enough to embed sufficiently large receivers and powerful enough transmitters.
Some day, we’ll have satellites powerful enough to replace the cellphone networks, but that is several generations down the road. It would actually be near-term if we could actually substantially lower launch costs. Cutting launch costs by 50% would allow us to double the power and receiver dish sizes of a satellite which would allow us to greatly reduce the size of the receiver and power of the transmitter. These sizes are big barriers to market acceptance. Nobody in an urban area would be caught dead toting around one of those bulky Iridium phones.
The strong preference for smaller form factors, not just for mobile telephony but also for satellite TV and just about every other satellite business, puts paid to the idiotic idea that comsat launch costs are not elastic, at least over the timeframe to develop a new generation of comsat-based networks (3-5 years). If you can’t bring down the cost of launching a satellite, and instead fantasize about high flight rates paid for by phony government subsidies, your rocket is no good and you should go back to computer programming. If you can, it will be a huge win for real space development and for your own rocket business after its first five years. During the first five you can drive plenty of business from any competitors you can undercut.
you do understand that at best, that is with instrumented probes?
I’m fairly uninterested in that execpt as a precursor to human spaceflights.
On Obama, I don’t expect anything positive. He is the worst president ever. The space program like our nuclear arsenal is a symbol of our strength which he wants to abandon. The Keith Cowing article the other day was a lot of wishful thinking unfortunately.
As usual the ;Sainted’ O’Neill was way ahead of the curve:
http://www.rdss.com/omni.html (Geostar Corporation )
Another advantage of a Space Centric “Affordable Path” is that we get to sort out the mess in GSO! Some Salvage and a bit of IST (In Situ Tinkering) could be a commercially viable HSF prospect. As Astro Rick and Astro Clay have just demonstrated. “Hatch Closed and Locked” EVA1 #sts131
John wrote:
“The space program like our nuclear arsenal is a symbol of our strength which he wants to abandon.”
Oh, that’s just laughable.
Ronald Reagan tried to eliminate all nuclear weapons:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/giulianis-obama-nuke-crit_n_528439.html
Obama’s treaty cuts our weapons — and the Russians’ — by one-third. So that must make Reagan three times as bad as Obama, according to your thinking.
Saying that we need to have thousands of nuclear weapons to show everyone how strong we are sounds suspiciously like someone who seriously believes those spam e-mails which claim that p***s enlargement pills are necessary to attract women.
I was looking this morning at the National Aeronautics and Space Act and found something interesting. Here’s the link:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
Note that right in Title I, Section 102(c), it states:
“The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”
THE FULLEST COMMERCIAL USE OF SPACE.
That is exactly what the Obama Administration’s FY 2011 NASA budget proposal intends to do.
John wrote @ April 9th, 2010 at 7:35 am
you do understand that at best, that is with instrumented probes?
I’m fairly uninterested in that execpt as a precursor to human spaceflights…
and
….The space program like our nuclear arsenal is a symbol of our strength which he wants to abandon..
I could not disagree more with either sentiment.
I dont know your politics…but one of the weakness of the right wing (or the Fox News crowd) is that they are all hung up on symbolism and that is about all they think about.
If the measure is “mankind must explore” there is really no better way to do it then with our instrumented probes. From “bang for the buck” to “going where no human can now or really ever go” our instrumented probes give a lot more knowledge then human probes do.
But the “we must send humans” crowd has become almost like the battleship admirals on both sides during WW2. They had to have those big gun battleships (the Montana Class on our side and the Yamato on the Japanese side) even though in combat they were perfectly useless…and there were cheaper more effective ways to do the job.
UNLESS we are going to go as a society into space and eventually settle that arena (including the “bodies” which can be settled) then really there is no point to send humans to “explore them”…and we cannot hope to go into space and settle that arena unless we have a commercial space industry that can contribute to the entire effort.
The weakness in your point of view on this issue is that we do it as a symbol hence as a symbol it really doesnt matter what is actually done. It just looks great to have the colors being put on this or that body and then when the public gets bored…well everyone moves on and the folks we sent out there go back to blowing soap bubbles.
I think the investment should actually return something of value. It was a great symbol when Nautilus put to sea …(actually on batteries charged by nuclear power!) but while that was great; the Tridents who prowl the seas and keep us safe are what matters.
That brings us to the “specials”. Nuclear weapons are a symbol of the potential for mankind to extinguish the society (and maybe itself) that it has built up from the mud flats of Iraq centuries ago to well today. YOu may think of them as a symbol but people who know who have something above a Sarah Palin view of the world think of them as a “tool” toward keeping the peace.
We no longer need the same tools we needed in the 1980’s because the world is different…If we have 10 or 100 or 1000 on target working deliverable warheads it is meaningless if the number goes over deterrence.
We no longer have aggressor nations with whom we might fight to which we keep the specials so we would never fight. (IE the USSR). We could go down to warheads on Tridents at sea and we would be perfectly safe from the pygmies that are the difficult ones now (as well as from Russia and China).
Symbol! HAH
George Schultz who knows more in his finger about the specials then Sarah Palin has in her entire brain mass says Ronaldus the Great would have signed this treaty. He (Ronaldus) knew the specials were more then just a symbol. HAH
Robert G. Oler
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 9th, 2010 at 9:11 am
completly off topic, but your post was right on. anyone who thinks of the specials as a “Symbol” clearly has no clue as to how they changed the definition of “war”. They need to read Dr. Kissinger’s book on the subject, he grasp it well back in the 1950’s/60’s. Dr. Strangelove is a bright guy.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“completly off topic, but your post was right on. anyone who thinks of the specials as a “Symbol†clearly has no clue as to how they changed the definition of “warâ€.”
It’s so completely laughable to think that another country would be more impressed by how many times over we can destroy the world instead of the ability to feed their people, provide clean water, and set an example for a fair justice system.
Nuclear weapons mean nothing unless you use them. We don’t use them because to do so would set a precedent that other countries could exploit when they use them. So if we’re not going to use them, then why have them?
Also overlooked is that the more nukes the Russians destroy, not only are we safer but also fewer nukes are left that could get loose on the black market and be sold to terrorists. A massive nuclear arsenal is worthless if Al Qaeda can smuggle one into New York City and set it off.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“UNLESS we are going to go as a society into space and eventually settle that arena (including the “bodies†which can be settled) then really there is no point to send humans to “explore themâ€â€¦and we cannot hope to go into space and settle that arena unless we have a commercial space industry that can contribute to the entire effort.”
I couldn’t agree more, unless commercial ships are going to FOLLOW right behind the explorers there isn’t any point, not at these costs.
I have said before, we need an astronaut named Custer, to land on the hills of shakleton crater and shout “GOLD”
Actually, Vlad, the Moon does have gold in the form of water & PGM (in asteroid fragments) and other rare Earth elements vital for 21st century technology. We know that already.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 9th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Robert G. Oler wrote:
It’s so completely laughable to think that another country would be more impressed by how many times over we can destroy the world instead of the ability to feed their people, provide clean water, and set an example for a fair justice system.
Nuclear weapons mean nothing unless you use them…
yes precisely. I would make one minor change to the last sentence you wrote (and then I bring this back to space! )
Nuclear weapons as a deterrent… mean nothing unless you are willing to use them, to destroy society.
What kept the peace (MAD) with the US and USSR was that both powers no matter how angry and aggressive they got, at some point all had leaders which when they started contemplating “regime change” on the other side; looked down the hole that they would have to go into and said “it is not worth it”.
Why it was easy for Bush to exaggerate his way into Iraq is that there was no “skin” off his and our nose…it was all going to be easy, fast, and would pay for itself…so why not? Nuclear weapons in the hands of both sides are the ultimate brakes on that kind of thinking. this is why Iran getting the special doesnt scare me all that much…although I think that they are some distance from …and people like Ossama getting it scare the pants off of me…there is nothing for Ossama to lose.
In the hands of two powers with reasonable leadership, societies, (and functioning verification systems) the specials are actually quite stabilizing. There is no chance that President “Tom” IN Iran would use a special. because he knows not what the IDF will do…but what we will…and we will be standing after his firecrackers are all over.
But in the hands of OBL or his future equivalents they are not. We could have 20,000 warheads with endless delivery systems and if they could get one into NY…they win. (as 19 guys with box cutters proved).
Human spaceflight as a symbol is equally dangerous because it then demands of the effort nothing other then it exist. Indeed over the last 40 years we have finally gotten down to that. A program with nothing other to recommend it other then 1) it employs people and 2) it might someday at some cost put us back on the moon in the same way we were there half a century ago…
The right wing has completely lost its bearings. They are stuck in a cold war time frame and in cold war thought.
Robert G. Oler
Vladislaw wrote @ April 9th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I couldn’t agree more, unless commercial ships are going to FOLLOW right behind the explorers there isn’t any point, not at these costs.
I have said before, we need an astronaut named Custer, to land on the hills of shakleton crater and shout “GOLDâ€..
yes here is the key…when they found gold in the black hills…it was easy for the rest of America to come along. Not so now in spaceflight
Robert G. Oler
Robert wrote:
“yes here is the key…when they found gold in the black hills…it was easy for the rest of America to come along. Not so now in spaceflight”
Although I was being facetious it still points out the cornerstone of exploration. Fundamental to exploring “new lands” is the concept of getting something for nothing, (resources) or as close to nothing as possible. Until private enterprise can get something for nothing, (lunar resources) and a legal claim to them, I do not see anything happening on the moon, other than an anartica type outpost, for the same reasons.
Vladislaw wrote @ April 9th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
agreed…but actually for me this is another cause for “Hope” in the new policy.
The only way really that we are going to have private ventures on the Moon is when the concept of private/national rights are settled and I think that the joint cooperation on ISS and other places is going to be the key to that.
Robert G. Oler
I have a few suggestions. To drastically summarise: a Lunar Cooperative using the International Seabed Authority (set up by the Law of the Sea Convention) as a model.
http://www.isa.org.jm/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_movement
I regard the ISS as is as the “killer app” for HSF: Learning not to kill ourselves. Either by military or environmental means! The ISS is one heck of a limited ecosystem and nowhere near closure!
Florida Today reports that Obama will be here at KSC for only two hours on April 15:
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/04/obama-to-arrive-at-ksc-at-145-pm-april.html
Arrives at 1:45 PM, speech at 3:00 PM, leaves at 3:45 PM (all times EDT).
I didn’t get to read everything yet. Thanks for the comment on Greason’s explanation of fp.
Here’s an excerpt from Jeff:
* Manned planetary exploration [could] be done on the Moon, which is a worthwhile mission in its own right, and could be a source of propellant for exploration.
* The Moon vs. Mars vs. NEO’s is therefore a FALSE CHOICE; the only choice we have is what sequence we do them in.
So lets make it clear. Leaving it flexible is self-destructive. Lets anchor down the moon, lets take the world closest to us, lets finally begin the steps of space settlement with a science outpost on our beautiful celstial neighbor. Those who speak against the moon have to be against any space exploration. Those against NASA going to the moon and cutting that off to make way for commercial, are against pure science and pure exploration for ALL the people.
@Robert G Oler
Wow, you sure went on a wild tangent while I was away! I didn’t say that nuclear weapons were a just a symbol. I said that is what they are to Obama. He is in no way contemplating actual use. Also, I wasn’t objecting to the level of the treaty of 1,550 warheads under the counting rules. I was address Obama’s rediculous idea of zero. Then all some county would have to do is get 50 or 100 bombs and we would be in real trouble.
As far a Sarah Palin goes she makes more sense than Obama does. His idea of non-retaliation to bioattacks as a declaratory policy is very unwise. It only reduces deterence. This is not saying that we actually should respond with nuclear weapons in that case but it would best to leave them in doubt. Sarah has that right.
John wrote @ April 9th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
@Robert G Oler
Wow, you sure went on a wild tangent while I was away! I didn’t say that nuclear weapons were a just a symbol. I said that is what they are to Obama. He is in no way contemplating actual use..
really? This is what you wrote: “On Obama, I don’t expect anything positive. He is the worst president ever. The space program like our nuclear arsenal is a symbol of our strength which he wants to abandon.”
If Obama views the specials (like our space program) as just a symbol and yet he wants to abandon both he hardly views them as a symbol of strength unless you are claiming the equally ridiculous notion that he (Obama) is trying to destroy The Republic. If you are claiming that…that Obama is purposely trying to destroy The Republic then you are really a fox news wing nut.
As for the more recent post. I am quite pleased that Obama is not contemplating the use of the specials. There only value is in deterrence and that only works if it is known that this is what they are used for.
“His idea of non-retaliation to bioattacks as a declaratory policy is very unwise.”
that is not what Obama said. What he said is that we dont wont use the specials in the event of a bio attack by a country that was abiding by nuclear protocols. That is very wise. The specials are a unique weapon that have no other use…but to deter.
AS for space policy. Obama’s is a breath of fresh air. You might desire to replay the last fifty years. I am up for a new game.
Robert G. Oler