Space... out of reach for America.

[AZRedhawk44]

 

It breaks my heart.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,547960,00.html

WASHINGTON —  A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.

The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current $18 billion annual budget.

"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

The report gives options to President Barack Obama, but said NASA's current plans have to change. Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.

Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Space Center.

All those deadlines have to change, the panel said. Space exploration would work better by including other countries and private for-profit firms, the panel concluded.

The panel had previously estimated that the current plan would cost $100 billion in spending to 2020.

Former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern said the report showed the harsh facts that NASA's space plans had "a mismatch between resources and rhetoric." Now, he said, Obama faces a choice of "essentially abandoning human spaceflight" or paying the extra money.

The panel, chaired by retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, includes executives, scientists and ex-astronauts. It posted a summary report Tuesday on both White House and NASA web sites.

NASA can't get beyond low-Earth orbit without spending more, but space travel with astronauts is important, the panel found. That will cost an extra $3 billion a year and is "unquestionably worth it," Crawley said.

The question is where to go.

The Bush plan was to go to the moon, which would serve as a training ground for flights to Mars. The Augustine panel agreed Mars is the ultimate goal, but said going to the moon first is only one option and not the preferred one. Instead, the panel emphasized what it called a "flexible path" of exploring near-Earth objects such as asteroids, the moons of mars, and then landing on the moon after other exploration.

"There's a lot of places in the neighborhood," Crawley said. "In fact, going to the moon is more difficult than going to a near-Earth object."

The panel also said the space shuttle should continue flying until early 2011 to finish all its space station work and that it can't realistically retire by Oct. 1, 2010 as the Bush administration planned.

The panel called "unwise" the Bush plan to shut down the space station in 2015 and steer it into the ocean, after 25 years of construction and only five years of fully operational life. The space station's life should be extended, the panel said.

Once the shuttles are grounded, it could be another six to seven years before the United States has its own transportation into space, the panel estimates. That's because it will take a few years to build and test the new Ares rocket. In the meantime, NASA will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz.

The panel also urged NASA to pay private companies to develop spaceships to ferry astronauts to the space station and low-Earth orbit. That may be riskier, but it would free up NASA to explore elsewhere, the panel said. Elon Musk, chief executive officer of SpaceX, said within a few years he could send astronauts to space for about $20 million a person, less than the $50 million Russia is charging. He hopes to launch his private rocket, Falcon 9, later this year or early next.

NASA should encourage other countries to join the U.S. in exploring space beyond Earth orbit, the panel said.

"If after designing cleverly, building alliances with partners and engaging commercial providers, the nation cannot afford to fund the effort to pursue the goals it would like to embrace, it should accept the disappointment of setting lesser goals," the report said.

The panel outlined Obama's options. In two cases, the federal government could choose not to spend extra money on exploration and thus wouldn't go to the moon or anywhere new in the next couple decades. The other plans involve spending more money.

The panel suggested that if NASA continues its current moon plans, to save money it should kill plans to make a smaller Ares I rocket to carry astronauts and go right to the bigger Ares V.

Other variations of going to moon plan could rely on a version of the space shuttle system that would use the boosters and external tank with a capsule attached.

NASA already has spent $7.7 billion on its current moon plan, including the design and construction of new rockets. The Ares I has a test of its key first stage scheduled for later this week and an overall test launch scheduled for Halloween.

I do agree that going to the moon, purely as a feat of ingenuity, is a waste of time.  That being said, a larger-scale permanent moon installation whose purpose could be to assemble larger spacecraft and provide fuel for them would make for a great venture.  Add in the opportunity as a low gravity research center for physics/biology/chemistry students (advanced students, perhaps even folks already with PhD's) and coorporate R&D rental space.  An installation large enough for a couple hundred people.

Transport would be achieved by light low earth orbit personnel carriers like SpaceX is working, to a rendezvous station in orbit like the ISS.  A lunar freighter meets up at this station, transports folks back to lunar orbit, where another low lunar orbit transport craft actually takes them down to the moon (which also brings H2/O2 fuel from the moon for the lunar freighter).

Regardless of whether we focus on the moon, or on asteroids/comets or on Phobos and Deimos the Martian moons, we gotta start getting off this rock at some point.

I'd hate to live my whole life, pay taxes into this sumbitch for so long, to see us stay exactly the same from the late 70's to <whenever I die> and not make a lick of progress in that new frontier.

ETA:  Seems to me, NASA has lost its focus.  We need to put space in the hands of the Air Force and maybe the Navy.  Have them think of it in terms of supply chains, depots, monitoring networks and such.  Lay the groundwork for effective colonization and industrialization.  NASA has lost it, IMO.

[RocketMan]

Unfortunately, the space program is not a vote getter.  If it doesn't bring in votes, it is of little importance to our congresscritters and the administration.
Another thing that frosts me is the current administration's plan to deorbit the ISS in 2016.  That is just one year after it is scheduled to be totally completed, as designed.

[zahc]

Regardless of whether we focus on the moon, or on asteroids/comets or on Phobos and Deimos the Martian moons, we gotta start getting off this rock at some point.

At some point maybe, but why now? What's the advantage? "Because it's there" doesn't really do it for me.

The chinese sailed all around the eastern world centuries ago "because it was there". But they didn't do anything. The British empire became great because when they went places, they started colonies, exploited the natural resources, enslaved the indigenous population, and so on. I'll get more excited about visiting some offworld body when someone explains to me why it's actually worthwhile, instead of being nothing but a money-sink rather than producing anything.

[French G.]

Maybe we can stay in China's guest quarters on the moon.

[HankB]

I cried when the original Apollo program was cut short, supposedly to direct the $$$ to more useful projects here on Earth, like the War On Poverty.

And just LOOK at what TRILLIONS of dollars spent on that have gotten us - WHAT a return on our investment! 

And now, rather than shoot a couple of billion dollars a year into space, we can use it to provide free medical care to a few of the illegal aliens in our country, or maybe even send some supplies over to Hamas or Hezbollah via various cut-outs . . . or maybe even give ACORN additional funding . . . all of which are, of course, SO MUCH BETTER for us!

<expletive>

<expletive>

<string of expletives>

 

[Standing Wolf]

Personally, I've always felt horsing around in space was a waste of time, effort, and money. If it were worth doing, private industry would do it faster, better, and less expensively than government.

That saidâ„¢, horsing around in space makes infinitely more sense than destroying medical care in our nation.

[geronimotwo]

While i always thought the "Space 1999" image of lunar bases was really neato,   I am more excited about the white house actually saying "no" to spending more money!

[brimic]

Who needs to explore or consider colonizing space when we have HOPE and CHANGE on Earth?

[geronimotwo]

I wonder what the current costs would be if every company involved in the development, testing, and building of the current rockets didn't have to worry about liability issues?

[French G.]

While i always thought the "Space 1999" image of lunar bases was really neato,   I am more excited about the white house actually saying "no" to spending more money!

Tell them that martians are unionized and want universal welfare, that'll get some money into space.

[Balog]

Our current model for manned flight is idiotic. The Japanese have the right idea here. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/h2b/htv1/

[slugcatcher]

I want to know what we're getting for $18B a year as it is.

[AZRedhawk44]

I want to know what we're getting for $18B a year as it is.

A bunch of effete space-snobbery pussyfooting around with weightless mice, and a "space jeep" that can barely tow a satellite to orbit AND deliver pizza at the same time to the aforementioned effete pussyfooters in the ISS.

$18B buys no progress.  Merely maintenance of status quo.  Which has been the mission ever since the inception of the space shuttle.  While the ISS may be semi-new, we had skylab before that, I think the ESA also has a temporary space lab, the russians had Mir and some other one that fell out of orbit...

Orbital manned zero-g modules are nothing new.

To top it all off... there's nothing that you can do from the ISS that you can't do from the Space Shuttle itself.  They're identical environments, and increasing shuttle flights or flight longevity could accomplish the same thing as the ISS does for us. 

Be kinda nice to see something similar to the space station from 2001 maybe 20 years late. :rolleyes:  An installation with a central docking collar and near-weightless workspace at its core, but rings that generated false gravity via centripetal force for long term healthy habitation and routine work.  It might have been possible to build the ISS in this fashion rather than the glorified prairie dog tunnel system that it is.

As far as what you "get" from it as a taxpayer?  I dunno.  That's a good question. 

One obvious benefit is military superiority.  The Chinese/Indians/Russians/Japanese are trying to draw closer to our capabilities.  We control less and less of the proverbial high ground.  Pushing our space limitations outwards enhances our control of the high ground.  The moon makes a lot of sense from a military perspective, but less sense from an exploration perspective (though still not a dead end by any means).

[slugcatcher]

Since NASA has had it's thumb up it's butt the last 20 years I'm pretty sure the commies are not playing catchup. It's a bloated bureaucracy. A lot like the rest of our gov't.

[Perd Hapley]

It's a bloated bureaucracy. A lot like the rest of our gov't.

Thanks to the Failed Policies of the Past Eight Years.^TM  But now we have Hope.  And Change.  And Hope.  And Change. 

[HankB]

 I am more excited about the white house actually saying "no" to spending more money!

But they're not actually saying "no" to spending the money - it's that they want to direct it elsewhere (to community organizers?) rather than on space research.

And NASA has been (deliberately, in my opinion) "broken" by the infection of political correctness . . . instead of visionaries like Werner Von Braun (Nazi! Nazi! Evil! Evil!) you have a bunch of politically connected brown-nosing bureaucrats more interested in diversity hiring programs than space exploration, and bureaucrats imposing design decisions based on politics rather than science; they brought down not one but TWO shuttles.

<expletive>

<expletive>

<string of expletives>

 

[brimic]

As far as what you "get" from it as a taxpayer?  I dunno.  That's a good question. 

One obvious benefit is military superiority.  The Chinese/Indians/Russians/Japanese are trying to draw closer to our capabilities.  We control less and less of the proverbial high ground.  Pushing our space limitations outwards enhances our control of the high ground.  The moon makes a lot of sense from a military perspective, but less sense from an exploration perspective (though still not a dead end by any means).

I think space exploration is good use of taxpayer money, though more along the lines of the Apollo, Viking, and Voyager programs, not the space station.  I'd much rather see billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars being put to exploration programs that exapand boundaries and potential for mankind than pissed away down here on useless social programs that cater to and enslave the lowest common denominator.

[Jocassee]

Speaking of which...did anyone else watch "Astronaut Farmer" last night on AMC? Fun little movie.

[DustinD]

www.directlauncher.com was a cheaper higher capability alternative to the Ares I and V. Reading about its history at www.nasaspaceflight.com gives you a lot of the back story about how screwed up NASA's leadership is. Buying launch services from a private company would be better still, but the Direct architecture has the political necessity of retaining jobs and not disrupting the pork from the shuttle program.

[MicroBalrog]

'Space is out of reach for America's government' would be a better statement.

Private habitable space stations are currently under construction by several entities, and Genesis already have a prototype in orbit.

[CNYCacher]

Convince enough people there's taliban on the moon and we'd be there yesterday.

3 billion is what?  A day of our military spending budget?

[slugcatcher]

I get more bang for my taxpayer buck from the military than I do from NASA. We are kind of at war right now.

[MechAg94]

Convince enough people there's taliban on the moon and we'd be there yesterday.

3 billion is what?  A day of our military spending budget?

If you are going to compare it to other spending, compare it to social security, medicare/medicaid, or something else.  The military at least has a constitutional purpose. 

[MicroBalrog]

If you are going to compare it to other spending, compare it to social security, medicare/medicaid, or something else.  The military at least has a constitutional purpose. 

So does the USPS. Doesn't mean it's not wasteful.

[Perd Hapley]

Convince enough people there's taliban on the moon and we'd be there yesterday.

3 billion is what?  A day of our military spending budget?

You mean if we had a Very Good Reason to spend tax money on going to the moon, we'd spend tax money going to the moon?  Wow, that's a very cogent argument for - wait, what are you arguing for?