We need a space program that's not a dead end
Washington Post staff writer Joel Achenbach, in “NASA’s $500 million launcher missing just one thing: the rocket it was made for,” takes a look at the Kennedy Space Center and the mood of employees there in light of the likely cancellation of NASA’s Constellation program. (See my earlier post, “To boldly go where we went in 1969?”)The $500 million launcher of Achenbach’s headline was built for the Ares 1 rocket, and as Achenbach notes, “President Obama’s 2011 budget kills that rocket, along with the rest of NASA’s Constellation program, the ambitious back-to-the-moon effort initiated under President George W. Bush. People here were shocked when they heard the news last month…. Now suddenly, they’re looking at no shuttle, no Ares 1, no NASA-owned spaceship of any kind in the near future.” The decision to kill Constellation, Achenbach writes, has shrouded the space center-site of some of the nation’s greatest achievements, “in an unfamiliar gloom.”
Michele Kosiba, a quality inspector for United Space Alliance, sums up the mood, telling Achenbach, “It’s almost like losing manned space flight.”
Achenbach reports that Obama will visit the space center next month and will undoubtedly boast that his proposed budget increases NASA’s budget, not that an increased budget will shield current space center employees from wrenching changes. NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. adds his spin in an e-mail message to Achenbach: “We think it’s exciting. It will enable us to do things we can only dream about today. It will foster new industries, spur innovation, create jobs and lead to more missions, to more destinations, sooner, safer and faster.” (Achenbach posts an e-mail Q&A with Bolden here.)
With thanks and empathy to NASA employees who will bear the brunt of the likely program changes-and especially to those working on projects as Constellation maintains what Achenbach calls ” a ghostly existence as ‘the program of record,’” I support the changes, as I noted in my earlier post. As Dale Ketcham, a University of Central Florida professor who runs the Spaceport Research and Technology Institute, tells Achenbach, “We could get to the moon and do what? The taxpayers would really be ticked off: Sixty years later we go back and plant the flag and go home.”
We need a space program that’s not a dead end.
Trendsvx commented:
From the gold plating to the synthetic rubber thousands of engineering problems were solved successfully during the development era. Can we afford to lose this valuable asset???
briancam commented:
TAX-CUT, DOWNSIZE, OFFSHORE, OUTSOURCE! TAX-CUT, DOWNSIZE, OFFSHORE, OUTSOURCE! More H1B's. Only HB1's and DUMB Americans are Engineers -- Smart Americans are nurses Gus S. Calabrese commented: Less government = more innovation and creativity == SMART, so Wall Street, so greedy, so un-patriotic! and H1Bs can do it cheaper. After all Government NASA has given USA, VHDL,SW velco etc-- let's KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE!
kg5q commented:
this is sad - how in the world we went from being where we were in 1969 with a world class space program to depending on other countries is pitiful. Maybe we can outsource the entire thing to China like we have most everything else? I am sure with the crushing costs of our new social programs less funding than ever for making this a priority.
louis commented:
Obama and Bolden have no idea how much this path will harm OUR manned space programs.
Right now the Russians are counting the millions/billions they will charge per ride of our (and other nations) astaunauts. The Russians will be the only game in town to be able to get to the International Space Station (which is ~80% US built). The Chinease will (in all probability) weaponize space and the high ground. And Obama/Bolden will be responsible for it.
America wake up the hell up !!
Bill B commented:
I can't understand the logic behind killing a program that is being done by private industry with proven space capabilities (i.e. Lockheed Martin with numerous expert subcontractors) and replacing it with some new project done by "private industry". Whatever this is, it is not a formula for success.
FULTONMaxine19 commented:
The home loans are useful for people, which want to start their own business. In fact, it is not very hard to receive a credit loan.
doctordarryl commented:
Outputs of the original space program includes clean room technology, VLSI integrated circuits, and the personal computer, among other technologies too numerous to list here. What could the next space program produce? Have we lost our desire to innovate? Do we need a space program to get to the next level in technology development? Those are important questions but not as important as to how to have sustainable technology development.
arclight commented:
@all: Some comments:
1. NASA suffers from the same problem as DoD, EPA, (pick your agency), etc. There's too much risk-averse, too much "administration", too much fill-in-the-blank, because the Congressional masters are on the lookout for folks and programs to gore (apparently they don't get credit for "oversight" if something goes well). Everything in the Federal government costs twice or three times what it ought to cost, simply because there's too much nonsense associated with doing it.
2. If there's anyone who thinks that NASA survives very long after making these changes, wake up, please: Once you remove men from the equation, it's easier--not harder--to cut the rest of the budget. Congressfolks being pressed to simultaneously cut taxes, increase spending, and lower the debt (now THERE'S an example of "sound American thinking") will find any escape hatch to try to please "the people" by appearing to satisfy all three simultaneously, even though that's impossible. Under those conditions further cutting NASA's budget will be high on the list once manned flight is gone.
3. Nobody in this country has any real idea whether or not the sum total of all the required and desired public spending at all levels (Federal, state, and local) is in ANY WAY sustainable by the remaining private wealth base. If we add up all the things we ARE doing, and then add on top of that all the things we are NOT doing but should be doing, the sum may well significantly exceed what we can possibly extract from our economy at any level of taxation.
Answering this question should be the central question for this or any previous Congress. The fact that Congress isn't answering this says a lot about them. The fact that we aren't demanding the answers says even more about us.
jpratch commented:
The reason the private sector cannot lead a Space Program is simple: IP. Our present patent system will prevent it. Under NASA in the 60's and 70's, when the greatest strides in manned space exploration took place, great leaps in materials and technologies took place and the private sector was a great beneficiary of the result for free. We'll have patent lawyers acting as the gravity that prevents launching anything of significance. Space tourism will not drive the colonization of the moon's surface in any near time frame and "Mars" will be science fair stuff for several decades. China will colonize and then weaponize the moon and we will watch and whine.
Andy T commented:
Tell the public and Congress about He3 on the moon and how it will be the defining raw material over the next century in terms of power generation and nuclear weapons yield. The Atomic Club almost all have programs to either go prospecting or set up operations on the moon for this very reason. Ares was not about some romantic men to the moon or to Mars fantasy, it was about deploying mining equipment and returning ore to the USA. Lies were made up to send men to Mars to get that heavy lift program into place - sadly, we outsource and H1B so much now that word got out quickly to their home countries (where one's allegiance always lies) and everyone scrambled to the moon, with India recently finding "water" - like thats important to India.... Without that Ares heavy lifter, we're burnt toast economically and militarily - and in a few decades...literally.
Policebox commented:
End NASA and you kill American participation in space. The private sector simply doesn't have the capital to move at a reasonable pace (it will move, though, there will always be interested entrepeneurs). Europe, Russia, and India will slug it out for leadership (with Russia currently having a major lead). As poorly conceived as Dubyah's Constellation program was, it is sad to see the nation that won the race to the moon and powered the sattelite technology boom simply give it up. The gift of project Apollo to this world was 10,000,000 kids who wanted to be scientists and engineers. We don't have anything comparable today. We are adrift technologically. We will become a technical ghost-ship if this isn't corrected. We don't just need a space program that isn't a dead end, we need a MANNED space program that can inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and general acheivers.
Chuck Blevins commented:
I agree that the space program needs a purpose. The space shuttle program tried to make everything "too safe." Over the 30 year period, there was nothing new about the shuttle. If the space program is going to provide jobs and advancement, then it must innovate. Innovation cannot stop with the delivery of the first launch vehicle. Manned space flights must be justifiable over unmanned flights. Repair of the Hubble telescope was good but hardly qualifies as a good reason for manned space flight. I like manned space flight but I don't see any payback for keeping a space station in low earth obit. I don't think that there was any technical innovation to make it happen. It has been gratifying to see several countries cooperate to make it happen.
Don L. commented:
Technical Reason for Returning to the Moon:
Investigate potential for HE3 energy harvesting.
If physicists are correct HE3 / Deuterium fusion has very low neutron bombardment. We should attempt to retrieve usable quantities of HE3 from the moon surface. Earth does not have sizable deposits due to earth’s magnetic field. Not true for surface of moon. This could make fusion practical. It is only radioactive during “combustion”. Radioactivity ceases when reaction ceases. At the very least DOE should put this on the list of potential energy sources. DOE and NASA should partner on this.
Ares Fan commented:
The cost of development is much less than the operational stage. The Ares 1 and 5 should continue development. If the economy is not in good shape at that point, at least you have something on the shelf if you need to start up again. Stopping now leaves you with NOTHING.
Gus S. Calabrese commented:
End NASA over the next 3 years , treat the existing employees finances fairly and then adios. If space exploration ( which I love ) is to be done, it must be done by the private sector.
Less government = more innovation and creativity
savroD commented:
25% of republicants believe Obama is the anti-christ!
50% plus of Americans do not believe in evolution!
We're letting Texas decide what goes into the textbooks!
given this, why would anyone expect this country to have a state of the art space program?
ellenlangsetmo commented:
keep the constelation space program going keeping the constelation space program going will inspire the yuonger generation. keeping the constellation space program going will create or preserve jobs. keep the constelation program going intill something better is actually found to adaquetly replace it.
