Obama Nasa plans 'catastrophic' say Moon astronauts

[IndianaGreen]

Page last updated at 01:38 GMT, Saturday, 13 March 2010

Obama Nasa plans 'catastrophic' say Moon astronauts

By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

Former Nasa astronauts who went to the Moon have told the BBC of their dismay at President Barack Obama's decision to push back further Moon missions.

Jim Lovell, commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, said Mr Obama's decision would have "catastrophic consequences" for US space exploration.

The last man on the Moon, Eugene Cernan, said it was "disappointing".

Last month Mr Obama cancelled Nasa's Constellation Moon landings programme, approved by ex-President George W Bush.

Nasa still aims to send astronauts back to the Moon, but it is likely to take decades and some believe that it will never happen again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8565243.stm

[Clio the Leo]

1. oh dear! Did we LEAVE some of them up there? NT

[Phx_Dem]

2. How shocking! NASA astronauts against moving the program away from NASA.

:rofl:

How long did it take you find that gem, Indiana?

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, praised Obama for his decision

It was painful but I think necessary, and in the long run, we'll have a healthier manned space program as a result.

[depakid]

5. It was bound to piss some people off, but overall it reflects more responsible policy

[David Zephyr]

4. It was one of the worst "decisions" by Obama thus far.

Stupid. Short sighted.

Now, on with that war in Afghanistan. Pour more treasure down that hole. Stupid.

[Bicoastal]

8. Yes, we totally need to check out the Moon more.

Eventually, we may find a sector of it that's even MORE impractical and desolate and useless than what we've found already.

BUT AT LEAST WE'VE BEATEN THE ROOSKIES!!!!1!

[damonm]

10. Little clue for you...

We've been done with the 70's for quite some time...

And it IS a shortsighted decision. NASA R&D is one of the things we can point to when the righties say "Government can't do ANYTHING right..."
Besides, with the discovery of water ice on the moon last year, the whole game changed scientifically.

ON EDIT: Wups. Just read Aldrin's article. NASA's not being left high & dry as I feared - I stand corrected.

[David Zephyr]

24. Do you really think that the program was about that? Really?

You are really something. You make up your own make-believe "rationale" for the Moon program and its proponents, who unlike you are scientists and engineers (I am one of those, by the way), and then you proceed to argue against it.

Of all the sound and convincing reasons for returning to Moon, no one at NASA or JPL ever, not once, suggested the fake rationale you created all on your own so you could argue with yourself.

Thanks for continuing to stalk me. I must be "worth it" to you, huh?

[Bicoastal]

26. "Stalk" you?

That's right--we had a heated discussion about a week ago about...I can't even remember anymore. And you think I have sort of personal vendetta against you, a perfect stranger on a website I post on when I have the time?

MAN, you take this place way too seriously. And BTW, my dad IS a JPL engineer (previously Boeing, before that Hughes), and he thinks more manned missions to the moon are--aw, fuck. You're not going to believe me anyway.

How about I put you on "Ignore" for awhile, so I'm not actually able to quote unquote STALK you anymore? Sheesh.

[caraher]

6. Aldrin didn't seem to think it was painful so much as smart

He called it Obama's "JFK moment" and began with, "Thank you, Mr. President."

These words are not coming from an anti-space, short-sighted Luddite.

[Igel]

19. True.

But his opinion was bandied about extensively and given great weight because he, after all, wasn't just some civilian. He was an astronaut, and therefore his opinion is truly important.

However, these new opinions are light-weight and quite ignorable. They can have nothing to say. They were astronaughts, and therefore their opinion is truly of no importance.

That's the problem with appeals to authority. They don't just fall flat, they're flatly fallacious.

However, I do find the asymmetry highly amusing.

Chomsky et al. explained that asymmetry in syntax (and elsewhere) is important for determining underlying structure. Asymmetry in argumentation and politics on other things also points to underlying structure, whether in logic or in values or in something else entirely.

[Historic NY]

7. W's moon do over moment ....w/o funding it was a non-starter.

[Liberal In Texas]

9. My son works at NASA on the Shuttle missions. He's going to be

staying with us tomorrow night. I'll see what the scuttlebutt is around NASA about the Obama cuts.

[boppers]

11. Government beneficiaries against their program being accountable.

Imagine that.

[xocet]

12. A curious snarky bias that way came....

I read both the BBC article and Aldrin's commentary. Where did you get the impression that accountability were involved with the opinions of the former astronauts?

There are two major concerns that I have with this policy. The first concern relates to giving private corporations more of a role in the space program, and the second is the abandonment of the Moon as a testbed for technologies that will hopefully eventually be used on Mars and in other locations.

Private corporations are not about completing a mission in a high quality manner - they are about making money regardless of the consequences of their actions; this has been frequently indicated in the last decade: i.e., Haliburton, Blackwater, etc. The benefit of having the Moon as a testing platform is that it is much closer than Mars; it is generally safe to presume that technology is not going to work perfectly the first time that it is tested out in the environment for which it is designed. So, unless one wants to declare that every test of the equipment be a potential suicide mission, it would probably be better to build up our capabilities on the Moon first.

[boppers]

14. About that Mars program:

Spirit and Opportunity have done thousands more science experiments than any human could have. NASA's past emphasis on doing science by sending meat-buckets into inhospitable environments has been dismally expensive, late on delivery, and poor on results.

The MER program, OTOH, used more private, off the shelf, technology, didn't spend a bunch on protecting meat buckets, and has provided *years* of on-planet results.

The problem wasn't whether or not something was a "suicide mission", it was whether or not we'd waste massive amounts of money just to send humans. We screwed up some mars missions, but when you kill machines, people don't freak out about the cost. OTOH, we recently lost two shuttles, and people freaking lost their minds.

As far as private corporations being involved, perhaps you don't understand how NASA works. We give them piles of money, which they then direct to private companies. NASA doesn't make rocket fuel, they buy it. NASA doesn't make ceramic tiles, they buy them.

[xocet]

27. Regarding Accountability as Mentioned in your Earlier Post....

At what point in your reply do you address accountability? You seem to be addressing efficiency, longevity and cost-effectiveness, but not accountability. Please defend your original statement on accountability.

I can see your point regarding manned space exploration, and I don't necessarily disagree with the primary use of machines for a lot of exploration: Voyager, Mariner, etc. are good examples thereof.

There is no need to be derogatory when speaking of astronauts. Do you generally refer to people as "meat-buckets"? Do you feel that those who took exceptional risks for the advancement of science deserve such titles?

Anyway, it appears that the involvement of private corporations is to be taken to a higher level in this new program: if you read Aldrin's take on it and correlate it with his support for the Republican Party, one can see this as the extension of a limited-government policy:

"If Congress agrees, we'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station -- extended to at least 2020 in Obama's plan -- and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships. When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers, it will be the commercial industry that steps up, not another government-owned, government managed enterprise." --Buzz Aldrin.

[sudopod]

29. " Spirit and Opportunity have done thousands more science experiments than any human could have."

Oh really? How does that work?

[denimgirly]

13. In this case Obama is DEFINITELY RIGHT! I LOVE Space but this is Not the time.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

15. Can they really blame Pres. Obama themis-mamnagement of the last administration leaves him with ...

little choice.

[Per Capita]

16. Good decision, but a terrible situation

Typical - The right decision for Obama, but he doesn't really have a choice so...
Since 1965, the US and the western world has traded real progress and prosperity for debt and diversity. At this rate, the the more likely scenario is that China will be on the Moon and on Mars, and the West will still be trying to figure out why their populations have ever decreasing IQs, their cities ever more dysfunctional, and their futures more and more bleak.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

17. That article really didn't say much about Obama's plan.

What's the point of spending 10's of billions of dollar to set up a temporary moon base? We've already done that. The only arguments I can think of for humans going back are to get helium 3, setup a telescope or maybe a solar power station. I don't see any of those as being really viable right now. We are exploring the moon quite well using robots. If we find something really interesting or need something there then sure, but right now we don't. Obamas plan is quite good with exploration and science missions as well. IMO science missions right now are much more useful, and NASA does this very well.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/imagedetails/index.cfm?imageId=3852


From a washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030902594.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Nelson wants to continue the testing of solid rocket boosters as part of a fallback plan if the commercial firms can't deliver. Such a move would, in effect, continue Constellation in part, even if under a different name. But, barring an unlikely increase in the NASA budget, any such move would require cuts in other NASA programs. NASA's science directorate, for example, might see trims to the $512 million increase it would receive under Obama's 2011 budget. "Should science people be nervous if they continue Constellation? Absolutely," a senior NASA official said Tuesday.

Obamas move for cancelling cost over-runned Constellation is the right thing to do.

Obama's plan I believe sets different targets then the moon, like going to Phobos instead. I think that longer term Mars is where we really want to go. But that's even more serious scratch and taking our time is fine with me. Moving astronaut launch to a private company may or may not be a good idea. If they can do it more reliably and cheaper then NASA then that's a good thing. They may also be able to compete for that business overseas and having a cheap launcher gives the military options they don't have now. They plan to launch Falcon from Vandenburg for example. Pugs/Nelson have a compromise to extend the shuttle and use the Ares 1 for "research". They want to cut out Falcon, which is almost ready to make its inaugural flight http://www.spacex.com/updates.php and use direct3. http://www.directlauncher.com/

In reality if the falcon flops and an alternative is needed fairly quickly then going to direct3 is a pretty good option. Either way, future American human space flight is fine without Constellation.

[olegramps]

18. What I would like to see:

The money that is spent on the space programs has provided advances in many fields. However, at this time we need to redirect our resources in solving some basic problems facing our nation. I would like to see these talented scientists redirect their efforts in solving the energy crisis that is looming.

[northernlights]

20. actually this is one of his better decisions

putting people on the moon is flashy and, for the astronauts of course it's a kid's dream come true. But it generates very little useful science for the buck. We can learn far more about the moon, space and other planets by sending probes and robots, and at much lower risk and much lower expense.

[ncteechur]

21. how funny that he 2nd man on the moon was left out of the top part of the story. And he agrees with

Obama. How about a more accurate headline: "Moon astronauts disagree over Obama's plan to cancel moon missions"?

[tranche]

22. Building better robots to explore deeper into space is progress.

[hulka38]

23. I've been pissed at Obama for quite a few things but I support him on this one

Sure, good things come out of NASA programs like new useful technologies and it inspires the yutes. But we're in such dire financial straits as a country and it's almost certainly going to get much worse. When it comes down to it, the NASA cuts are necessary.

[sudopod]

25. We spent enough on Constellation each year to buy a handfull of F-22s.

Until you can design and build an interplanetary spacecraft for that much, you all can get off your goddamn high horses.

[lazarus]

28. lots of people in this thread

keep referring to "cuts" Obama made in NASA. NASA's budget increased. The money is just being spent somewhere other than a moon launch.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Fuck 'em.

We'll do real science elsewhere.