MovieChat Forums > From the Earth to the Moon (1998) Discussion > The future of the space program

The future of the space program

posted 16 years ago by ae36
17 replies | jump to latest

There's a lot of debate right now about the space program. The usual arguments are being made-- that its a waste, etc. I won't go in to a re-cap of all that right now but what does concern me is the split with the proponents group.

Amoungst supporters of the space program, there is a huge argument about going back to the moon vs. going to Mars. Some say let's go back to the moon first, and then Mars. Others are saying forget the moon and go directly to Mars.

The thing to keep in mind is that if we don't go back to the moon, it gives opponents the opening they need to keep us in low earth orbit for the next two decades.

I would not put it past the Obama administration to declare that after careful study, Mars should be the goal-- forget the moon.

That way they could claim support for the manned space program while stretching out the development of the Constellation program before its eventually canceled.

They'll extend the shuttle retirement date, commission a few studies, and in the end the new hardware won't get built for at least another 10 years if at all.

This would offer the administration the option of seeming to support the space program while spending as few dollars as possible. Remember, going to Mars right now is not technically feasible with the equipment on hand or in the near future (15 or 20 years). The only thing really near term on the table besides low earth orbit is going back to the moon. You take the moon out of the equation for any reason and no one is going anywhere beside LEO for the next 20+ years.

And I believe that's what the Obama administration wants. They just have to find a politically safe alternative Declaring Mars as the goal achieves this. Watch it happen.

Thoughts?

AE36

[–] rp69 16 years ago

You can forget space. Obama's focus is squarely on social issues here on earth. A healthcare system that even fellow democrats can't believe in, bailing out banks and car companies that'll probably fail anyway, or remain government entities that'll never turn a buck. And instead of sub-prime mortgages the gov't is now going to back home refinancing for low income poeple that shouldn't have gotten mortgages in the first place, further draining the couffers. I think the best we can hope for is a stay of execution for the shuttles, continued progress on a relatively useless space station, and maybe some unmanned long range probes. I doubt we're going to see or even hear of anything even remotely inspiring from this administration. Sorry to be a pessimist, but I have no idea where all this money is coming from.

It's funny how revered democrat Kennedy started it all(pretty much out of political necessity), but it's been the Republican pet project ever since.

[–] NineEighteen 16 years ago

It's really a great shame that the US stopped after Apollo 17...at that point the momentum was there and the sheer depth of knowledge that was learned at that time was wasted in falling back into LEO missions. It's still so incredible to think of all those young engineers and pilots that built up confidence and so much know-how to reach the moon within a decade of the first Mercury space shots, only to have all that wasted in many ways by failing to stretch further into space.

It seems that the next step is to re-learn all those lessons and maybe risk losing out again when the bean-counters stop the cash flow.

I hope Project Constellation does go ahead and serves to push out further to Mars and perhaps beyond as it's the natural thing for humans to explore and push boundaries.

[–] jaystarstar 15 years ago

It's funny how revered democrat Kennedy started it all(pretty much out of political necessity), but it's been the Republican pet project ever since.

Haw.

NIXON pulled the plug on Apollo as soon as he could get away with doing so (cancelling Apollo 18, 19 and 20 shortly after taking office), and mandated a stripped-down, bargain-basement, off-the-shelf spare-parts approach to building the space shuttle which resulted in a cobbled-together jerry-rigged lateral-stack no-escape-system design which ended up being catastrophically unsafe and eventually costing the lives of 14 astronauts (so far).

You know why Apollo 8 was really sent on the lunar-orbital mission, when it was originally scheduled to be only an earth-orbit mission?

Because the NASA brass knew Nixon was taking office in 3 more weeks, and unless they had a spectacular success under their belts, clearly indicating the goal of landing on the moon before the end of 1969 was possible, Nixon would be only too happy to announce "technical problems are too great to overcome," and pull the plug on the legacy project of his bitterly hated rival, JFK.

Once Apollo 8 orbited the moon with the revolutionary Christmas Eve TV broadcasts, Nixon didn't have a chance to pull that off.

As far as the next Republican after Nixon/Ford, Reagan, was concerned, the space program was only useful as it could be used in conjunction with military projects.

[–] TheCheezWhiz 15 years ago

It's sad that more than 40 years later we must return to Apollo-era know how to get beyond LEO. What's even sadder is just one short year from now the U.S. won't have even LEO capability. Saddest yet is how much Obama is cutting NASA's funding. It's been referred to as "a going out of business budget."

AMC version:
"Yippee ki-yah, melon farmer."

[–] ae36 15 years ago

So very true.

And how are Americans going to feel when China or India land on the moon while we can't even get to LEO on our own?

I suppose we can do the usual-- bury our heads in the sand and pretend its no big deal. Keep saying that we already DID the moon 40 years ago and go back to watching our old Apollo films.

When will Americans wake up and realize its not about what we could do THEN but what we can do NOW?

These emerging nations are going to eventually leave us in the dust technology wise. They will reap the benefits of the new technologies and the resultant new economies.

Meanwhile, we'll become....France.

AE36

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ae36 15 years ago

I'm not going to give you a history lesson but I will say this, Akademie:

I can envision your ancestors standing on a dock in Europe somewhere, watching ships come and go from the new world saying "what new economies? what new technologies...

AE36

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ae36 15 years ago

Not exactly what I was predicting, but close enough:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story

10 Billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Trillion for the stimulus.

Billions more for health care.

Yet more billions for another stimulus (currently proposed).

Yet we don't have enough to fund the space program.

This from the president who says we have to encourage our children in science and that we need to maintain our technological edge.

Stupid.

AE36

[–] trendfactor4 15 years ago

While I don't necessarily agree with the massive spending on all the social and military programs outlined in your post, the people supporting those programs can at least justify why they think they are useful.

The space program, on the other hand, offers no such justification, other than some vague notion that giving them money will somehow help maintain our technological edge. If NASA wants money their folks are going to have to do better than that. They'll have to explain HOW funding them will help achieve this goal.

For example, I don't agree with our current president's decision to bail out banks last year. However he justified it by saying that it was necessary to prevent their collapse which would have taken the economy down with it. He provided data on how much of our assets were tied up in the banks, and how their default would lead to massive withdrawals of funds in other banks, collapse of the FDIC, massive hyper-inflation of the dollar, etc...

Can NASA come up with any kind of justification as to why we should pump billions of tax dollars into space travel? I personally don't think so.

If your concern is promoting science and keeping our national edge on technology, then those tax dollars should go to research projects here on the ground. Something along the lines of CERN's LHC, grants for medical research, or money for other sciences. If your concern is about the children, then let that federal money be spent on improving science education in schools.

I say let India and China send people to the moon. They'll get their national ego boost just like we did in the 60's. It won't take them long to learn, just as we did, that space travel is expensive and impractical.

Who knows, maybe traveling to the moon will become a right of passage for all developing nations, with a new nation re-visiting the moon every few decades. My bet is on Brazil for the 2050 moon landing.

[–] ae36 15 years ago

Ask yourself this:

How come the big government/big spending President is suddenly so fired up about having private companies develop 'space taxis" to ferry Astronauts in to LEO?

With the possible (and unproven) capabilities of Space X, the hardware doesn't exist.

Again, why is a President whose been such a staunch ally of government takeovers and centralized planning/administration now suddenly so committed to private enterprise? pretty selective, wouldn't you say?

AE36

[–] trendfactor4 15 years ago

How come the big government/big spending President is suddenly so fired up about having private companies develop 'space taxis" to ferry Astronauts in to LEO?

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that the president is spending money just for the sake of spending money. In reality he spends money on particular programs in the hopes of getting some kind of tangible benefit for the voters (i.e. averting a great depression, improving health care, etc.).

You may disagree (as I sometimes do) that his spending on these programs will achieve these benefits. But at least he provides us with a reason as to why he is spending the money.

NASA provides no such reason. As such, contracting this technology out to these fringe private companies let's him take NASA funding for it out of the budget, while throwing a bone to the space nuts. In reality, most of us know that these private companies will eventually fold as they learn (just as the government did) that space travel is NOT economically feasible.

Again, why is a President whose been such a staunch ally of government takeovers and centralized planning/administration now suddenly so committed to private enterprise? pretty selective, wouldn't you say?

Again, neither this president nor the last one are supervillains bent on complete domination. They enact the programs they enact for the purpose of bringing the results they promised to their constituents.

Right now most of the president's constituents (and many of his non-constituents) couldn't give a flying fig about NASA or returning to the moon. The reason for this: Space travel has no immediate tangible benefits. At least not enough to justify the amount of money that needs to be spent to make a semi-permanent moon base a reality.

Sorry, I can see that you are really upset and/or frustrated by the cancellation of the Constellation program. I too would have liked to see a return to the moon. But the reality of the world, under any administration, is that short of a cold war, billions of dollars in government spending needs to be justified by some kind of economic benefit. This is why the latter Apollo missions were cancelled, and this is why we will not be returning to the moon.

[–] JimmyPSX 15 years ago

space travel has IMMEDIATE benefits for the general public...microchips...microwaves...velcro...just some of the many advancements directly accomplished due to the space program...you give them a mission like going to mars or establishing a permanent base on the moon and they will discover alternative energy sources...ways to survive in hostile environments...Obama's decision to gut NASA is very shortsighted

Check Out The Loon!
http://www.thenewloon.com

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 1shado1 14 years ago

Sorry for the nitpick, but velcro was available commercially in the late 1950's. But it only became popular when the space program started using it extensively. :-)

Now if that bastard so much as twitches, I'm gonna blow him right to Mars.

[–] tgs333 13 years ago

The future of the American Space program is alive and well:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-how-to-launch-nasas-new-mon ster-rocket/

"I'm a vehemently anti-nuclear, paranoid mess, harbouring a strange obsession with radioactive sheep."

[–] persen1 13 years ago

Looking at that design, obviously NASA have found inspiration in the ESA Ariane 5 rocket.