OT: NASA's Shuttle Replacement Axed

Submitted by Blazefire on
Rant > TOTALLY OT, but go with me on this anyway, as M is pretty well known for its work with the space program. The White House today axed the shuttle replacement and all plans for a future trip to the moon. The Moon I don't care about so much. We do need to return, but not until a concrete and ready plan for a permanent encampment, which will require more advanced drives for shorter flights, etc, is ready. I'm not sure if the 2020 Goal left enough time to set that up. The cancellation of the shuttle replacement, however, is extremely disappointing. The message is quite clear. "We do not need a manned space flight program." And frankly, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. For ages, one of man's greatest dreams and goals was to reach the stars. We finally do, and 50 years of it is enough? No more? That's downright offensive. We should have such a narrow vision that cutting a program of such grandeur, wonder, and inspiration to protect a political party's grip? The only reason anyone even wants to see NASA's budget cut is because NASA hasn't done anything "epic" lately, thanks to their dramatically cut budget! In my entire life, I have not seen one person leave low earth orbit. I'm a major space freak, and even I am somewhat bored of the space program. It's a wonder school kids today even look up at night. Furthermore, the new plan is to utilize private industry when we need to put people into space, under the pretense that this saves money from the government budget. PRIVATE INDUSTRY IS ALREADY WHAT BUILDS OUR SPACECRAFT! There is no NASA Factory somewhere. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and others are contracted by NASA to design and build our spacecraft. They're not going to do it themselves. There's no money in spaceflight without government contracts. So all we've really succeeded in doing is demoralizing the space program and hurting its ability to perform its primary task even further, lessening public interest in an important scientific field, and saving maybe a few million in overhead that could have lead to trillions in profitable discoveries and high quality public support... all for a few headlines and maybe a congressional seat. Good work, White House. You suck. /Rant >
MGoBoard
NASA
Space

Big_G

February 1st, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^

You're right that more than likely this topic will be axed or devolve into a political bitchfest. Still I agree with OP's disappointment in this decision that seems rather short-sighted. What NASA brings just isnt an ability to see into space and for a select few of us to venture there, but really its the one part of the Government that allows us our dreams. What's left after NASA becomes some bastardize stepchild of a department that is only focused on putting weather satelites into space? We live in a bitter reality with unemployment, an increased focus on social responsibility, but NASA and our ability to "reach the stars" brings out the hopes, dreams, and goals that so many of us need from that reality. Even though I wasnt alive, to the people who were alive back then doesnt the moon landings bring back memories and how every little boy and girl wanted to become an astronaut? To boldly go where no man has gone before? Despite the ongoing civil disturbances in our nation's cities and universities, the war in Vietnam and the continued Cold War, didn't the moon landings allow us to sit back and realize for at least for the briefest moment, what it meant to be human and dream about what we might accomplish if everyone could work together?

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 303

Maize and Blue in OH

February 1st, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

And this move is even more ridiculous since it is not a money saving move as NASA's budget is actually going up. It is a repositioning away from NASA's purpose. The workforce is completely demoralized. How do I know? My wife is one of the Orion leads of Constallation. She knew she wanted to work for NASA ever since high school for many of the reasons you state. She hasn't wanted to go to work since the middle of last week when it became apparent that this was going to happen.

Joined: 10/01/2008

MGoPoints: 2187

Seth9

February 1st, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

Pure science is typically not a spending priority in the midst of a recession and massive deficit. I imagine that we'll reinvest once the economy gets turned around.

Joined: 04/01/2009

MGoPoints: 2493

Big_G

February 1st, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^

I agree that when a budget shortfall happens, things must get cut etc. Its just simple business at work. Where I have a problem is where is all the money going in this 3.8 Trillion budget proposal. I'm seeing increases in money going to other programs and cuts elsewhere. If you were cutting funds to one program due to the economy wouldnt it make sense to do an across-the-board cut? I think this NASA cut has more to do with the administration's priorities lying elsewhere and less to do with the economy.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 303

Seth9

February 1st, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^

Across-the-board cuts are generally much more problematic than making major cuts to certain programs. From what I can see, the programs receiving increases (outside of defense and health care)* are for the most part specifically designed to stimulate the economy. Other programs seem to be being cut to reduce deficit spending until we get out of this mess. *Defense spending is always going to be high (fact of life), while health care is a huge mess that I will not pretend to fully understand.

Joined: 04/01/2009

MGoPoints: 2493

panthera leo fututio

February 1st, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

I think a good argument could be made that a move away from manned space travel represents a greater prioritization of science -- over, say, the masturbatory fantasies of middle-aged dudes who watch way too much Star Trek. If your goal is to maximize increases in your understanding of the Earth and the cosmos, unmanned missions are a way better investment, instrumentation being rather less fragile than humans and all.

Joined: 09/15/2008

MGoPoints: 2154

Wolverine In Exile

February 1st, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

We'll just purchase it from the Russians... Consider the rest of this entry from a actual spacecraft engineer who's been invited to some of the deliberations on this topic: I'm no Obama admin defender, but we will have manned space flight. NASA will offer monetary amounts for ISS transit and it will be either unsubsidized US commercial providers (Space X, Orbital Sciences, Virgin Galactic) or foreign providers (Russians, Euros, Japanese). The days of United Launch Alliance monopolizing manned flight and having private commercial employees essentially become gov't employees are over. The Shuttle is at the same time the world's greatest engineering triumph (technology and performance) and its greatest engineering failure (too much money for not enough performance). It needed to be retired in the early 1990's but there has not been a coherent political vision to replace it until the Constellation program. But Constellation suffered from lack of long term vision of its use and the fact that it was a big money item from a previous administration that the current administration uses for a scape goat for many problems. NASA overall needs a re-scope of its vision and a drastic "right sizing". This draconian cut may force a recalibration. Military space programs are doing really amazing things, but the "public" space program has been running in place for 20 years. We need a long term manned program with real benchmarks and hard money numbers to force the developers to come up with realistic plans and risk acceptance. These cuts may acutally force that vision to come to reality. NASA has to get past the public welfare mentality it has had for 30 years (since Nixon's admin botched the Apollo program follow-on planning) and become more of a DARPA like organization.

Joined: 11/08/2008

MGoPoints: 10790

Blazefire

February 1st, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

Space X, Orbital Sciences, etc: NONE of them offer any sort of load lifting capacity. The new heavy lifter was the KEY to any sort of manned program. It was ABSOLUTELY necessary for everything people will need for a long time in space. Without a heavy lifter, we're limited to a couple of people for a couple of days at a time, max. Without any important equipment.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 25038

aaamichfan

February 1st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^

I agree with you that NASA provides many benefits in terms of innovation, but this is an issue of "wants" vs "needs". Funding for NASA is still considered a "want", while closing the Federal budget deficit is a "need". Once the government resolves the current fiscal situation, I imagine NASA will return to being fully funded.

Joined: 10/23/2009

MGoPoints: 14362

Big_G

February 1st, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^

If your sole purpose for cutting a program is due to the economy and closing a budget deficit, then why propose large increases in funding elsewhere? This administration's priorities lie elsewhere, whether that is right or wrong is the debate.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 303

mgowin

February 1st, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

I think space travel will become more capital driven. As resources become more precious, companies will look to off planet resources. I've read, in more than one place, that the moon may possibly be mined for Helium-3 in the near future. I think these scenarios will eventually become more common, and then all that the government space agencies will have to do is find a way to tax and police this industry, which is what they do best anyhow!

Joined: 03/03/2009

MGoPoints: 2568

Blazefire

February 1st, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^

You're partially right about that (And I think you've been reading Ben Bova: Mostly Awesome, a little preachy), but with one problem. No extra planetary manned mission technologies currently exist, and no company is going to be the FIRST to develop them, because they cost billions to develop. There's no way to make a profit on first development of spaceflight technologies at CURRENT. Give me a space elevator and 50 years physics development, and we'll talk. But I don't want to be 76 the next time someone goes higher than the ISS.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 25038

formerlyanonymous

February 1st, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^

Part of the current problem is there isn't a proper shuttle/ship to use right now. The shuttles are starting to fall apart. The Ares ships aren't deemed safe enough. Until a new ship is developed within the proper safety restraints, not only is it expensive, but it's risky. I think the hope, as far as the private sector goes, is that a brief step away from money being thrown at manned flight is that a period of no money going to the private sector will force them into innovating the ships on their own dime in order to save future jobs in space flight. It's risky, but it's, like, their opinion, man. Discussing this in terms of economics over government would be great, although I will admit government is a part of that economic argument. Just try to keep it from being too centered toward government.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 38964

formerlyanonymous

February 1st, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

Actually, I think I was thinking of the Atlas V, not the Ares. With the Ares I, it was the vibration of the hull that hasn't been finalized yet. It's still not flight ready within NASA's safety standards, which are ridiculously high (for good reason). Like I said, I still think this is a pass the cost of innovation on the producer of the ship type move.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 38964

bronxblue

February 1st, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^

As I read the issue, it isn't so much that manned space travel is being discontinued, just reevaluated with more of a focus on private industry. While I know that the NASA has never been a nuts-and-bolts space program (in the sense that they manufacture their own equipment), it has always exerted quite a bit of control over the entities that work with it. Perhaps this new approach will simply streamline the process by making the divisions between the parties clearer and more pronounced. I'm not sure, but over the past decade all I've read and heard is that the space program was mired in uncertain direction and wasted resources. I doubt that this is the end of the space program, but it is probably the end of this era. I am interested, though, to see what emerges. That said, this doesn't feel as much like a political issue as it is a budget issue.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171773

Big_G

February 1st, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

Uncertain direction and wasted resources. Sounds like our Government in general for the last fifty years or so. I do disagree in that I feel that this is more of a political issue than anything. Once again, if your sole point of cutting this program is to close a budget deficit or due to the economy, then why the increased spending elsewhere? I think that this cut is to bring up a costly scapegoat of a previous administration to mask increases elsewhere. Kind of show the American public that we're serious about cutting the deficit, etc while moving that "cut" money into other programs. The one thing that people will complain about is just how many people in a large amount of states might be affected. Nothing gets a politician to move faster and break from the majority quicker when he/she detects unrest in his/her home state's registered voters, especially after the recent Massachusetts election.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 303

bronxblue

February 1st, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^

By definition, it seems, the government is never as flexible or resourceful as it should be. But again, I don't see this as a political issue. While the space program will have some cuts, a variety of other programs are also being limited. And to be fair, some of the "slack" lost by NASA will probably benefit from the proposed increases in defense spending, since those entities tend to be intertwined due to the few companies that provide such services. Certainly I would love for the government to be more transparent about how taxpayer money is spent, but overall I do think that the US government has consistently shown where money is being spent with far more clarity than other countries. As I said, I don't see this as the death of the space program, but perhaps a shifting in priorities and a focus on becoming a more efficient and (hopefully) successful entity.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171773

Maize and Blue in OH

February 1st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^

Again, the budget has not been cut, therefore it is not economic. The priorities with the money are being shifted, therefore it is political. From the statement about the proposed elimination of the Constellation project is this: The President’s Budget will also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work -- constrained for years due to the budget demands of Constellation -- on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities. Manned spaceflight is not a priority, climate and the green movement are a priority.

Joined: 10/01/2008

MGoPoints: 2187

champswest

February 1st, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

when NASA funding is cut. Space exploration is arguably the greatest thing man has ever done. How ironic that the funding is cut by an administration that so far hasn't found anything that they don't want to throw billions of dollars at.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25921

Quail2theVict0r

February 1st, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^

Some people see the space program as a waste of money in a recession. I think these people need to look at the bigger picture. How many technologies has the space program developed that we now use today? I mean, heck, even our space age memory foam mattresses were developed by the space program.

Joined: 12/01/2008

MGoPoints: 16503