Obama cancels Moon return project

[go west young man]

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm

President Barack Obama has cancelled the American project designed to take humans back to the Moon.

The Constellation programme envisaged new rockets and a new crewship called Orion to put astronauts on the lunar surface by 2020.

But in his federal budget request issued on Monday, Mr Obama said the project was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation".

It was draining resources from other US space agency activities, he added.

He plans instead to turn to the private sector for launch services.


Read more: BBC

---

Yet we have plenty of money for the war machine. It seems that destroying human life is a bigger priority than exploration that can further our understanding of the universe. Sad.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Orszag said the Nasa budget is actually up. They just aren't funding this specific project.

[Robb]

2. That he is right on all three points doesn't make the child in me any less sad about it.

The adult agrees. But still. :)

[Yupster]

4. I was 10 in 1969

and I thought by the time I was old there'd be colonies on Mars and guys flying all over the solar system routinely.

I'm surprised we've done so little in space since 1969.

[MilesColtrane]

15. Once China gets serious about space, we'll head back out there.

It seems we've got to be afraid of somebody eclipsing us before we invest in new manned programs.

[izquierdista]

118. That was the peak of American civilization

It's apparent to me now that it's been downhill from 1969. As the years go by, it will become apparent to more and more people.

[ngant17]

131. as for space exploration, ideologically it actually peaked in Nov. 63, not '69

and we haven't recovered since.

1969 was a complete staged fraud, although I accept that the last 3 manned moon missions were probably real. But Apollo 11 was a hoax IMHO.

[lazarus]

132. LOL

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[GodlessBiker]

17. But it is the child who is inspired as she grows up to be the adult. We need inspirational missions.

I think the President is wrong on this. Take the necessary funds out of the Iraq/Afghanistan debacle and fund science inspiring missions like this.

[sandnsea]

28. How about going to Mars?

For NASA, while the moon mission will be cancelled, there will be increased investment in robotics needed for a manned flight to Mars as well as a transition to commercial transport in preparation for the day when space travel becomes a reality.The International Space Station and Shuttle will also be kept alive, although in a reduced capacity.

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1162

[Baclava]

122. I tend to agree with you

But I'm selfish - I want results I can see - we'll never get people to Mars in our lifetimes.


We're wasting time. We should be sending up dozens of robots to get on with terraforming the rest of our solar system with habital worlds.

Suck some of that atmo from Venus and spray it around Mars - kill two birds with one stone.

Manned spaceflight with current technology is too slow and expensive - get that fusion rocket on line and genetically alter some pioneers to live under less earthlike conditions. Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are a good place to start after we get the drill rigs up there. Then maybe we can talk about spreading our seed throughout the galaxy

[Enrique]

3. manned missions aren't the only way to explore and understand the universe

in fact, unmanned projects are better ways to do that.

[go west young man]

22. The development of the technology that would come with a moon colony

is what I am upset about. With a moon colony would come many new innovations that will be crucial to mankinds further step into space. Robots are one thing. Humans in space are another. A moon colony could tell us quite a bit we don't know yet.

Link here to the Space.com forums to see what others are saying about this: http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22419

Another link on the Constellation program so folks understand the concept of taking steps into space. http://www.space.com/common/media/show/player.php?show_id=38

Personally I'm just sad we can spend $540 billion on war yet we can't spend $80 billion on understanding our universe. Obama has failed on this one.

[zogofzorkon]

61. It was one of the things I still hoped for

and not just for the technology advances and job creation. It also leads to a new way of thought.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8273TKCErs

[Plucketeer]

81. I'm with you on this!

It's SO MUCH MORE ECONOMICAL when you don't have to figure in accomodations for beings from a very tiny, specialized strata on a sorta planet that's just not to be found around every corner.

[berni_mccoy]

5. It's the absolute right thing to do. Interplanetary exploration and the use of planet hunting

scopes for extra-solar earths should be the priority.

[Xipe Totec]

10. What's the point if we're not going?

What do we care if there are other human inhabitable planets if we're staying here anyway? Might as well extend the savings all the way.

[Lasher]

36. To know. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

137. Then pay for it from your own pocket, if it's that important

Personally, I'm not interested in sending metal to where no man will ever go.

[berni_mccoy]

64. Maybe we'd like to see what's there because we can.

[Xipe Totec]

138. Maybe you should pay for the trill then n/t

[Plucketeer]

114. No, there's real benefits to finding out

what things are like on other celestial bodies - whether they be in our solar system or others. Just look at the fantastic discoveries that the Hubbel telescope has afforded. Heh - I'm still stymied by the notion of the Hubbel getting it's LAST servicing last time? WHY??? Hell, build a second one - there's plenty of requests for more usage of the existing one than can be met by the projected life of that fabulous spyglass!

[Xipe Totec]

136. Remember; the Hubble was rescued by a manned mission

Were it not for the Shuttle that gave it birth, nurtured it, repaired it, and boosted it to a higher orbit, there would be no Hubble.

[Plucketeer]

146. Yes, rescued with technology that already exists

And I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the retirement of the shuttle fleet - or at least, not building new ones to continue on. But the hardware and money to go to other celestial bodies? There's enough to be conquered right here on Earth.

[tridim]

24. Agreed. There will be time to return to the Moon later.

No doubt we will when we can afford it.

A moon base will be extremely important in the next 50 years, but going there now just to prove we can is pretty much pointless. We still need to solve thousands of big problems before a moon base will be feasible, radiation being the top issue IMO. There's no point living on the moon if the inhabitants all quickly die from cancer.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. A good decision.

In a couple of more generations, robots will be able to do anything on the moon that humans might be needed for. And they will be a huge bit cheaper.

[berni_mccoy]

7. with less risk to life.

[Rebubula]

12. Unless....

...your name is Sarah Conner....

[liberation]

50. Well... luckily most early humans were not such a bunch of wimps as we have become

else we would still be back living in trees, because... well... any day now, we should have some of them "robots" to do all that walking upright and foraging for us.

Fortune only smiles on the daring, how we can waste untold money (which in itself is a fictional entity) bombing the shit out of people and places half the world away, and we can cater to the Bankers every whim.... while at the same time saying with a straight face how "space exploration is not a priority" leads me to believe, that as a species... we may be the first one to experience "devolution."


Here is the deal, a lot of the so fiscally concerned people about "space exploration" should brush up on the concept of exponential growth. At the current rate, there will be so many people on this earth soon enough as to make it completely uninhabitable. In other words, our own planet can not support us in the long run. It makes then perfect sense, for any species with an IQ higher than a watermelon to explore possible venues to solve such predicament. A clear solution is that we have to spill out and start exploring places where we can continue our growth... if we intend to survive as a species. Never mind the technological and humanitarian benefits from focusing our energies and intellect into a far more worthy endeavor... than the useless wastes of time we are engaged in right now.

But no, space exploration is something "wacky" because throwing away our capital in things like bombs and supporting failed economic systems based on stupid fictional concepts like credit is such a much more "worthy" approach. Sure we will soon be experiencing a long horrible and painful demise as a species... But at least we will be "fiscally conscious" on our way to extinction. I am sure mother nature will be "impressed" we did not squander all those arbitrary numbers and random value propositions with little correlation with the actual physical world, which at some point we arbitrarily decided to make the absolutely center of our existence.

It is sad really, the first self aware species in our solar system. And we decide to simply grace at our navels after the millions of years of evolution that took to get us here...

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Well said. nt

[go west young man]

62. Thank you for saying what I've been trying to get across since put up this LBN.

It's amazing to me that so many people at DU don't seem to be reading up on the Constellation program before commenting.

[montanto]

127. lol

Fun read. I agree that spending money on bombs is ridiculous. I find it just as ridiculous that the natural solution to overcrowding here is to fly a couple hundred thousand miles to a lifeless, soil-less, waterless, atmosphere-less, radiation blasted rock where to sustain even one life would require millions and millions of dollars which could not possibly be repaid by anything people living their could produce and return to Earth. Since the Earth is actually a conservable and renewable resource, it seems like it might be a better idea to try to keep this place habitable. Speaking of exponential growth. How would that exponential growth in population be sustainable on the moon? Seems like it would be easier to teach people to keep it in their pants here where you can actually get a drink of water than let them continue to reproduce like rodents on a rock with no atmosphere.

[Frank Cannon]

142. Nicely done

Thanks for that. Said it better than I ever could have.

[aquart]

68. The project was a dumb Bush idea.

Which immediately started drawing money away from Mars. I remember when he announced it. It was not a hit with JPL and others of their ilk.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Well, that is a big reason not to vote for him...

Depending on who his oponent is.

[T Wolf]

9. As long as this country is wasting all that money on death and destruction, everything else of value

will suffer from underfunding.

Sure, it might not be the best use of those dollars in the current situation - can we justify any dollars for non-humanitarian use as long as the crisis in Haiti remains unsolved or our own people continue to die from lack of health care, etc?

But on another level, killing the future of the species seems short-sighted. And damn disappointing to those of us brought up on the (implied) promise of an exciting future for humanity.

[thunder rising]

11. This smells of concern.

[Ishoutandscream2]

13. Didn't we bomb the moon?

USA, USA, USA!!! HELL YEAH!!!

[bluestateguy]

14. I am not hostile to the space program

but it should also be seen as luxury for more prosperous times.

[harun]

48. Me too, they can do a lot with automated technologies instead of with

humans. I thought with the success of the Mars rovers we would enter upon an age of robotic exploration. Instead B*sh went with manned mission. I didn't see the benefits worth the money at the time.

Make a robotic fleet to explore Mars. Then this tech can be used for the real prize, the moons of Jupiter.

[HeresyLives]

16. Obama has burned the fleet.

:cry:

[Historic NY]

18. We've done it once its time to invest in other space exploration...

if the Moon was so viable we would have been shipping Republicans there long ago. To stay!

[no limit]

19. Good humans on the moon or any other planetary body is a total waste

I'm all for exploring space as well as funding all types of scientific research. But the money that needs to be spent to send humans in to out of space is absolutely insane and doesn't provide any real benefits. In fact a telescope or a rover can provide much more detailed analysis at a fraction of the cost.

[onehandle]

20. Sucko. There may have been issues with this program, but man in space is an important symbol.

That being said, anything to do with Bush should be canceled.

[no limit]

23. Why are symbols important? What are we all? Little children?

Im much more interested in actual scientific discovery, not meaningless symbols that make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside but don't actually accomplish anything.

[onehandle]

29. No, but little children are little children.

The Apollo missions were inspirational to us as children.

[no limit]

43. Well little children tend to grow up :)

and I would much rather see the billions spent to inspire them with another moon mission actually go toward their education. New computers and other technology in class rooms can note only also inspire but it can also teach.

[onehandle]

90. Very true.

If we could get our asses out of the Middle East we could have the best schools in the world and men on the moon.

See how I changed the subject there?


;-)


Damn us librul dreamers.

[go west young man]

49. Bush just signed off on the program.

Nasa developed the program. Many Nasa initiatives are developed over decades.

[Ian David]

21. The Moon is a dead-end. The real goal should be Mars.

It was draining resources from other US space agency activities, he added.

Yes, it was.

That was Bush's plan.

I think the only reason Bush set his sites on The Moon was to force NASA to divert money from Earth Sciences which kept warning about things like melting glaciers, CO2 levels an Global Warming.

Either that, or Bush wanted to secretly use The Moon to build a Mass-Driver weapon that could use lunar rocks as kinetic missiles.

[sandnsea]

26. There is a Mars program

For NASA, while the moon mission will be cancelled, there will be increased investment in robotics needed for a manned flight to Mars as well as a transition to commercial transport in preparation for the day when space travel becomes a reality.The International Space Station and Shuttle will also be kept alive, although in a reduced capacity. http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=1162

Lots of good stuff in this budget. It is such a shame that all anybody knows how to do anymore is bitch.

[TransitJohn]

32. Cancelling the moon program will make that Mars program thousands of times

more expensive. Launching everything from the bottom of the gravity well (Earth's surface) is very expensive.

[sandnsea]

34. Probably why they're keeping the Space Station

Any zero-gravity testing can be done there.

[Igel]

39. So, do we just send somebody there

until we have the manned Mars missions available?

Or crucially rely on the Russians for a lift?

I personally like the "we'll rely on commercial launches" line. Outsourcing.

[sandnsea]

42. No, commercial launching is transition to space travel

And what would be the problem with using the space station until we actually are somewhere near ready to man a mission to Mars?

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. A tin can in low earth orbit is NOT the proper plaform for launching us

to Mars. It does not have, CANNOT have, the resources to use as a base for a Mars mission. What is needed is a real, permanent space station, preferably at an L5 point where we won't need to constantly adjust its orbit, but really, if we are going to go THAT far out, why not just use the moon which is a pre-existent permanent base just WAITING for us?

[sandnsea]

67. Did I say it was?

How about you repeat what I said.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. You asked

"...what would be the problem with using the space station until we actually are somewhere near ready to man a mission to Mars?"

And I told you what the problem is. What do you want?

[sandnsea]

77. And when did I say to use it as a launch pad? n/t

[TransitJohn]

71. That makes no sense.

Anything on the ISS has to be sent from the Earth's surface, too. :crazy:

[sandnsea]

78. ISS has no gravity

Much of the experimentation necessary to launch from the moon can be done there first. I don't know what being sent to the ISS from Earth has to do with anything.

[joshcryer]

128. *All* DRM reports are direct from Earth to Mars. The Bush Moon Plan was a debacle. ISS 2.0.

(DRM = Design Reference Mission)

The moon base envisioned by VSE was just an ISS style hab on the surface of the moon.

No manufacturing capability.

No ISRU (in-situ resource utilization).

[tridim]

30. Disagree.. A moon base is hugely important for all future space mission.

Especially future Mars missions and beyond.

It's just that we're not ready yet, still too many major problems to solve. That, and we can't afford it right now.

[Ian David]

79. Mars Direct

Mars Direct
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mars Direct is a proposal for a cost-effective manned mission to the planet Mars that could be conducted with current technology.

The plan was originally detailed in a research paper by NASA engineers Robert Zubrin and David Baker in 1990. The plan was expanded upon in Zubrin's 1996 book The Case for Mars and is now a staple of Zubrin's speaking engagements and general advocacy as head of the Mars Society, an organization devoted to the colonization of Mars.

Scheme

The plan involves launching an unmanned "Earth Return Vehicle" (ERV) directly from Earth's surface to Mars using a heavy-lift booster, derived for example from Space Shuttle components. The booster is no bigger than the Saturn V used for the Apollo missions. Several launches are made in preparation for the manned mission.

The first flight brings an unmanned ERV to the red planet, with a supply of hydrogen, a chemical plant and a small nuclear reactor. Once there, a simple and proven set of chemical reactions (the Sabatier reaction coupled with electrolysis) would combine a small amount of hydrogen (8 tons) carried by the ERV with the carbon dioxide of the Martian atmosphere to create up to 112 tonnes of methane and oxygen propellants. 96 tonnes thereof would be needed to return the ERV to Earth at the end of the mission, the rest would be available for Mars rovers. This process would take approximately ten months to complete.

Some 26 months after the ERV is originally launched from Earth, a second vehicle, the "Mars Habitat Unit" (MHU), would be launched on a high-energy transfer to Mars carrying a crew of four astronauts. By this time telemetry from the automated factory had already signaled the successful production of the chemicals. This vehicle would take some six months to reach Mars. During the trip, artificial gravity would be generated by tying the spent upper stage of the booster to the Habitat Unit, and setting them both rotating about a common axis.

On reaching Mars, the upper stage would be jettisoned, with the Habitat Unit aerobraking into Mars orbit before soft-landing in proximity to the ERV. Precise landing will be supported by a radar beacon started by the first lander. Once on Mars, the crew would spend 18 months on the surface, carrying out a range of scientific research, aided by a small rover vehicle carried aboard their MHU, and powered by the methane produced by the ERV. To return, they would use the ERV, leaving the MHU for the possible use of subsequent explorers. The propulsion stage of the ERV would be used as a counterweight to generate artificial gravity for the trip back.

The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

[tridim]

83. Thanks. I know about Mars Direct. Thanks Science Channel!

It still largely ignores the radiation problems.

IMO it's too dangerous without a support base or support station. I believe we need a space elevator before any future Mars or Moon missions will be feasible and USEFUL.

[Ian David]

88. My idea is to inject a small asteroid into a permanent orbit between Earth and Mars...

... and then send our space ships in the asteroid's "shadow."

[tridim]

92. They have to do something. We need a 100% reliable radiation shield no matter what.

But I do know it's not trivial to alter the trajectory of an asteroid. Neat idea though.

On edit: How about parking on the asteroid and hitching a ride the entire trip?

[joshcryer]

130. I agree, but you need more than just a hab on the moon, you need *manufacturing* ability.

*None* of the Vision for Space Exploration initiatives suggested *any* level of manufacturing on the moon.

Because the costs are astronomical.

[onehandle]

35. The real goal should be mars, but the moon had value towards that goal.

However, there are a lot of viable and cheaper plans for getting to Mars from our orbit.

That being said, I now doubt that we will land a man on Mars in our lifetime.

Really sucko.

[comtec]

37. a mass driver would do global damage

it would make a nuke look like a fire cracker.
The number 1 reason to goto the moon is Hydrogen 3, a uber rare isotope of hydrogen that could be used in fusion plants.
whoever gets back to the moon wins the fusion race.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. I think you're right on the last line there -

wasn't Bush's pick for NASA head a weapons systems specialist?

[Ian David]

94. Not sure about that. But IIRC, he was a young-Earth Creationist and a Climate Change denier. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. I guess I was thinking of this guy -

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/AN_Feature_Administrator.html

Not a weapons systems scientist, but a lot of DOD and Pentagon connections.

[Ian David]

108. Same guy who stole a bunch of money or something and then had to resign? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. Didn't hear why he resigned, but Bush did replace him in '05 I gather. nt

[go west young man]

45. Check my links at post 22 to fully understand the Constellation program.

It's about small steps to develop the technology that will be the catalysts for future travel into space. Most of the folks who have posted in this forum so far have failed to grasp that Constellation is only part 1 of all future man in space exploration.

[go west young man]

59. That was not Bush's plan.

Bush's plan was most likely to totally defund Nasa and attempt to break it apart and have Space exploration privatized. He wasn't a big fan of science in any respect. He was an evangelical nutcase. He put inexperienced know nothings in charge to curb the message of amazing scientists like The Goddard Institutes James Hansen and many others. Link here:

NASA scientist rips Bush on global warming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

All aspects of space exploration are for the future good. The petty squabbling over money will always go on. There will be many future wars and never enough money but we create the money and we choose to fund the wars. Isaac Asimov would be pretty disappointed with where we are psychologically these days. We seem to be devolving. Judging from this DU thread we certainly have a long way to go. I see quite a few folks who have bought hook line and sinker the right wing talking view that money (which we create) is needed here yet very little talk of the fact it's paradoxically self destructive to spend like we do on war. Where are the real DU'ers, the real progressive liberals?

[Harry Monroe]

70. "Welcome to Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts." ...Governor George W. Bush

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
...Governor George W. Bush, 8/11/94

[whopis01]

116. You quote is incorrect - diffrent speaker, different year

Dan Quayle being interviewed on CNN on 8/11/89.

[Harry Monroe]

120. Pulled this from a site that attributed this quote to Bush during his years as Governor of Texas

[whopis01]

157. I can assure you that the site is incorrect.

I actually worked out at NASA-KSC back at the time Dan Quayle said that. We laughed about that one a lot back then.

[StevieM]

154. I think a better goal then Mars would be an unmanned mission to the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn

They are the best bet for extra-terrestrial life in the Solar System. Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moons Titan, and especially Enceladus.

Steve

[liberal N proud]

25. The motive for returning to the Moon was to send man to Mars

Something that unless space travel changes significantly it is not feasible to send man to Mars.

I remember when bu$h made the challenge to send man to Mars, it seemed like a remark he pulled from his ass.

I think space exploration is great and a natural thing for man to do. But we still have many problems here on earth to solve before we venture away from earth again.

[daleanime]

33. If we wait under till we are perfect to do anything...

we won't do anything. Would you like to see the rest of the world's attitude toward the US change? Tell them we're going to Mars, would you like to come with us?:bounce:

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Didn't somebody once say 'the poor we shall always have with us'?

If we wait until we've fixed all our problems on Earth, we will NEVER leave.

In fact, going out there in large numbers may be the solution to problems here on earth. When there are other worlds, perhaps this world will start seeing itself as a whole, rather than as the squabbling factions on it. It's a lot easier to see the next country over as a neighbor when you have other neighbors who are 30 million miles away. Transporting people and goods to and from Mars makes transporting food from one country to the starving people next door seem easy.

The technological advances that will accompany a renewed commitment to living in space and on other worlds will be prodigious - we can't even conceive what they might be.

By all rights we should have a moon colony RIGHT NOW. It's been more than 40 years since we first set foot on the moon. It's been 30 years since we LAST set foot on the moon. The moon landings proved we could set down and return safely from the surface. We have the technological capability. We need the moon base as a kind of out-of-town tryout for the Mars expedition, so we can perfect the construction of habitats - either free standing or tunneled - in a place that approximates the conditions of Mars, but close enough that we can help them out if they get in trouble.

It wouldn't even be all that difficult to work out - simply move the big contracts from the MIC to the space program. The guys that are now sucking up all our money by making weapons and running wars can suck it up producing rockets and shuttles and landing craft and habitats and shielded electronics and ground vehicles - there is a LOT of money to be made servicing the space program. And if we are diverting money from war, that fixes a LOT of the 'problems here on earth'.

[go west young man]

63. Mars is step 2.

Beyond Mars is step 3. Please see my up thread link on the Constellation program.

[elocs]

27. Good!

:thumbsup: :fistbump: :applause:

[Gore1FL]

102. Why?

The space program investments have returned their investments 10-fold.

[no_hypocrisy]

31. Guess no missile "defense" project on the Moon any time soon.

[Mike Nelson]

38. Breeding More Stay Home Voters

Money for space, not wars...

sad.

[butterfly77]

41. Finally someone is getting rid ..

of some of this space shit!

[liberation]

56. Damn right!

I mean, space exploration is silly... I shudder to think of a world were humans were exploring and conquering space to focus on solving major technological and humanitarian challenges, while bomb makers and bank cartels have to cut down on their luxury vacation homes! That would be not just extremely fiscally irresponsible, but down right ridiculous!


After all, each dollar we waste in NASA... is a dollar which could be used bombing the shit out of somebody who has done nothing to us, or better yet.. it could be given for free to a bankster so that he can loan it back to us at interest. I mean, can you imagine the horrible situation we would be in right now, had we not used all the money we wasted on two useless wars... and instead used it to develop the technology to help the US be at the forefront in clean and independent energy production? I shudder to think about all those jobs created at home, and the cleaner environment that would have ensued. The horror....

[rox63]

44. Although my inner science-geek is sad, the grown-up realist in me agrees with this decision n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

46. Good.

It would just be money wasted. We've been there and done that. Unless there is something other than collecting rocks and planting another flag that needs doing we can spend the money better on other things.

[harkadog]

51. I wonder if Columbus had your attitude.

Been there, done that. No need to ever go back.

[Stuckinthebush]

52. Then perhaps the native americans would still be thriving

Not a bad thing, huh?

[harkadog]

98. I knew my post would bring out the haters

If you are not 100% Native maybe you should return to your origins and help them out. OK?

[Stuckinthebush]

121. OK

What am I a hater of exactly? I'm confused.

[harkadog]

126. People like to imply or directly assert European

migration to North America f'd everything up. It is called self hatred. They like to imply America would be some peaceful nirvana if Europeans had not shown up. BS. That ignores that all most all tribes in N. America fought one another and most were cannibals as well. Again if you think Natives would be better off without others then why are you still around?

[Stuckinthebush]

153. First, you have no idea of my heritage

so the self-hatred thing is jumping the gun.

Second, I never mentioned that the native americans were all peace and nirvana. That would be stupid of me to do.

I simply pointed out that without the decimation of the native population via guns and disease, then the native population would still probably be thriving. I don't see how that's a jump in logic.

The fact of the matter is that the Europeans kind of screwed up this side of the world. Pretty badly. Noting the obvious doesn't make me a "hater".

History is full of facts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Europeans killed the native population in the Americas. It's all in the history books.

Oh, and as for your last line, I very well could still be around but speaking German. No biggie.

[Ganja Ninja]

110. I didn't say we never needed to go back.

Read my whole post. I said we don't need to go back for more rocks and flag planting. There's no real reason for that. Unless we have a long term program with achievable and necessary goals, in other words unless we plan on staying there, there's nothing to be gained by going back. We can't afford to go there just to show up the Chinese.

[benEzra]

155. Not the best analogy...

our current approach would have been like Columbus anchoring his ships 300 miles off the coast of Spain for 25 years, and resupplying his crew with ships from Spain every six months. And King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella cancelling a plan to build a giant rowboat to take 3 people across the Atlantic sometime in the 1530s or 1540s.

Constellation would IMO undermine manned moon exploration just like the shuttle and space station have, by siphoning off the funding and political will into dead-end directions. Buzz Aldrin, who is a huge proponent of going back to the moon as soon as it is practical (as am I), has been harshly critical of the Constellation program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-need-better-rocket_b_351335.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5906199.html

He seems to think that Constellation is a jobs continuation program for current Shuttle contractors, not a moon program, and it's hard to argue with that perception.

[on point]

47. Very Sensible and forward thinking

This was part of the neocon strategy of world domination. Hold the high ground. Bushco wanted to get there before the Chinese and is one of the reasons they resisted efforts to demilitarize space.

The more scientific and sound space engineering research is to continue to build out the space station, learn what we can, and use this as a launch platform for further exploration.

Besides a great base for observation and transmission gear (inward to earth and especially out to space) there is no real need to rush to the moon. Let's take our time and make that leap when we need to, and it is in the natural next step. And there4 may be smarter ways to do it. What if we 'retired' the space shuttles to space as orbital work platforms and regular moon tugs? Even fuel them from our waste products (water and hydrogen).

We need to develop a long term plan for space exploration and build out, and this should be an international plan. I agree we should invest and lead in this area, but need to actively pursue international partnership and effort.

[go west young man]

65. Links to videos on the program:

NASA Constellation Program, Moon, Mars, and Beyond http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5M7Ij-rr8

Constellation on the Moon http://www.space.com/common/media/show/player.php?show_id=38&ep=1

The moon is one small step on the way to colonizing Mars and then moving further into outer space. Colonizing the moon will help us figure out the technologies needed to go beyond the moon. We can't use Mars as a test area for human colonization. The moon is the first logical step. I'm sure Spock would agree.

[salguine]

53. Canceling this particular program was a sensible decision. "Turning to the

private sector for launch services" is a monumentally stupid one that will lead to nothing but disaster.

[FailureToCommunicate]

57. NOW how we gonna find that black shiny box thing that 'spossed ta make us smaarter?

[AngryAmish]

60. Looks like the time has come to bomb the fucking moon again

Fuck them.

[Harry Monroe]

66. Let's put our own country and planet in orbit before we fuck up our moon

...and other planets in the solar system. It's just as well we're not exploring the Solar System right now, we've fucked this place up enough!! Until we grow as a species, we should not be exploring other worlds.

[StarryNite]

72. Ohh, well how much

could a lunar sound stage possibly cost? :sarcasm:

:hide:

[winyanstaz]

73. K & R...more good news...

Right now we need to fix the mess on Earth.

[GoCubsGo]

95. +1

I would rather see those hundreds of billions of dollars put into exploring our own planet. We know very little about the deepest parts of our own oceans. We have untold numbers of plant and animal species that have not been discovered and/or described. Our national parks system is a disaster due to budget cuts and neglect. We have dozens of Superfund sites that need to be reclaimed, and hundreds more places that should Superfund sites. Let's deal with those before we go back to the moon. We've already been there, done that.

[Kablooie]

74. There was no solid reason to send people to the moon again.

The only reasons I heard were from NASA representatives were very weak.
It seems that it was basically a stupid Bush idea from the start.
The only major plan he would agree to fund.

If they develop a viable plan to get people to Mars or asteroids it might be used as a stepping off point but that is not the case at the moment.

[closeupready]

75. Good. Money doesn't grow on trees, and we can't afford this right now.

n/t

[Gore1FL]

103. Good investments don't grow on trees either, and we can't afford not to do this right now.

[closeupready]

104. We can't afford NOT to bankrupt the federal government? Isn't that kind of bizarre?

??

[Gore1FL]

133. An investment like this solves the problems.

It puts people to work, improves our technology, creates new industries. Look at what the strides in computers due to needs in the space program made possible in U.S industry. Look at the uses of Velcro, the lives save with Pheresis, the advancement of solar energy, etc. etc. In the long run it is a money maker not a money expenditure.

Stopping this is the same as cutting funding to infrastructure. It is a short-sighted savings with long-term damage.

[Green_Lantern]

76. dumb decision...

It sounds like he's wanting to privatize the exploration of space in false hopes that it'll reduce costs. Space exploration, however shouldn't just be left to the market because it won't be seen as profitable at this stage.

The other projects he says this is draining money from rely on the exploration of the Moon's low gravity. This would be like if we had wanted to explore California without going through the Midwest.

[sandnsea]

80. The ISS has low gravity

And the transition to commercial space launching is for private space travel, a whole new industry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. The ISS is in free fall.

Zero gravity, for all intents and purposes.

You may be confusing the term "microgravity" with low gravity.

[sandnsea]

84. Okay

But can't anything that relates to gravity the moon and Mars, for the next 3 years or so, be done at the space station? It's not like we're going to the moon next week and set up lab.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. If you're talking about experiments involving gravity...

no, you can't really do it at the ISS.

That said, both the moon and Mars are boondoggles, IMO. Nobody was even talking about the moon until the Chinese talked about a moon mission after their successful taikonaut launch, so it always just struck me as more nationalism.

[sandnsea]

91. That's what they said it was for

So I'm baffled now. I have mixed feelings about the space program, mostly that we keep doing shit that has unintended environmental consequences, but we just can't stop doing them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. The ISS is for experiments involving zero gravity.

The effect of zero gravity for bone loss, the effect of zero gravity on crystal growth, etc.

There's actually plenty of gravity at the altitude of the ISS, but it's in orbit and in free fall so the effect is essentially zero gravity. Some people call this "microgravity" but I think that just leads to even more confusion.

The force of gravity on Mars is about 40% compared to Earth. Some people say that this could have all sort of unpredictable effects on future manned missions, and therefore we should study things on the Moon first, where the force of gravity is about 15% of that on Earth. Frankly, I think that's a load of bullshit.

[sandnsea]

105. Moon v. ISS gravity

What's the difference between those two?

Why is crystal growth important?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. 0.16 g, vs. 0 g

Can't divide by zero.

Crystal growth is important for fundamental research in chemistry and physics.

Is it worth the billions that are spent on it? Probably not.

The ISS is just floating around up there and people are constantly coming up with zero-g experiments that have little or even no scientific value. Many people, myself included, think the ISS is a boondoggle as well.

[Green_Lantern]

85. I know but

The Moon is easier to reach than the ISS and isn't some man made facility where we can test in a natural environment.

[sandnsea]

89. The Moon is easier to reach??

Is that what you mean to say?

[Green_Lantern]

100. nevermind...

I thought it was out further.

[struggle4progress]

87. Good. It was an idiotic project. Let's fund real space science with good instruments and robotics

[Ter]

96. Wow, even Bush supported this

Guess that's change. (

[Phoonzang]

97. You know...no one has read these new plans carefully. The Moon return

is being canceled, but NASA's budget is being increased (at least for now) and money is being funneled into research for advanced propulsion systems. Propulsion systems that will get HUMANS to Mars and elsewhere in the solar system quickly. So instead of ending manned space flight, this may set the groundwork for extensive manned exploration of space.

So all of the people who are celebrating this may end up pounding dirt and crying in a decade or two when we're zooming off to Mars.

[go west young man]

107. All aspects of these programs are important.

Please see my video links above to understand the concept of the full Constellation program. The moon is step 1 for manned space flight. $6 billion has already gone into the program. The idea is that by establishing a colony on the moon all the bugs will then be worked out for Mars and beyond. The moon is step 1. Cancellation puts manned space flight essentially on the back burner. I would also like to add for all the nay saying DU'ers posting that Kennedy went for it with Vietnam, Civil Rights, The Bay of Pigs, The Cold War and plenty of other issues on hand. His vision was a man on the moon by the end of that decade and it was achieved. Yet 40 years later we can't do any of this due to budgetary restraints? Yet we can throw a trillion and a half down a hole in the desert? Man judging from the responses in this thread we need a whole new DU. Renamed Progressive Democratic Underground for people who actually want to explore, change and advance the world. The DU I'm looking at reads like a page from the Jurassic Era. No guts, fearful of the future, clueless on Bush and Nasa, lacking understanding on the issue at hand. Man the site needs an overhaul. I'll say it again. Check the Constellation program out people to fully understand Nasa's plans for future manned space exploration.

[RedCloud]

99. You cannot return the moon. Statute of limitations expired. Caveat emptor.

[Gore1FL]

101. Poor choice. NASA should have 10 times its budget.

We are where we are today because of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. The fact we can discuss this on the internet today has hooks into those very programs.

Apollo 11 says less about us as a people than Apollo 18, 19, and 20.

[sandnsea]

109. NASA got a budget increase

Just not for the moon program.

[Gore1FL]

134. I understand that. But we need the moon, too.

NASA is involved in multiple major projects, including the ISS, the unmanned missions, planning for Mars and hopefully planning for the moon. They don't have the money to do everythign that needs to be done even with an increase, and it is arguably every bit as important to economy as our infrastructure.

[Baclava]

111. What is "green aviation"?

Aircraft with sails?

Balloons?

Wait - I know!



Zeppelins are cool!

[LongTomH]

113. Please check out my post on the Science forum:

Referencing Bad Astronomer Phil Plait's analysis of the Obama Administration's decision: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x62406

[David Zephyr]

115. This is just wrong. Stop the fucking wars and fund science and NASA.

Jeez!

[izquierdista]

117. Private sector?

:wtf:
I could support this if Lloyd Blankfein and Tim Geithner get one-way tickets.

[PacerLJ35]

123. "Lacking innovation"...um, yes, of course...because any idiot can get to the moon!

It's so easy a cave man can do it...stupid NASA, what were they thinking trying for such a simpleton project?

[nolabear]

124. Shows which sci-fi world we live in, doesn't it?

Not the Utopian one where mankind explores and settles on other bodies, and not the post-apocalyptic one where we bomb ourselves into oblivion (though there's till time). We seem to be in the sci-fi world of disillusionment, government control (and by this I mean the RW version, with their hands on our bodies, in our beds and wrestling for control of our minds). Clockwork Orange, Fahrenheit 451, Vonnegut's works (and not a few of Kilgore Trout's) come to mind. It's not horrifying, but depressing.

That said, I support the pull-back for now, I'm just damned sorry I must.

[Hubert Flottz]

125. We have bigger craters on the Interstate highways that the ones

on the moon.

[ngant17]

129. JFK's original Apollo Programme

was never designed to be a "space race" against the USSR to the moon. It was designed to be a cooperative mission (a la Apollo-Soyuz) to reduce the enormous costs of manned space exploration by any one single nation.

NASA management failed miserably at that task in Nov. 1963, even though highly-placed civilian scientists such as Dryden were all for the cooperative idea (NASA was and still is a quasi-military organization and it has only gotten more ossified since then).

Yes, it is possible we could work with the Chinese astronauts. Except that an old US law passed by the Republican rightwing in 1963 specifically prohibits space cooperation with communist or communist-controlled nations! And this was the sort of thing which the the treasonous NASA of 1963 was delighted, at the expense of the President's direct authority.

I really think NASA management if not the whole organization would have been shattered into a thousand pieces, like the CIA, by JFK in December of 1963, had he survived the assassination and remained in power.

The declassifed historical records do seem to suggest this.

[hedgehog]

135. I think we've established during the last 50 years that the

science fiction notion of settlements on the Moon or Mars are just that - science fiction. It doesn't rain on Venus, there was never an ancient civilization on Mars and there is no good reason for people to go to those places.

If you want to inspire the next generation, how about saving the Pacific salmon? or the Great Lakes ecosystem? restoring the prairie?

If you want to use technology to inspire the next generation, how about building a functioning settlement on the site of Detroit , Michigan?

[depakid]

139. Bush's State of the Union moonshot wasn't going anywhere- better to scrap it

sooner rather than later.

[Kolesar]

140. The space industry *is* the war machine

Space exploration was the mid twentieth century equivalent of the Europeans colonizing five continents. Bigger guns and bigger ships.

All of the tax payer funding was just gravy for Martin Marietta, Rockwell, Boeing, etc.

[One_Life_To_Give]

141. MoonBase Alpha, we hardly knew ye

So many years, so little accomplished.

[panzerfaust]

143. ... recognizing that war on earth is more important than exploration in space

[go west young man]

144. Many DU'ers in this thread have failed to grasp the benefits of a colony on the moon.

To fully understand ALL the reasons to continue the program please take the time to read the wiki page on the subject and Nasa's own site on Moon to Mars. There are many reasons to go with the most important being developing new technologies that will take us further on to Mars and eventually out to colonizing the solar system and the Universe. Links here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

Here's some of the technologies and job's that have been created through Constellation. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/stars/profiles/hill.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/09-099.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/acm_test.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/drogue_test.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/aresIX_modal_test.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/building_original.html

There are many jobs being cut and many new innovations that will be curtailed for some time due to the new budget. I ask DU'ers once again why we can't do all the things Nasa wants to do? Yet we can fund two wars? $540 billion for war this year. $40 billion for space. Our priorities are skewered and DU seems to lack innovative desire. Funding is the problem and it seems paradoxical that we can fund wars and fund the failing banks yet we can't fund innovation. Out of over 50 posters in this thread maybe 8 or so agree with the OP. I see that as sad. We need a more progressive Democratic Underground.

And folks Bush put forward the initiative he didn't think it up himself. NASA scientists came up with the plan. They are apolitical.

[kentauros]

147. Many DU'ers fail to grasp NASA in general, unfortunately...

:thumbsup: on the links, though :)

Here's another link people here should be reading: NASA Tech Briefs

I would like to add that while politicians gave up on going to the Moon, and probably much longer ago than this, many of the engineering firms that contract to NASA did not give up. Plenty of engineering of various ideas for getting there, setting up shop and manufacturing all those materials needed for interplanetary ships is ongoing. The Moon isn't just "rocks". Those rocks contain ores and elements like aluminum, oxygen and titanium. Launching from the Moon costs less than from the Earth due to both low gravity and no air (that is, no drag or need for aerodynamic design.)

The Moon isn't just a launching site, either. One thing most people here have probably never heard about is the idea of using craters on the far side of the Moon as telescopes, both visual spectrum and radio. At 1/6th the gravity, you can have much larger mirrors than are possible on Earth, and no atmosphere to mess up the view ;)

[go west young man]

148. Very cool info.

Thanks for offering some hope in what has become a pretty disappointing thread.

[kentauros]

151. You're weclome :)

When I see threads like these, I know that they will eventually become a disappointment. They do better in the Science forum, for the most part.

I used to get NASA Tech Briefs at one company, back when they still gave out free publications. I read about O-LEDs there (organic light-emitting diodes), as spinoff technology. So, anyone out there enjoying your OLED media device (like say, the Cowon S9), you have NASA to thank for developing the tech ;)

[krabigirl]

150. Well, when we end the wars, maybe then we could go?

I just don't see where the money comes from for all of this stuff. I want to see the wars end first, especially Iraq.

[kentauros]

152. As someone pointed out upthread

solving all of our problems first never happens. Ending the wars now doesn't mean there won't still be wars in which we are involved. As for where the money comes from, well, it's borrowed. The people borrowing it today don't care about the interest it accrues tomorrow. It's not their money to begin with, or so that appears to be how they think about it...

Now, what really boggles the mind to me is that many of the companies making the weapons for our wars also have their fingers in NASA. Seems like they would want to keep those contracts going, too, and even bump up their priorities as that means that much more money for them.

[woo me with science]

145. Terrible, terrible decision. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

149. "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation".

I disagree. We are more than ready to go back to the moon and begin work on long term stay facilitates.

[benEzra]

156. I agree. But many don't feel that the current program is a viable means to that end.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5906199.html