A Gathering Storm Of Opposition Mounts

This is better then a barrel of Monkeys to play with. Yes In deed a study for the ages.

So the New BUZZ words are; "Apollo on Steroids" it is truly "Game Changing"

As Dr Leshin noted, it could not be more exciting here in Washington DC or something like this.

Dr. Leshin’s scientific expertise is in cosmochemistry. She is primarily interested in deciphering the record of water on objects in our solar system. She has published over 40 scientific papers. She received her B.S. in Chemistry from Arizona State University, and her Ph. D. in Geochemistry in 1994 from California Institute of Technology.

Newton and the flu virus, I'm still laughing!

What I would like to know is where where these guys two years ago when Constellation was already going off the rails? Neil Armstrong waxed poetic about the 5.5 segment booster and the superheavy Ares vehicle without understanding that NASA would not even attempt to come out with a budget for it as it was too expensive and would not be operational until the Chelsey Clinton administration.

I do agree with them that without a clear destination that the new program will just become a big science project without any goals. However, the technology plan for fuel depots, solar electric propulsion, and advanced life support are at least steps in the right direction.

A compromise that takes us back to the Moon to stay, and with the new tech and commercial participation would be something that would neuter much of the Apollo era astronauts complaints.

Spam canning back to the Moon in the same manner we did in the 60's is the real road to nowhere. Congress can force their pork into the budget and I hope Obama vetos it.

Again the news and headlines are dominated by ex astronauts speaking on CxP and not enough engineers talking about engineering.

You can find ex astronauts to take either side, pro or con CxP. So what?

We need to hear logical, technical analysis of the direction proposed by the admin. Are commercial providers going to be ready, and will it be safe, and how do we really know?

Why go back to the moon people say; we've already been there, done that. And yes, we did visit the moon several times. Note my careful use of the term "visit". The first time we went was really a point solution strategic move to beat the Russians there and establish our foothold on the high ground. We never intended to stay, and except for a lot of "what if" studies, there never really was a cohesive plan to go anywhere else. The politics of Vietnam were too distracting and the cost of the war was just eating up too much GNP. Quite frankly the American public at large lost the will and interest to establish and fund a comprehensive space exploration vision and plan. I sort of liken the first moon trips to finding out everything there is to know about New York City by passing through JFK International airport and grabbing a few trinkets from the gift shop, but never leaving the building.

So why go back now?

I'll tell you why. (1) We have apparently forgotten how to do it. Why else is it going to take 10 years to do something we've done several times before. Worse yet, the first time we actually had to invent the science and develop the technology (granted - at a near "wartime" funding level), but today it should be not much more than an integration of technologies we already have. From my knothole, the problem is not technology; it is a lack of LEADERSHIP, poor management, parochial infighting, and political pandering.(2) Luna is the closest place to test and develop off-planet operations and technologies that will be needed for missions deeper into the solar system and beyond. We don't even know what it is we don't yet know. Is it better to find that out 3 days away, or 3 to 12 months away?(3) Lunar ops will help in developing and establishing the logistical systems and supporting infrastructure needed to operate off planet. The analogs for going anywhere else will be very similar, and we will have determined what questions need to be asked beforehand. Priceless. Look how many resupply missions a year it takes just to support ISS. Now imagine the same level of support even as close as the moon, only now we aren't just docking with the ISS in a fairly benign environment, now you have to do landing and recovery (and departure) operations too. Now imagine stretching that pipeline and infrastructure all the way to Mars. Is that really when and where we want to learn the hard lessons, or would it be better to take incremental "baby steps" closer to home? (4) We can develop and test the kinds of missions we would propose to perform. Materials Science, manufacturing, Astro-biology, Geology, astronomy et al have unique enough requirements that we would need to develop and test in a realistic environment and operations scenario as we forge ahead. (5) Develop the ability and technology to exploit in situ resources and eventually thrive without a complex logistics support system from the home planet. This alone is critical if we are to truly become a universal species. (6) Stumble across the commercial reasons for going anywhere in space. We still know so little about the moon, perhaps there is something there that would be of enough value to make a viable commercialization business case. (7) Others...I'm sure. Its the journey, not the destination, where so much is learned.

We can argue all day about the costs and difficulties of getting the first 250 miles or so off this planet, but until we ultimately establish a closable business case for doing so (other than collecting tax payer money), there will never be the true expansion of mankind into the final frontier that is so desperately needed. The truth of the matter is; if the airlines worked the same way the space business works today, every time I wanted to go somewhere I would have to buy a new jetliner and throw it away when I'm done.

Establishing, testing and maturing those needed capabilities and technologies on the moon is but the second step. The goverment certainly has a critical role in all this, if only we could come up with a Vision and Strategy along with a cohesive, comprehensive, executable, rational plan and stick to it.

Where the hell were these astronauts and legislators earlier when speaking up for a program gone wrong or providing extra funding would have made a difference?!? Keith is right - I want to hear from young people whose future will be in aerospace rather than from old has-beens whose judgment has already been shown to be faulty.

That sounds nice if Obama's decision had been based on the normal NASA process to develop a plan. Instead Obama made a political decision. Now his political apologists defend his plan in the same manner that they defend non-NASA issues, by personal attacks on participants and critical comments of the status quo.

To put it bluntly, this was purely a political decision not an engineering decision. You are absolutely correct that a logical, technical analysis of all options should be the priority not politics as usual.

Hit the reset button on your plan Mr. President.
It's not happening. You need to get more people signed on. You failed terribly introducing it, you've failed terribly articulating it, and your failing to convince anyone enough to build even the a ghost of a consensus of support.

Though I must say, it has been nice to hear some big names fighting hard for NASA and explain to congress why it is so important. Maybe that will help to make some realize it is a very important priority and it must be funded properly for success.

Exploiting the oxygen and possible hydrogen resources of the Moon could dramatically reduce the cost of space travel within cislunar space. And since the Moon is only a few days away from Earth, it will probably be one of the prime destinations for the emerging space tourism industry.

So it would be economically foolish for the US to bypass the Moon. NASA needs to establish a permanent base, probably at one of the lunar poles.

Marcel F. Williams

I can't wait for 4.5 billion + 50% overrun to be wasted on an Orion capsule that doesn't get used. Can't wait.

1: not a reason

2,3: how can we afford moon bases when we cant afford flying to LEO. we actually cant even afford to build something to fly to LEO. actually we can't even figure out how to build something to fly to LEO. 5 years later and we are half way to figuring out how to go to LEO, and you're proposing moon bases? Maybe we should cut medicare and build moon bases instead.

4: going there to test what we do when we go there is not a reason for going there

5: dont need people for that yet 7: Im sure I'm sure is not a reason

I'm still amazed and perplexed that Obama stands by with his hands in his pockets and lets the opposition define the conversation.

Congress has never been good with commitment and consequences, yet the pro-CxP and even pro-STS arguments can dominate the discussion without mention of budget and schedules, long-term sustainability, and national space competitiveness.

As an example, on any single day, ignoring cost/flight and flights/year, no question I'd pick STS and Ares 1 over Chinese, Russian, European, Indian, Samoan, ANY other system. But in a flat NASA budget of $18B/yr + inflation, no question I'd prefer the commercial aviation model instead: multiple vendors with competition-driven cost per seat and government safety regulations. Over the long haul, like 30-50 years, this is much more sustainable and leads to many more astronauts and much broader exploration. Why doesn't this question ever get asked?

I think Armstrong is an Engineer's Engineer and a very smart guy. I read his testimony and it makes sense. I think congress should get both sides of the argument together to hash out their differences and in the mean time keep the current plan going as well as boost the funding of the commercial guys which can't hurt in the deflation we have today.

Elon Musk is trying to do what all company executives try to do, if they can: get their hands on tax payer dollars in order to promote their private interest.

But private manned commercial space launch companies will never be truly successful trying to sustain themselves on NASA contracts. Space tourism is the initial key to a successful private commercial manned spaceflight industry, not NASA contracts.

Marcel F. Williams

Sorry RC, I'm with Admiral Kirk.

#1 is a huge and very relevant reason. Maybe you're not old enough to have seen the changes in this land over the last 50 years, or maybe you just don't get out much...but the general engineering development and manufacturing base in the US has been in major decline for quite some time. We still lead the world in some sectors (war machinery, aerospace, medical devices), but even these are slowly being overtaken as well. Have you ever noticed *where* your computer or cell phone are made? Do you remember the outcry when Zenith (lol) was the "last remaining TV maker in the US"? Things have been going elsewhere for a long time, and civil space is one of the few still led (marginally, depending on the source) by the US. And now, that is officially being shown the door by this new policy.

"Oh, but 'commercial space' is going to fill the void - it will usher in a new era of space leadership," I hear you say. If you truly believe that, I have some pristine marshland on the Louisiana coast I'd like to sell you.

Although I admire the dedication and gumption of these new space entrepreneurs, and believe they will *eventually* succeed, what they don't seem to understand (as well as the general population...including - apparently - Obama and his immediate advisors) is that "reaching" space and actually *staying* in space and returning (e.g. achieving orbit and controlled re-entry) is a different problem by a couple orders of magnitude.

These new space upstarts are going to find this out the hard way, and their business case will be open wide enough to drive a Saturn V through....and it will cost all of us dearly. Throwing all of our eggs into the commercial space basket is a mistake of historic proportions.

> I read his testimony and it makes sense.

“Now is the time to overrule this administration's pledge to mediocrity.”

And replace it with what? Armstrong suggests paying billions more every year to walk on the moon again by 2030. And look for Helium 3. Are you joking?

His entire argument against the Augustine report is that they were constrained to the budget. That they would have come up with a plan to use Constellation if they weren't constrained to the budget. He says they were constrained to the budget because "a few
planners, with little or no space operations experience, attempted an end run on the normal process."

You think that makes sense?

"...in the mean time keep the current plan going as well as boost the funding of the commercial guys."

I've been thinking that too.
Congress could buy much needed time that way.
Throw in a shuttle extension of some kind too.

and this time.. keep congress and the public in the loop! Time for that much celebrated transparancy so people can start to reach a consensus and actually have a plan that people like Armstrong and the views he represents (A lot of US!) can support.

Armstrong suggested going with something that has been studied by experts, not go with some flash in the pan approved by a few non-experts.

> the general engineering development and manufacturing base in the US has been in major decline for quite some time.

Lets call this the "Constellation will save America" argument. You are so far gone that I can't even address this.

"Far gone"?
Apparently, you didn't read much of what I said. No where did I advocate for Constellation, or say that Constellation could "save America," because it can't. My point is simply that Kirk's Reason #1 was valid, and it is. (which is why you didn't attempt to refute it)

Actually, I happen to disagree with significant parts of the Constellation program. But to cancel it outright and substitute it with this vaporous idea of techno-studies ad infinum is the most asinine policy I've every heard of.
Those technology funds will have bulls-eye's painted all over them, and will be raided for "other pressing needs" within a couple years...maybe even months.

Meanwhile, the US aerospace sector will decline even further while NASA atrophies, and the commercial guys will realize that they're in waaay over their heads and "can't make schedule without additional funding." The same type of thing the Constellation bashers have been complaining about.

The result: we all go *nowhere* for a very long time.

I think it's mostly manufacturing that has declined in the US and that wont change until we have a way to make stuff inexpensively here. Economics and currency changes might one day even out the manufacturing costs as developing countries develop there economies, but in the interum we need to have more home grown engineering talent to replace the manufacturing jobs with innovation jobs. Spending more money on the space program is just going stimulate job growth in this area, and I don't understand why the administration is concerned about overspending when everyone is afraid of deflation and the world wants to buy more us treasuries.

You don't need to raise the proposed Obama budget in order to return to the Moon since there are plenty of cheaper alternative architectures. NASA just presented the alternative heavy lift architectures to the Ares I/V last week, some of which are nearly half the cost of the Ares. The Obama budget also increases NASA spending by about $2 billion a year on average.

We're already spending $3.4 billion a year on Constellation. So a $2 billion increase would give NASA $5.4 billion to fund an alternative architecture. If the Space Shuttle is discontinued then that gives NASA $8.4 billion a year to fund an alternative architecture.

Sure $8.4 billion a year isn't Iraqi war kind of money ($10 billion a month) but its not chump change either and that's plenty enough to fund a lunar architecture.

Marcel F. Williams

Sorry but my recollection was a rushed study (ESAS) with certain results withheld from proper expert study and its result paraded before a Congress that accepted the "Safe. Simple. Soon." rhetoric with studied indifference. Well "Soon" turned out to be "Not so Soon." as "Simple" turned into "Complicated." And "Safe" would only be proved by a full up Pad abort test whilst unzipping a 5.5 seg SRB. Which is the one Ares-I demo I would like to see!
As for Ares-V, I didn't know the design had been finalised. References?

However here is one study I do recommend:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09844.pdf
"Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case Is Established"

My recollection is that the Obama plan was hatch by a few with no review. How do you justify that?

> The result: we all go *nowhere* for a very long time.

You're in complete denial. You've been going nowhere for 30 years. Constellation will go nowhere until 2030. By then it will be duplicating a 60 year old stunt. How is that for going nowhere? You like that?

> My recollection is that the Obama plan was hatch by a few with no review.

You have no recollection. Plans like this have been talked about for decades. This plan was in open discussion for months. Unless you didn't care. Buzz did, he was at every Augustine hearing. Think Neil was?

You are trying to compare two different stages of the development process. Constellation is at the design/implementation stages. President Obama's plan is still only at the high-level requirement stage. All that has been issued is a new policy position.

It's now NASA's job to come up with approaches to implement that policy, hence the number of RFIs about topics mentioned in the President's policy statement. I am waiting for those RFI reports to come in and the inevitable NASA study which defines the new approach before making a decision about whether the new approach is better or worse than Constellation.

I fault the Administration on their timing. They should have had the new approach defined before trying to cancel Constellation.

RC, you're an interesting character.
You see to be having a debate with things you *think* I'm (and others, judging by other comments/replies you've posted) saying, but haven't actually said. Why is that? I've concluded it's because you don't have any thoughts that can seriously debate many of the reasonable posts made here.

Where have I made statements defending the Cx program? Where have I defended 30 years of the Shuttle going round and round the Earth? I've never made those statements. If I'd been king in 1980, we'd have quite a different NASA (then and now).
What I *have* said is that killing HSF at NASA (and, essentially, NASA itself by doing so), will set this country back and effectively destroy segments of our aerospace expertise. And - judging by the overall decline our country has endured over that past couple of decades - that's about the last thing we want to do at this point. I've also said that the new commercial upstarts will soon realize they are in way over their heads and their business case will fall apart.
Many of us old dogs can see that truth pretty clearly, and since I don't see you trying to make a case otherwise, I bet you know it's true as well.

I have purposefully resisted any reply to RC as it is painfully obvious that this person does not have the context and frame of reference needed to have a rational and meaningful discussion or debate. I believe Mark Twain once described such a situation quite well.

So why explore space in the first place at all?

As humans, "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard".(JFK, 1961) As scientists and engineers, we do these things because others tell us they cannot be done. Doing the hard things is how humankind extends its destiny, its knowledge and its reach. To not do these things is the surest path to stagnation and our ultimate extinction as a nation and a culture first, and eventually as a species.

Just based on the history of this planet, I am convinced that to survive as a species, we must someday soon begin the journey to other worlds lest we suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs and other species before us as the result of a sudden and catastrophic planet killing event; whether it be external, geologic, or some scourge mankind unleashes upon himself.

The first steps in any journey is to pick a destination, set a course and then have the will and resolve to complete it. Without those things, we are left with no way to plan, wandering aimlessly with no way to tell where the journey started, nor when it will end.

To those content with designing cell phones, TV's, and video games, if that makes you happy, then I am happy for you. For those of us whose gaze ends far past the horizon, let the hard stuff begin...

"As humans, "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard".(JFK, 1961) As scientists and engineers, we do these things because others tell us they cannot be done. Doing the hard things is how humankind extends its destiny, its knowledge and its reach."

Scientists do not do what they do because it is hard. We do it because we want to figure stuff out, because we find beauty in how the world works, and/or because we think it will have purpose. In general, we try and figure stuff out the easiest way - elegance is in doing stuff as easily as possible - making it hard is widely and correctly regarded as dumb. No one ever got a nobel prize for doing something just 'cause it was hard - and I'm not aware of any useful science obtained that way.

I agree with all your other reasons for going to space. There are many reasons. To learn, to assess resources, to extend human civilization, for economic advantage, for security. But doing it "cause it's there" - dumb. Even Kennedy wasn't doing it "because it was hard" - it was to beat the Soviets and prove US superiority. Doing things simply because they're hard truly is random wandering and a squandering of resources.

With all due respect madscientist, you have completely misunderstood my point. And if you note, I did make the point about the strategic reasons for the initial moon sorties, and pointed out why it was not a valid excuse to bypass the moon in our return to the solar system.

I have never proposed doing "dumb things" simply because someone "thought it up" with no compelling, supporting rationale, and I am certainly no advocate of doing anything the "hard way"; elegant simplicity is the holy grail of science and engineering. I think part of our PR problems today is because we have made it look too easy. When accidents happen, people are shocked. But quite truthfully, the shuttles and comrades we lost weren't due to bad design or bad science; it was simply due to the Peter Principle at work. Management mentality versus Leadership and Engineering prudence. They mix like oil and water. The machines tried to tell us there was a problem, people did know about it, but the RIGHT people refused to take the appropriate action.

I have layed out the case for exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new lifeforms and new civilizations, boldy going where human kind needs to go in order to advance, thrive and survive as a species - and it ain't just "cause it's there". This theme has played out time and again all throughout recorded human history, why is the concept so hard to grasp now?

The basic message is simple: Space is the next and last manifest destiny for human kind (unless we figure out how to do inter-dimensional or time travel - I'm kidding). We will either be leading the charge and blazing the trail or we will become beholden subjects to those who do. Given the options right now of those nations becoming HSF capable who are skipping the development costs by "borrowing" the best technologies available, and their attitude and posture toward freedom, liberty, democracy and fundamental human rights, (eg; our way of life) which option would you prefer? I have often heard it said that "if you ain't the lead sled dog, the view gets might boring". Exactly.

"A Gathering Storm Of Opposition Mounts"

I think Keith's headline is in error. I do not see a gathering storm, just simply a few of the communities which are most directly affected.

I also do not think that whether or not we make a decision to go to the moon, or even whether to continue with the existing Constellation Program, is the correct question to be asking. Constellation was decades away from getting anyone back to the moon. Expending a lot of money on any activity that was not going to happen for decades was just stupid and poor management.

What questions should we be asking: What are the next logical steps? Where do we start?

I think the answers are pretty logical.

We start with what we have today: a Space Shuttle and a Space Station. How do we use those systems to create the next steps?

The Constellation approach was: throw all of those two systems away and start on something new and different. That was gross waste and mismanagement.

The right approach is to evolve the Shuttle and Station capabilities so we can do more, go further, make the spaceflight more affordable and open the opportunity to a wider community.