Barack Obama: Advancing the Frontiers of Space Exploration

[JMS]

Obama endorses Bush's plan to return to the moon and perhaps even mars?

"When I was growing up, NASA united Americans to a common purpose and inspired the world with accomplishments we are still proud of. Today, NASA is an organization that impacts many facets of American life. I believe NASA needs an inspirational vision for the 21st Century. My vision will build on the great goals set forth in recent years, to maintain a robust program of human space exploration and ensure the fulfillment of NASA's mission. Together, we can ensure that NASA again reflects all that is best about our country and continue our nation's preeminence in space."

-- Barack Obama

A ROBUST AND BALANCED PROGRAM OF SPACE EXPLORATION AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

Over the past 50 years our civilian space program has embodied the adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. At the same time, America's leadership in space has provided the United States with a scientific and economic edge. Barack Obama believes the United States should maintain its international leadership in space while at the same time inspiring a new generation of Americans to dream beyond the horizon. Barack Obama believes that what President Kennedy said about space more than 45 years ago remains valid today: "The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. . . . We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained . . . and used for the progress of all people."

THE CHALLENGE

Historically, the U.S. space program has inspired people the world over with its feats on behalf of all humankind. This leadership can continue; indeed, the Bush administration set an ambitious agenda for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but has since failed to provide adequate funding or leadership to move forward with that agenda. As a result, key programs have suffered. Poor planning and inadequate funding are leading to at least a five-year gap after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. During those years, the United States will have to depend on foreign rockets and spacecraft to send Americans to orbit. NASA has had to slash its research budget, including its aeronautical research, its programs to study climate change, microgravity research that can yield new technologies, and even the robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the universe beyond. Many other countries are moving forward in space; the United States cannot afford to fall behind.

for more see

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880

[@DCGoldPants]

How come in the 1960's, we could get to the moon in less than 10 years.

Now it seems to take twice that to do it again.

[Sarge]

How come in the 1960's, we could get to the moon in less than 10 years.

Now it seems to take twice that to do it again.

They have to have time to get space junk up to the landing sites so they can continue with the "We went to the Moon" charade

[SnyderShrugged]

another senseless waste of tax dollars with very little return on investment.

[Larry]

I assume that part of the "gap" is due to transition time.

The VAB, for example, is filled with "floors" that are custom-designed to fit a Shuttle/ET/SRB bundle. All of that's going to have to be stripped out, and new custom-built floors installed that will fit Orion.

I also get the impression that part of the delay is that the money to build Orion is going to come from money that used to be going to the Shuttle. So, until the Shuttle retires, they don't have any money to start building Orion.

(OTOH, I also suspect that part of the delay is that Bush wants

credit

for going back to the Moon, but doesn't want to pay for it. So what he's done is to budget a plan where the big money gets spent after he leaves office.)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Darn. I really thought they'd found a way to micronize people to explore the empty space between Obama's ears. What a jip.

[Burgold]

I thought we developed a heck a lot of technology figuring out how to get to the moon. In the field of computing alone we made huge strides, not to mention the medical advances, optometric advances, and where would any of us be without VELCRO

[Larry]

another senseless waste of tax dollars with very little return on investment.

And here I used to think you were such an intelligent person in other threads.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Such a hoax, everyone knows that we never went to the moon in the first place. Just ask Ken.

[SnyderShrugged]

And here I used to think you were such an intelligent person in other threads.

I just think that we could certainly prioritize the funds used for tax exploration towards more meaningful concerns or dare I say, refund the taxpayer.

There is monstrous waste in the space program. :2cents:

[Larry]

There is monstrous waste in the space program. :2cents:

You know that because everybody else's space program is so much cheaper?

[SnyderShrugged]

You know that because everybody else's space program is so much cheaper?

I think that know that because after billions of dollars invested, they still havnt designed a better model than the jalopy of a space shuttle that was originally designed in the 70's, just havent seen where the money is going, I guess.

seriously, because maybe I am missing the benefit, but what return is the taxpayer getting from the space program today? I honestly ask this in ignorance of the benefits.

[mjah]

I think that know that because after billions of dollars invested, they still havnt designed a better model than the jalopy of a space shuttle that was originally designed in the 70's, just havent seen where the money is going, I guess.

seriously, because maybe I am missing the benefit, but what return is the taxpayer getting from the space program today? I honestly ask this in ignorance of the benefits.

Given the ridiculously long technological and political wish list it is was forced to satisfy, the Space Shuttle is probably one of the finest pieces of engineering ever devised. For every highly visible mistake in its design (thermal tiles vs. tank foam, no reasonable survivability in some critical launch failure modes), there are literally dozens of incredible achievements to point out. It has many capabilities that have never even been used, meaning we never have and never will fully explore what it can do.

Speaking of doing, that brings us to its major problem: It has very, very little of real scientific value to do -- the kind of stuff that holds some promise for massive Apollo-style returns down the line. Building the International Space Station is a triumph of engineering, but it's hardly fundamental science. If the ISS was ready to do some truly interesting fundamental science, the Shuttle's legacy would be different. But it's not. I wouldn't be surprised of Hubble does more basic research in a week than the ISS does in a year or two or three. So the Shuttle really isn't even contributing indirectly to basic science through its main mission of building the ISS.

Fixing Hubble was a direct contribution to science, and we learned a lot from it. Needed the Shuttle for that. But it probably would have been cheaper and just as effective to just launch a second and then a third Hubble than to use six Shuttle launches to put it in orbit and then service it a bunch of times. So, I dunno.

If future missions to the Moon and (maybe) Mars somehow use the ISS for rendezvous, or build on Shuttle-derived engine technology or on-orbit assembly techniques, then I guess I'll be less critical. But as a piece of machinery, the Shuttle really is about as incredible as they come.

[skinthemboys]

Darn. I really thought they'd found a way to micronize people to explore the empty space between Obama's ears. What a jip.

:laugh: good one

[Zen-like Todd]

Just more evidence that Obama is going to mean a third Bush term.... oh, wait.

[PokerPacker]

Darn. I really thought they'd found a way to micronize people to explore the empty space between Obama's ears. What a jip.

gyp, as in gypsy (no seriously, that's what it came from)

[Smoot Point Really]

"Advancing the Frontiers of Space Exploration..." Let's go to the moon! We've never been there before!

[JMS]

How come in the 1960's, we could get to the moon in less than 10 years.

Now it seems to take twice that to do it again.

Basically it's about money. Right now all the money goes to keeping the space shuttle flying. We need to keep the space shuttle going until we have completed our obligation to build the international space station.

Once we stop flying the space shuttle all that money will go to building and financing the new manned mission to the moon.

We could go quicker if congress would come off some coin, but the way it's being billed/sold is like a revenue neutral move.

There are alot of democrats who don't want to do it. Barney Frank is chairman of the Financial Services committee and he doesn't want to put any money in either going back to the moon or to mars.

[Prosperity]

on the usefulness of the ISS

Send It Somewhere Special

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102394_pf.html

By Michael Benson

Sunday, July 13, 2008; B03

Consider the International Space Station, that marvel of incremental engineering. It has close to 15,000 cubic feet of livable space; 10 modules, or living and working areas; a Canadian robot arm that can repair the station from outside; and the capacity to keep five astronauts (including the occasional wealthy rubbernecking space tourist) in good health for long periods. It has gleaming, underused laboratories; its bathroom is fully repaired; and its exercycle is ready for vigorous mandatory workouts.

The only problem with this $156 billion manifestation of human genius -- a project as large as a football field that has been called the single most expensive thing ever built -- is that it's still going nowhere at a very high rate of speed. And as a scientific research platform, it still has virtually no purpose and is accomplishing nothing.

Which leads us right back to the expensively orbiting ISS. It hasn't a fig-leaf's role left. The moon is the new "stepping stone," with Mars bruited as a next destination. Although NASA officials will never quite say so, their current attitude seems to be that the station is essentially a high-maintenance distraction, even a mistake. Their plan is to finish assembling the thing ASAP and hand the keys over to the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese, with minimal continuing U.S. involvement. This should happen by the shuttle's mandatory retirement in 2010. Meanwhile, we're still writing a lot of high-denomination checks and preparing the two remaining shuttles for risky flights to finish something we then plan to be largely rid of. This seems absurd. I have an alternative proposal:

Send the ISS somewhere.

The ISS, you see, is already an interplanetary spacecraft -- at least potentially. It's missing a drive system and a steerage module, but those are technicalities. Although it's ungainly in appearance, it's designed to be boosted periodically to a higher altitude by a shuttle, a Russian Soyuz or one of the upcoming new Constellation program Orion spacecraft. It could fairly easily be retrofitted for operations beyond low-Earth orbit. In principle, we could fly it almost anywhere within the inner solar system -- to any place where it could still receive enough solar power to keep all its systems running.

It's easy to predict what skeptics both inside and outside NASA will say to this idea. They'll point out that the new Constellation program is already supposed to have at least the beginnings of interplanetary ability. They'll say that the ISS needs to be resupplied too frequently for long missions. They'll worry about the amount of propellant needed to push the ISS's 1,040,000 pounds anywhere -- not to mention bringing them all back.

There are good answers to all these objections. We'll still need the new Constellation Ares boosters and Orion capsules -- fortuitously, they can easily be adapted to a scenario in which the ISS becomes the living- area and lab core of an interplanetary spacecraft. The Ares V heavy-lift booster could easily send aloft the additional supplies and storage and drive modules necessary to make the ISS truly deep-space-worthy.

The Orion crew exploration module is designed to be ISS-compatible. It could serve as a guidance system and also use its own rocket engine to help boost and orient the interplanetary ISS. After remaining dormant for much of the one-year journey to, say, Mars, it could then be available to conduct independent operations while the ISS core orbited the Red Planet, or to investigate an asteroid near Earth, for instance.

But, the skeptics will say, the new Orion capsule's engines wouldn't be nearly enough; a spacecraft as large as the ISS would need its own drive system. Here, too, we're in surprisingly good shape. The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think. Moreover, a drive system doesn't have to be based on chemical rockets. Over the past two decades, both the U.S. and Japanese programs have conducted highly successful tests in space of ion-drive systems. Unlike the necessarily impatient rockets we use to escape Earth's gravity and reach orbit, these long-duration, low-thrust engines produce the kind of methodical acceleration (and deceleration) appropriate for travel once a spacecraft is already floating in zero gravity. They would be a perfect way to send the ISS on its way and bring it back to Earth again.

This leaves a lander. A lunar lander substantially larger than the spidery Apollo-era LEMs is currently on the drawing board. It's not nearly as far along in development as the Ares booster and Orion spacecraft components of the Constellation program -- which is a good thing. While I question the need to return to the moon in the first place, I wouldn't exclude it as a possible destination, so I think we should modify the lander's design to make it capable of touching down on either the moon or Mars and then returning to the ISS with samples for study in its laboratories. Such landers could also investigate the moon's poles, where we think water may be present, or one of the near-Earth asteroids -- which may have raw materials suitable for use by future generations of space explorers.

But, our skeptics will sputter, this will all cost far more money than the Constellation program. Who'll pay for it?

Actually, it will in effect save all the money we've already spent on the ISS. And the station is already an international project, with substantial financial and technological input from the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese. In recent years, the Chinese, who have developed their own human spaceflight capabilities, have made repeated overtures to NASA, hoping to be let in on the ISS project. They've been unceremoniously rebuffed by the Bush administration, but a new administration may be more welcoming. An interplanetary ISS -- the acronym now standing for International Space Ship -- would be a truly international endeavor, with expenses shared among all participating nations.

[JMS]

"Advancing the Frontiers of Space Exploration..." Let's go to the moon! We've never been there before!

We haven't been to the moon in 30 years. The engineers and the rockets which took us are long gone. We have to re-create new lunar landers, and vehicles to take us to the moon.

And going to the moon is not the mission. The mission is to go to mars, The moon is the dress rehersal.

[JMS]

another senseless waste of tax dollars with very little return on investment.

Yeah because the technology which came out of the space program in the 60's and 70's, in engineering, in materials, in computers, and in telecommunications weren't worth the investment?

The original gemini, mercury, and appolo programs have more than paid for themseves over the years.

[redwoody86]

seriously, because maybe I am missing the benefit, but what return is the taxpayer getting from the space program today? I honestly ask this in ignorance of the benefits.

I would say that the best tangible benefit is one of those "what-if" scenarios of the end of Earth, and being able to either stop it, or relocate. If we do the years of research now, we will be able to throw together a feasible solution in much less time then if we see the asteroid coming towards Earth, and people saying, we need to build a craft that can leave the atmosphere.

Also, I would assume there are some military benefits.

[JMS]

You know that because everybody else's space program is so much cheaper?

I think we all know there is waste in the space program because of the flawless safety record of the shuttle. Hell any time NASA want's a new space platform all they do is soak the taxpayers.

Certainly if two shuttles had blown up on missions, or if we were flying the shuttles for a decade longer than they were designed to fly, due to lack of funds, certainly then no one would claim NASA was wasting tax payer money.

Hell why even have a space program. It's not like our friends the Russians and Chinese aren't happy to float our satilites for us. We are one of the most technological dependent countries on Earth... Why the hell do we have to spend money developing technology? Why can't we just sit on our asses and wait for someone else to achieve it?

[JMS]

seriously, because maybe I am missing the benefit, but what return is the taxpayer getting from the space program today? I honestly ask this in ignorance of the benefits.

At Home..

• coordless Power Tools and Appliances
  
• Smoke Detector
  
• Clean Water for the Home
  
• Home Insulation
  
• Polar Sun Glasses
  

At the Hospital

• "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery
  
• Space Telescope Looks for Cancer
  
• Body Imaging
  
• New Arms and Legs
  
• Infrared Thermometer
  
• Light emitting diodes (LED)
  
• Composite Forceps
  
• Pill-Sized Transmitter
  
• Chromosome Analysis
  
• Digital Mammography
  
• Camera on a Chip
  

At the Airport

• Lightning Protection
  
• Windshear Prediction
  
• Collision Avoidance
  

At the Statidum

• Helmet Padding
  
• Golfball Aerodynamics
  

At the museum

• NASA Technology Watches Over Historic Documents
  
• Space Age Archeology
  
• Looking for a Hidden Masterpiece
  
• Dead Sea Scrolls Brought to Life
  

At the farm

• Robotic Mother Pig
  
• Crop Management from Orbit - No Small Potatoes!
  
• Crop Dusters Improve Their Aim
  
• At the Fire Station
  
• Firefighter Breathing System
  
• Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools
  

For the World

• Fishing from Orbit ( we track the health of our oceans via satalites).
  
• Feeding the World - And Other Worlds Too
  
• Caring for the Oceans
  
• Preventing Landmine Explosions
  
• Oil Spill Control - None of Your Beeswax!
  
• "Tailprints" Tell a Whale of a Tale
  
• Fighting Forest Fires
  

Science

• Virtual Reality - NASA Explores Another New World
  
• Laser Sharp!
  
• Global Communications
  

Telecommunications and Airospace (Boeing) are basically our best/most lucrative export sectors, along with Movies and Farm Produce. Both come from the space program.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Everyone cites velcro and the microwave as off-shoots as the space program. But those were developed 40 years ago. What are the recent off-shoots that we wouldn't get by simply launching satellites and various deep-space explorers?

The money and risk involved in manned-space programs far far far far far outweighs any benefit at this point.

This is one area where I definitely feel it is probably best just to leave the field and the private sector hash it out.