Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[Peter the Younger]

As has been stated several times now, NASA's budget is a very small portion of the yearly federal budget. If you want to look for wasteful spending overall, then NASA is the wrong place to look.

A lot of it does come down to 'cost per pound to low earth orbit'.

If we could reduce that number then it might be possible to cut the government out of the loop, at least in terms of financing.

Agreed. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of progress on that front. There is some speculation into improved oxidizers and some pretty whacky ideas about using suspended atomic hydrogen, but nothing has left the drawing board. The best bet is probably still space elevators, but that's also a long way off.

Honestly, the biggest impact the administration could have on price to orbit would be to open competition up to more companies, and reform the process so we don't end up with the same three companies building everything. I think SpaceX is on the right track, for instance, using off-the-shelf parts whenever possible, with simpler engine designs. Give them some play, let the big boys sweat a little bit, and innovation might start flowing.

 

[diankra]

This just in...

Obama's Space Plan just axed NASA's plan to return to the moon.

Well, so much for the Messiah reaching for the stars.

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

Take the party politics out of it: the blunt reality is that while some presidents have made pretty speeches about America's future in space, nobody since Johnson has put his political muscle behind getting Congress to actually authorise the necessary money to deliver.
I don't like the report's conclusions, but they are realistic ones: trying to fulfil George W Bush's aims on the current budget is a recipe for another shuttle - something that could have worked with a bit more money, but ends up both costly and dangerous.
It's time for put up or shut up - either fund the next programme properly, or get out of the game.

 

[T'Girl]

You need to also consider when talking about cutting NASA's budget, that the manned space program isn't all they do.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Forgive me, but the government had loads of opportunities to divert the money from other sources in order to 'fix things right here on Earth' in the past and nobody ever did anything.

"Two wrongs" or "one bad bx justifying another" fallacy.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You need to also consider when talking about cutting NASA's budget, that the manned space program isn't all they do.

I agree, and those programs (sat launch, etc) will continue.

 

[Buck Rogers]

It's Helium 3,and water ice from comet impacts as well as Mineral rights will drive a return regardless if its NASA or a Civilian space effort once ISS is complete they're planing on deorbiting the station by 2015 unless there is a public outcry not to kill station.
We need ISS for assembly of Orion translunar ship that will carry the new Lunar lander,and Mars mission spacecraft that is the purpose of having station in place even it means we need to form an new global space agency to take over operations.

That's my two cents

Signed

Buck Rogers

 

[Lindley]

Forgive me, but the government had loads of opportunities to divert the money from other sources in order to 'fix things right here on Earth' in the past and nobody ever did anything.

"Two wrongs" or "one bad bx justifying another" fallacy.

Money put into the space program creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and drives technological progress. It isn't wasted money to begin with.

A bit hard to tell when the effort is half-hearted, but it would be more apparent if they actually gave NASA a bit of coin to play with.

Someone should do a study and try to figure out what the ROI actually is for NASA's budget. My guess is that it was higher when their funding was higher.

 

[JustAFriend]

Hundreds of thousands of jobs, new scientific discoveries and another twenty-year leap in technology could be ours by the mere increase of a handfull of dollars per person per year to NASA.

.....but no.....

 

[Red Ranger]

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

No one who actually knows what's going on. Bush told NASA to to back to the moon but didn't give them any more money to do so. So NASA not only has to complete it's mission to finish the ISS but also operate the shuttle fleet AND develop the next generation spacecraft with the same amount of money.

But next time you want to start a thread like this, man up and bring it to another board in here and let me really school ya.

He fears TNZ. Punk! -- RR

 

[Alpha Romeo]

It's Helium 3,and water ice from comet impacts as well as Mineral rights will drive a return regardless if its NASA or a Civilian space effort once ISS is complete they're planing on deorbiting the station by 2015 unless there is a public outcry not to kill station.
We need ISS for assembly of Orion translunar ship that will carry the new Lunar lander,and Mars mission spacecraft that is the purpose of having station in place even it means we need to form an new global space agency to take over operations.

That's my two cents

Signed

Buck Rogers

Such a waste to de-orbit the station. What the hell was the point of the whole thing if they're gonna fucking trash it?>??

 

[Peter the Younger]

It's Helium 3,and water ice from comet impacts as well as Mineral rights will drive a return regardless if its NASA or a Civilian space effort once ISS is complete they're planing on deorbiting the station by 2015 unless there is a public outcry not to kill station.
We need ISS for assembly of Orion translunar ship that will carry the new Lunar lander,and Mars mission spacecraft that is the purpose of having station in place even it means we need to form an new global space agency to take over operations.

That's my two cents

Signed

Buck Rogers

Such a waste to de-orbit the station. What the hell was the point of the whole thing if they're gonna fucking trash it?>??

They aren't really going to trash the station, at least not by the "threatened" date. The Senate will swoop in to save it, I promise you. Too much invested, and all that.

Now having said that, I'd be a lot happier with the thing if they moved it someplace interesting, like a La Grange point. But we'd need Ares (or something similar) to get back and forth to it then.

 

[T'Girl]

Money put into the space program creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and drives technological progress. It isn't wasted money to begin with.

... what the ROI actually is ...
.

Plus it boosts national pride

Lindley, sorry but what is "ROI"?

 

[Maurice]

Um, it was...what part of verbatum do you not understand?

The entire flipping word. It's verbatim, not verbatum.

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

There is no point in going back to the moon. Massive waste of money, in trying times where every penny counts.

Talk to me when the economy is turned around and we're talking about Mars or better.

 

[Lindley]

Money put into the space program creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and drives technological progress. It isn't wasted money to begin with.

... what the ROI actually is ...
.

Plus it boosts national pride

Lindley, sorry but what is "ROI"?

Return on Investment.

I mean, it's not like we're pouring money down a black hole here. We get plenty back out of what we put in----nationally, at least. I'm sure NASA doesn't directly see the profits, because it's not a commercial enterprise.

 

[sojourner]

A fully reusable system is only an advantage if it cheaper than a expendable one. At several hundred million dollars a launch the shuttle is more expense than using a "big dumb booster", it make no difference if the shuttle itself is reusable.

The shuttle system is not reusable. the shuttle is, the tank is not, and, contrary to popular belief, the SRB's require so much refurbishment per use that it would be cheaper to reduce cost through just mass producing them.

The cost over-runs on the Ares system are mostly due to the falling value of the american dollar, not any inherent defects in Ares.

You need to read about some of the problems with Ares before you make a comment like this. Try the Forums on WWW.nasaspaceflight.com for some good reading. Most of the posters there are space industry engineers including alot of nasa employees.

 

[Marc]

Money put into the space program creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and drives technological progress. It isn't wasted money to begin with.

... what the ROI actually is ...
.

Plus it boosts national pride

Lindley, sorry but what is "ROI"?

Return on Investment.

I mean, it's not like we're pouring money down a black hole here. We get plenty back out of what we put in----nationally, at least. I'm sure NASA doesn't directly see the profits, because it's not a commercial enterprise.

Think the only ones who see the profits vis a vis NASA are the companies that actually build the stuff for them

 

[Lindley]

Think the only ones who see the profits vis a vis NASA are the companies that actually build the stuff for them

And the employees working for those companies, who in turn spend the money buying goods and services from other companies.

Not to mention the eventual commercial value of any new technologies which are developed along the way. That's sure to be shared by a broad cross-section of companies.

Pumping money into NASA pumps money into the economy just as well as anything else.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

There is no point in going back to the moon. Massive waste of money, in trying times where every penny counts.

Talk to me when the economy is turned around and we're talking about Mars or better.

I'm sorry but that's not true. A return to the moon would create a ton of jobs, new industry and might even be really cool.

 

[timelord1010]

I don't understand the Obama bashers. Regarding the space program Obama hasn't made any decisions yet on NASA's budget or future direction. Also, Obama can only recommend and submit a budget, it's up to congress to approve the budget. Instead of complaining about the money President Obama and congress are spending to repair our damaged economy why don't you complain about the Trillions of Dollars the Bush administration wasted on the war in Iraq? Can you imagine what could have been spent on the space program if we didn't have that drain on the national budget?

It was easy for President Bush to give a speech saying NASA will return to the Moon and on to Mars but without funding the speech isn't worth the paper it was printed on. I think the Obama administration is going in the right direction, starting with the cancellation of the F-22 production run with each plane costing several hundred million dollars each. Cancel a few more over cost programs and there will be more than enough money for NASA to go to the Moon, Mars, hell maybe even send crews to the rest of the planets and moons in the solar system.