Print 117 comment(s) - last by Samus.. on Apr 22 at 2:59 AM

Obama expects to be around to see man walk on Mars

The U.S. manned space flight programs were dealt a serious blow when Obama announced plans to go back to the moon were being shelved due to budget cuts and cost overruns. The budget cuts meant that the Constellation program would be cancelled.

The outcry against the President's plan was swift from space program supporters and NASA. Obama quickly began to take steps to alter his plans and called for the Orion crew module originally planned as the shuttle replacement to be scaled back and used as a lifeboat for the ISS. Obama had announced that he would talk about his plans for NASA and the space program in Florida earlier this week.

Obama has now aired his plans, clarifying some points and helping to dress wounds caused when he originally announced his plans for NASA. Obama's plan still calls for a scaled back Constellation program that would see the program continue, but only as a shadow of its former self. The changes still mean thousands in the space industry will be left jobless.

The shuttle fleet is set to retire this year with only three more scheduled flights remaining for the fleet with the last scheduled for September. Obama has promised additional funds to allow NASA padding if a launch has to be rescheduled due to weather. Some hope that the extra funds can instead be used to fund an extra mission.

Once the shuttle fleet is retired, getting astronauts to and from the ISS will be left to the Russian Soyuz spacecraft at a cost of about $50 million per round trip.

Obama sees the future of U.S. space flight in the hands of private companies. Obama wants a new industry that will see private companies offering transportation services to NASA rather than the vehicles themselves.

Obama said, "The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets."

San Francisco Chronicle reports that Obama foresees manned missions to near Earth asteroids and perhaps even Mars in his lifetime.

Obama said, "[By 2025 the U.S. will have a new spacecraft] designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space." He continued saying, "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it."

Obama said of a return trip to the moon, "We've been there before." Obama's plans for the space program still need the approval of Congress. Many lawmakers still plan to fight to keep the jobs that Obama's new budget will cut in their home districts. Obama's plans would see 2,500 jobs added in the Florida "Space Coast" by 2012. Thousands will still be unemployed due to the budget cuts.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 10:50:42 AM , Rating: 5
I was "cautiously optimistic" when Obama first announced his 'redirection' for NASA. But now its sadly apparent his policy here is a boat drifting aimlessly without oars.

His "return to Mars" is a nebulous plan to possibly put a man on one of Mar's moons (quite possibly the least scientifically interesting or useful destination in the solar system). Worse, the mission has no real plan ... its just a talking point with a conclusion possibly "sometime in the 2030s". But no roadmap to get us there...not that we even really want to.

His heavy lifter program has NASA investing $3.1B over the next five years (roughly $600M per year). A ridiculous sum. Either strike it entirely and save the money, or invest enough to get worthwhile results.

I won't even get into any of the other waffles and vacillations at this point, but will simply comment that his utter rejection of a moon base is the most foolish decision a US leader could possibly make.

RE: Lost all faith
By Bateluer on 4/16/2010 10:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%.

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/2010 8:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a link to an excellent summary of the NASA situation by Ed Crowley, the co-chair of the Augustine committee for evaluation of Human Space Flight. He clarifies the reality of the situation, the technological and economic limitations, and the proposed Flexible Path.

It's very informative, and very persuasive.

Seems to play best with Quicktime.

RE: Lost all faith
By JasonMick on 4/16/2010 11:47:28 AM , Rating: 4
His "return to Mars" is a nebulous plan to possibly put a man on one of Mar's moons (quite possibly the least scientifically interesting or useful destination in the solar system). Worse, the mission has no real plan ... its just a talking point with a conclusion possibly "sometime in the 2030s". But no roadmap to get us there...not that we even really want to.

Great point. It may surprise you to hear me say this, but I think you have a lot of good insight, and in fact I often at least partially agree with you.

As you're obviously involved with in-depth policy analysis either from an amateur or professional role, I would love to get your insight on a couple of topics I'm working on stories on.

Can you shoot me a quick email?

RE: Lost all faith
By Newspapercrane on 4/16/2010 1:24:21 PM , Rating: 3
Jason, are you feeling alright?

RE: Lost all faith
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 3:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have replaced him with a cybernetic organism from the future.

I shall now call him The Jasonator!

RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 2:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Email sent.

RE: Lost all faith
By just4U on 4/17/2010 6:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
I am not surprised by this post at all. <thumbs up> Jason.

RE: Lost all faith
By Indianapolis on 4/16/2010 11:52:28 AM , Rating: 4
Worse, the mission has no real plan ... its just a talking point with a conclusion possibly "sometime in the 2030s". But no roadmap to get us there

This is classic Obama. Specious talking points but no real substance behind the soaring rhetoric. (This should be a clue that he's LYING).

This is just like his speeches on the health care plan. He says he's going to reduce costs, increase coverage and improve care, etc, but never, ever details HOW he's going accomplish such amazing feats. And with the press running interference for him, he never has to answer even basic questions of "How?".

Just more demagoguery from the king of demagogues.

RE: Lost all faith
By Phoque on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By phxfreddy on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By maven81 on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By Phoque on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By Phoque on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By hiscross on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By Indianapolis on 4/16/2010 11:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
Wow. Talk about a left-wing hack.

I agree with you about one thing: Bush spent too much. But you're really distorting history and just flat-out lying about Obama's spending.

Bush inherited Clinton's .com-bubble-bursting recession, and on top of that was given 911 and the subsequent recession, and THEN fought wars in Irag and Afghanistan. Yeah, those circumstances combined didn't paint a pretty fiscal picture.

Obama doesn't have any of Bush's excuses, and yet in his first year he's managed to QUADRUPLE Bush's deficit. You point out the health care bill cost (which is ridiculously underestimated anyway) as if that's Obama's only spending, conveniently forgetting the stimulus packages.

And if you want to cry about the recession Obama inherited, don't forget that it was caused by the housing bubble, which was caused by Obama and his ilk forcing banks to lend to people who did not qualify. People try to obscure that fact by describing the convoluted process by which those mortgages were packaged resold, but the fact is that Democrats forced banks to make bad loans, and those bad loans were the cause of the collapse.

Obama is a disaster, and you're a fool for defending him.

RE: Lost all faith
By Phoque on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2010 9:56:14 AM , Rating: 1
Afghanistan is a legitimate war, not Iraq.

The Pacific theater is legitimate, NOT the European !!!

Hey we're in a WAR ON TERROR on multiple fronts. How is one "more legitimate" than the other when we've had the same mission in both countries ??

And take your WMD crap and shove it up your ass. The Bush administration had approval from Congress by a huge majority, even Democrats, to go into Iraq. Using the same Intel as the President. There is no lie, there is no conspiracy.

We didn't find WMD's in Iraq but you know what we DID find ?? A shitload of terrorist.

RE: Lost all faith
By Phoque on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By whiskerwill on 4/17/2010 10:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
Right, that's why Germany (using German Intelligence) and Britain (using British Intelligence) concluded the same thing we did about Irag. Right. Bush infiltrated intelligence organizations around the world. Right right right.

Where DO these internet idiots come from?

RE: Lost all faith
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2010 11:19:49 AM , Rating: 1
Poor little thing, that intel was all crap created by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq war.

If a President "created" intel, especially one as unpopular as Bush on an issue as HUGE as Iraq, he would be caught, tried, and impeached. Sorry, that's the truth. Plus your claim doesn't hold up. Several members that voted to go to war were also part of something called the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committee. Ever heard of it ??

War in Iraq probably created ( will create ) more terrorists than it neutralized.

Probably, might, will. Sounds like a lot of speculation to me. Can I see your Intelligence credentials please?

I'll tell you what we know it did create. I seem to recall seeing something on the news about the citizens voting for elected officials, even under threat of death. Something about them being saved from a murderous oppressive maniacal madman regime and given the keys to their own country and lives. Sort of like the same thing that you and I take for granted because we've ALWAYS had that?

US were much safer with Saddam Hussein in place.

I'm sure those Allied pilots who were shot at in the No Fly Zone by Saddam felt VERY safe...

RE: Lost all faith
By rika13 on 4/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By Samus on 4/22/2010 2:59:48 AM , Rating: 1
Nobody's a dreamer anymore. That's what it took to put a man in space. That and money. A shitload of money.

RE: Lost all faith
By Phoque on 4/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost all faith
By cmdrdredd on 4/17/2010 5:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
Obama has got nothing to do with the housing bubble collapse. It had already started happening under the Bush administration. Bush himself probably contributed to the bubble with his American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003.

Obama and other Dems got kickbacks from the big banks who handed loans out to MINORITIES! You were FORCED by congress which was majority Democrat at the time, to give a certain number of loans each quarter to minorities. FORCED! These banks had no choice. They knew they'd never get the loan repaid but they would be fined HEAVILY if they did not give the required quota of loans. In turn Obama extended his hand and received money from these same institutions.

RE: Lost all faith
By rika13 on 4/19/2010 11:44:54 AM , Rating: 1
Obviously you haven't read the Constitution past "We The People" in big letters.

ALL bill dealing with revenue must begin in the House. Now it has been neutered to be that the Senate can take a bill and replace it's contents with a revenue bill, but it still must begin in the House and be passed by the House.

After the Democrat Party took Congress in 2007, Bush had to sign THEIR budgets, which Obama voted on. The President does have the legal authority to veto a budget, actually doing so would bring the government to a very hard and painful halt, which Clinton has done. If he didn't sign their budgets, none of the troops or other federal employees get paid, no food stamps, no unemployment checks, no Medicare, etc.

RE: Lost all faith
By nafhan on 4/16/2010 12:13:09 PM , Rating: 3
One thing I noticed is that anything I've seen from the administration concerning the "new direction" for NASA makes a big deal about saving jobs at NASA. Kind of gives you an idea about where priorities are, and it's not science.

RE: Lost all faith
By Indianapolis on 4/16/2010 1:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
But imagine all the jobs that are going to be "saved or created" at the unemployment office when these former NASA employees apply for benefits!

RE: Lost all faith
By Mitch101 on 4/16/2010 12:42:28 PM , Rating: 4
You need to submit your resume as a Space Exploration Czar to the Obama administration.

RE: Lost all faith
By FITCamaro on 4/16/2010 8:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't have a criminal record, extreme left views, or a history of hanging out with actual domestic terrorists.

So he's pretty much out.

RE: Lost all faith
By Mogounus on 4/16/2010 12:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
According to Obama employing engineers to build space vehicles is an inefficient enterprise. They are highly skilled, cost a lot and are generally not Democrat supporters. It is better to fire those non-supporters and hire 3 times as many unionized government bureaucrats and other non-productive type labor. It's a no-brainer... why spend money on something that another president will take credit for and ultimately benefit the nation as a whole when you can spend that money to gain political support with no long term benefits. Duh!

RE: Lost all faith
By DEVGRU on 4/16/2010 1:16:25 PM , Rating: 3
According to Obama employing engineers to build space vehicles is an inefficient enterprise. They are highly skilled, cost a lot and are generally not Democrat supporters.

Gee, what a suprise. Engineer's, being scientists rely on FACTS - that pretty much excludes them from being Democrats.

RE: Lost all faith
By kattanna on 4/16/2010 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 5
Gee, what a suprise. Engineer's, being scientists rely on FACTS - that pretty much excludes them from being Democrats

or republicans for that matter to be honest.

both parties suck right now.

RE: Lost all faith
By phxfreddy on 4/16/2010 5:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
speaking as an engineer I always try to choose the lesser of 2 evils when that is all I have to choose from.

The democrats are definitely 5X the evil just objectively speaking from the spending / damage they do. They are the party of "gibs me dats" self interested.

Naturally I prefer the party of high I.Q.'s....which of course is the libertarian party.

RE: Lost all faith
By sigilscience on 4/17/2010 2:20:32 AM , Rating: 1
Actually I think Clinton may have done less damage overall than Bush. But that's just because he was too busy getting blowjobs to pass legislation.

RE: Lost all faith
By phxfreddy on 4/17/2010 10:12:08 AM , Rating: 4
Noooo. Clinton did less damage because of one very material reason.

...crossed houses of congress. The presidency was in democrats hands / congress in republican hands.

Next time some one says "government doing nothing is the best option" .....believe them.

After all when you think about it the idea of government doing much at all to help anyone beyond law enforcement is childish and naive. Even if it were to start off working it would corrupt very quickly as it would be a magnet for sociopaths wanting to get an edge on the system.

RE: Lost all faith
By JediJeb on 4/18/2010 11:35:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure Clinton didn't do a lot of damage actually. China could not even get a missile to fly across the Pacific until Clinton sent engineers there to teach the Chinese how to make guidance systems. Also before Clinton there were no super computers in China, now there are several because he removed the restrictions on selling super computers to China. Kinda makes you wonder what else he gave away we may not know about.

RE: Lost all faith
By JKflipflop98 on 4/19/2010 9:39:47 PM , Rating: 1
There is still a MASSIVE restriction on the types of technology that can be exported to China or one of it's bitches.

They don't really have "supercomputers" like the rest of the world does.

RE: Lost all faith
By HaHaHaHa on 4/16/2010 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ride em cowboy!!

RE: Lost all faith
By The0ne on 4/16/2010 1:19:46 PM , Rating: 4
There is no plan I can see of but rather all talk. I'm speechless on this subject and rather disappointed :( He might as well tell everyone we'll be on Jupiter soon and that we've explored all there is to know about the moon, Mars and other planets.

To me, this is a sad day for US. I was disappointed at the start of the US car crisis with all 3 suffering but could see that they were not going to get things done so I relented. Now, our space program is going to pieces and we might lose our innovation in the field to other countries. Yes, I am proud of what we've done. I hate to see US losing it's focus, drive and determination. Some of us grew up becoming engineers because of stuff like this :/

RE: Lost all faith
By maven81 on 4/16/2010 2:46:44 PM , Rating: 1
"His "return to Mars" is a nebulous plan to possibly put a man on one of Mar's moons (quite possibly the least scientifically interesting or useful destination in the solar system). Worse, the mission has no real plan ... its just a talking point with a conclusion possibly "sometime in the 2030s". But no roadmap to get us there...not that we even really want to."

While I agree with some of what you say, you're totally wrong on this. There's an unmanned mission to phobos already scheduled, (and let's not forget the failed one in the 80s) which means the scientific community is definitely interested in it. Would I prefer a mission to say Europa or Titan instead? You bet, but I wouldn't say a relatively easy to get to captured asteroid is scientifically useless. There is still a lot we don't know about them. And there's the potential to figure out how to use them as resources, and learn more about how they formed (which will answer some questions about the formation of the solar system).

But regardless, we're getting ahead of ourselves... If the plan is wishy washy as you say... why are you getting hung up on the specifics? We don't even know if that much will happen.

RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 3:08:43 PM , Rating: 5
"While I agree with some of what you say, you're totally wrong on this".

You might want to look up the definition of those words.

"There's an unmanned mission to phobos already scheduled,"

What's your point? There's plenty of reasons to send an unmanned mission to Phobos. There's zero reason to send a manned one there. It's a scrap of has so little gravity in fact, that you could literally jump and reach orbit around it.

"If the plan is wishy washy as you say... why are you getting hung up on the specifics?"

Are you joking with this? The mission goal is not some minor detail...except perhaps to Obama, who sees NASA only in terms of votes and some sort of pathetic employment program for government jobs.

RE: Lost all faith
By maven81 on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 8:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're the chap who was claiming Plutonium-240 wasn't fissionable, right? What part of "we're not going to Mars" do you not understand? I'm not even going to mention the building a space elevator silliness. You think Obama's proposing we do that?

A shallow gravity well is helpful only if you intend to land. And why do we want to do that? There's nothing down there you actually want. Landing is basically a stunt, so it looks like you've done something productive.

As for your overblown "radiation shielding" aspect, you don't need to land for that either. Just put yourself in a retrograde orbit around it, and you're getting the same benefit.

But that's moot. Radiation shielding isn't a goal in's just a way to allow you stay longer. It doesn't explain why you're going in the first place? If you're not intending to land on Mars-- what's the goddamn point?

All you've done is explain why a Phobos mission would be easier than Mars. You haven't said anything about why we'd want to go in the first place. The ONLY reason you'd want to do that is in conjunction with a manned Mars mission...and that's the ONE THING WE AREN'T DOING.

Get it now?

If we want a real Mars mission, we should have a crash program to get VASIMR or some other high dV alternative working, so the mission time is workable. A three year (or even the mini 2 year Phobos alternative NASA is proposing) is most of the reason the mission is so difficult. VASIMR could get us to Mars in a few weeks. No need for years of consumables, no need for massive shielding, no need for sleepy Hohmann transfer orbits. Just the beginnings of an actual, USEFUL interplanetary vehicle.

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/17/2010 1:15:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I don't know I'm explaining to someone who said plutonium isn't fissionable, or (even worse, if you really believed that) that you could still build a fission weapon out of a non-fissionable substance like Pu-240.

But since you've managed to mangle half my statements, we'll take your list one by one.

- That plutonium was used in gun type assembly weapons.

Mangled. What I said was that, though its never been done, its not impossible.

- That there was some kind of energy budget relevant in nuclear weapons.

Yep. The basic form of the equation is = (epsilon)(rho_0)(RF)(TF)(Lamba_sub1)(Lambda_sub2)

The first four are usually calculated as a constant for a specific geometry, and in nuclear reactor design, we call them the four-factor equation. Together with your escape probabilities, we call it the neutron multiplication factor...the nuke designer call it their "budget". They like cutesy little terms like that.

- That building a Pu239 device was trivial but more than trace amounts of Pu240 made it impossible.

Mangled. Its trivial w/ supergrade Pu. It's tough with reactor grade. It's utterly impossible with a 35% 240Pu sample.

- That Pu240 would require several times the critical mass.

You got that one right. Calculate the bare sphere size of a prompt critical 240Pu sample, versus one of 239Pu. Using a perturbation method, you get about 5X the mass.

- Thermal neutrons were relevant in nuclear weapons.

They're not irrelevant. (Though we thought so till we could run sims in the 1970s.) I'll give you a hint why, K? The urchin is beryllium, right? Now, remember your basic physics on kinetic energy and conservation of p. A neutron hitting a massy nucleus like U-235 loses little energy....a neutron hitting a light nucleus loses much more per collision. Take it from there.

Of course we don't use urchins any more, but a proliferating state will...or something very similar .

- That somehow increasing the neutron flux to address this imaginary problem was a cause of premature fission.

This one is so mangled I can't even tell what you pulled it from. A higher neutron flux will solve your k factor problems. It has nothing to do with spontaneous fission.

- That a 1 Kiloton fizzle yield was just a pop

It is. To a weapon designer, at least.

That fizzle yield was just some vague term and not the minimum yield energy

I already explained quite clearly why there is no theoretical minimum yield. Look up the history of radiological accidents. Our smallest "fizzle" on record was measured in watts , not kilotons. Want to hear about it?

(ok, watt-hours to be precise...but the watts sounded better)

RE: Lost all faith
By sigilscience on 4/17/2010 2:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
It scares me to think random internet geeks know this much about nuclear weapons.

RE: Lost all faith
By tookablighty on 4/17/2010 3:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
The urchin is beryllium, right? Now, remember your basic physics on kinetic energy and conservation of p
What the heck is an urchin, mate?

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/2010 3:20:14 PM , Rating: 1
I also am disappointed with the NASA plan but in the light of harsh budget realities it's not that bad. Regardless of what one would like to do there is insufficient Congressional support to increase NASA's budget to the level needed for a Moon Base. Since the budget is constrained there are limits to what you can do.

1) As the Augustine committee concluded the original Constellation Ares I/V program was just not executable. There would have been a budget shortfall in the range of 60-75 Billion dollars to complete it and first lunar missions would have been around 2028. The restricted budget meant that development programs would have to be executed serially instead of in parallel causing major schedule stretching. Schedule stretching always increases costs as a larger percentage of your budget just goes towards yearly overhead and not development. When the huge Ares V was finished there would be nothing to fly on it since there would not have been sufficient funds to develop the Altair lander concurrently. Because of the expected costs the Ares I/V program called for ending the shuttle in 2010 and splashing the ISS in 2015 in order to redirect all that money towards the Ares I/V Constellation program.

Better to end the Constellation program now than waste more money on it and have it collapse a few years down the road.

2)Given the clear budget pressures the Augustine committee proposed what they called the 'Flexible Path' approach instead of a Lunar base goal. This would try to maximize the development of beyond earth orbit capabilities but avoid destinations that required venturing into deep gravity wells like landing on the moon or mars. This would include such missions as missions to Lagrange points to set up fuel depots and observatories, orbital missions to the moon to control real time telepresence robotic rovers, missions to asteroids and Near earth objects, and missions to the moons of Mars. All the technology development required for these destinations are also applicable to future moon and mars landings. The advantage of initially avoiding deep gravity well landings is an enormous reduction in total mission mass and development costs required for human landings. Exploration of the moon and mars can be carried out from orbit using real time telepresence robotic rovers with a wide array of instruments and can include sample return vehicles that can be collected and analyzed by the astronauts. A multitude of rovers can be deployed so exploration can be done in a large number of areas in a single mission.

This article covers Flexible path in more detail.

A Phobos mission also makes a great deal of sense since one of the largest unsolved problems is dealing with the cosmic background radiation. A landing at the bottom of a crater on Phobos would provide a great deal of natural shielding. It would be an ideal base from which to telerobotically explore Mars in preparation for future Mars landings. A Phobos mission is probably the most interesting mission I can think of short of a Mars landing, maybe even more so considering the flexibility to explore multiple areas on Mars simultaneously.

3) As to the heavy lift program doing research till 2015 and the picking a design this is also not as bad as it may first appear since starting on a heavy lift vehicle now would result in a rocket sooner but there would be nothing to fly on it. A good chunk of the development money is going to go toward development of a large hydrocarbon booster engine which the US does not currently have and which is needed for a cost effective HLV. Engine development is always a long pole so getting a head start on this is helpful. Also proving out fuel depot technology will have an enormous impact on how large a heavy lift vehicle will eventually be needed since mission masses tend to be more than 85% fuel.
Another aspect in an HLV delay is it will clearly flush the standing army that services shuttle operations out. That consumes $2.5 Billion a year. Unfortunately it will come at a cost of lost expertise though.

Even though Obama's NASA plan is not what I would wish for it's probably about as good as can be expected within the realistic budget constraints.

The thing that worries me the most though is no clearly stated schedule and goal. Without that I fear it's too easy for things to get slowly cancelled and whittled away in the following years. Hopefully as they flesh out the plan they will put in explicit goals and deadlines.

This all has to get past Congress anyway, so we'll see what happens.

RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 3:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
" but in the light of harsh budget realities it's not that bad."

What "harsh budget realities"? Obama has already increased government spending from three to 3.8 trillion dollars.

An extra $800,000,000,000 dollars each year, even assuming he doesn't increase it further -- and he can't give NASA a decent budget?

"Phobos would be an ideal base from which to telerobotically explore Mars"

Questionable, and irrelevant in any case. A mission to Phobos ONLY makes sense in context of a larger manned landing on Mars. A trip to do nothing but go to Phobos and return accomplishes nothing. Unless the trip leaves behind some form of permanent infrastructure or resources, its a wash.

And don't give me the "but we'll learn so much to help us for when we DO go back!" nonsense. You accomplish things by setting goals. There's nothing we don't already know about Phobos that would prevent us from doing a Mars landing as part of a single, unified mission. Worse, until we actually HAVE that plan, we don't even know what questions to ask about Phobos, which makes going there doubly pointless.

RE: Lost all faith
By maven81 on 4/16/2010 3:47:13 PM , Rating: 1
A mission to Phobos ONLY makes sense in context of a larger manned landing on Mars. A trip to do nothing but go to Phobos and return accomplishes nothing.

Developing the technology to get there is not an easy feat. You'd have to solve all the problems that come up in human deep space exploration, such as travel time/propulsion, radiation shielding, supplies etc. But you'd save some money by not having to come up with a sophisticated landing system designed to work in an atmosphere. You also wouldn't need much fuel for the return journey.
Now you might argue that going all the way there, to stop short of landing on the planet itself is odd... and maybe it is. But to say it accomplishes nothing? Nope. It develops the infrastructure needed to get there and back.

RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 4:49:23 PM , Rating: 3
" Nope. It develops the infrastructure needed to get there and back."

No. We can get to Mars today without any basic research needed like we did in the Gemini days. There's a minor amount of engineering needed, and that's it. And we can do the engineering without actually making the trip.

95% of the money for a Phobos mission would simply be spent on actually building the hardware, launching it into orbit, and assembling for the mission. And we'd throw every bit of that hardware away after the mission. Most of it would simply be left on Phobos, never to be used again.

RE: Lost all faith
By maven81 on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 5:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
"if that was true, why is it that no one has gone back to the moon already? The logistics should be a lot easier."

Thank you for proving my point for me. Just because we went to the moon before doesn't mean the infrastructure is there or the logistics any easier.

The same would be even more true of a trip to Phobos. A trip there now won't make a second trip appreciably easier or less costly.

" Do you honestly believe that the operational cost for such a mission would be only 5% of the budget? "

Is English your second language? I'm saying the exact opposite. Operational costs are the part you throw away. Whatever we spend on operational costs for one mission isn't going to save us a penny for a future mission that's actually useful.

I suggest you take a deep breath and reread the thread. Perhaps you've forgotten what the debate is even about? A trip to Phobos isn't going to make a future Mars mission appreciably cheaper, easier, or faster to accomplish. The vast majority of that will be simply thrown away.

RE: Lost all faith
By maven81 on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/2010 7:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
Maven81 is actually correct. Your assumption that developmental costs are a minor cost aspect is wrong.

An easy example is the Apollo program

Year % of Federal Budget
1960 0.5%
1961 0.9%
1962 1.4%
1963 2.8%
1964 4.3%
1965 5.3%
1966 5.5%
1967 3.1%
1968 2.4% First manned Apollo mission
1969 2.1% First Moon Landing
1970 1.7%
1971 1.6%
1972 1.3% Last Moon Landing

Expenditures peaked several years before even the first Apollo flight. Developmental costs are often a dominant factor, not the ridiculous 5% you mention.

RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/16/2010 11:25:00 PM , Rating: 3
"An easy example is the Apollo program...Expenditures peaked several years before even the first Apollo flight."

Lol, did you actually type that? Did you forget that what people today call "the Apollo Program" was actually Mercury-Gemini-Apollo. The first Mercury flight was in 1961. The Saturn V we used to get to moon we began building in 1963 .

And we were spending vast sums on non-development items starting in 1959 -- oh, you know, little things like the Kennedy Space Center and the Houston Space Center, which jointly had some 200-odd buildings, one of which was, when built, the largest building in the entire world?

Did little facts like that just slip your mind?

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost all faith
By porkpie on 4/17/2010 1:32:53 AM , Rating: 4
Fascinating how you managed to ignore the point.

- We began construction of buildings, facilities, and infrastructure STARTING in 1959
- We had our first launch in 1959
- We had our first man in space in 1961
- We began building the Sat V in 1963.

By 1965-66, when spending peaked, we had already been doing more than just designing rockets for over half a decade. The design part is the cheap part. It's actually building all that hardware that costs so much.

You seem to be very confused about the term "development costs". NASA's development estimate for Ares included not just design costs, but building operational hardware. Again, that's where the money is spent. Do you actually not realize that we have already conducted flight tests on Ares? Yes, real rockets, soaring to suborbital heights. You really think we were spending $40B just on paychecks to engineers? Good god, man -- THINK before you type.

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/17/2010 2:24:25 AM , Rating: 1
The one test flight of the Ares I-X rocket had almost none of the actual hardware other than maybe the avionics. None of the engines, nothing of the second stage, nothing of the capsule etc.

35 Billion for development costs and 12 years before the first flight. But you are unable to grasp that concept are you?

Your conjecture that development costs and timelines are a trivial part of a Mars mission is so obviously false that I'm not going to waste further time on the subject. It's clear your ego makes you incapable of ever acknowledge that you might be in error no matter how painfully obvious. I'm not interested in catering to your emotional needs since I believe I've already made my point clear enough to more rational readers.

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/2010 6:47:24 PM , Rating: 1
Sigh. This is just total baseless nonsense with so many misconceptions.

Nobody that actually studies missions to Mars thinks we are currently capable of sending men to mars and having them survive the trip.

Development costs are an enormous part of the mission costs. The development cost for Ares V would have been something like $35 Billion. That's before you launch a single rocket.

The development of a deep space vehicle for Phobos is applicable to any other deep space destination.

A Phobos mission would actually not leave anything on Phobos other than instrumentation. The entire deep space vehicle would leave Phobos for the return trip to earth.

It is pointless to discuss this if you won't at least do some actual research to find out what is and is not possible. You are just guessing without actually knowing anything about the subject and it's counter productive.

RE: Lost all faith
By JediJeb on 4/16/2010 6:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
I can see a point to this since it would be similar to the first Apollo missions where we only orbited the moon and didn't land. Those were to make sure we got things correct in how to get there and back. Before we send a manned flight there we really should send an unmanned one out and back, no landing but just to orbit and return. You have to do proof of concept type work even if only as a shakedown mission. At least if that goal is set right now, it would give us something to shoot for and a target deadline to hit. Second mission send a lander along and have it land, takeoff, dock then crew capsule return. Third could then be manned. Maybe even leave behind some supplies in orbit on the first two for when the manned mission arrives. But at least lets set some timelines and goals for this to get us motivated and working on it.

RE: Lost all faith
By randomly on 4/16/2010 6:29:11 PM , Rating: 1
The harsh budget reality is that no matter what Obama proposes in the way of budget increases there is not sufficient support in congress for a large increase, it's just not going to happen. It's not even sure that his current proposal of around 900 million a year increase will pass congress. Except for the states that directly benefit from NASA's budget such as Florida, Texas, and Alabama support for NASA in congress is tepid at best.

As fun as it may be to rant about the $800 Billion it doesn't change the fact that a large budget increase for NASA won't make it through Congress and whatever is planned for NASA has to work within that reality.

Your dismissal of a Phobos mission is typical of people who are ignorant of the operational, logistical, and scientific aspects of missions to Mars and is similar to where I started out when I first came across the subject. If you bother to research the topic in detail you'll begin to discover how much sense it actually makes.

A mission to Phobos is obviously a precursor mission to a landing on Mars. It would allow you to develop all the technologies needed for deep space missions. All the technologies developed for a Phobos mission would be needed for a future boots on Mars mission anyway. It would allow you to extensively explore possible Mars landing sites with Telerobotics. Sample return vehicles associated with the Mars telerobots would allow the astronauts to acquire Mars samples and analyze them to refine further exploration and sample returns. It would allow you to test out ISRU technologies (Phobos itself may be a significant ISRU resource for oxygen and propellants). ISRU technologies maybe essential to make a future boots on Mars mission possible. Unlike the moon landings it does not yet appear feasible to have a Mars lander that can abort to orbit. Once on your way down you are committed. Because of EDL mass limits multiple vehicles will have to be landed in one place to meet the logistics requirements of a boots on Mars mission. A habitat and a fueled return vehicle needs to be up and ready before astronauts land there, all that will probably need is best tested out and accomplished telerobotically from orbit. The mission complexity is just enormous. A first mission to Phobos is not only prudent it may be an essential step to a landing on Mars.

It would allow you to investigate and establish Phobos as a staging base for future Mars landings. Any long term manned orbit of Mars would best be spent on Phobos since at the bottom of a crater facing Mars (which at 9000km away fills 40 degrees across the sky) you gain an enormous amount of shielding from GCR which is otherwise so difficult to shield against and unmitigated would be fatal over a long duration mission.

The difference in mass, complexity, and cost between a mission to Phobos and a Mars landing are staggering. A Mars landing requires many times the total mission mass and an enormous increase in mission complexity, risk, and cost.

I can certainly understand the impatience in wanting to land on Mars now but the technical, logistical, and economic reality with our current level of technology and funding points to a Phobos mission as a more realistic goal in the nearer term.

What exactly do you expect to learn from a Mars landing that can't be learned via telerobotic exploration from Phobos with sample returns that is worth the order of magnitude increase in cost, complexity, risk, and delay in putting together such a mission?

Personally I would much rather see a mission to Phobos and telerobotic exploration of Mars than an attempt to land on Mars which will never realistically happen in my lifetime.

It's all well and good to wish for the moon, but it does no good if you can't afford it.

RE: Lost all faith
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 4/16/2010 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
Nations that issue their own currency like the US&Japan (and unlike Greece) can't go bankrupt nor become insolvent,which is why Japan at 220%+ debt enjoys 0% inflation, 0% interest rates, 4% unemployment, & about 3% GDP for the past 20 yrs while the US is at 80% debt & only about 2% inflation (below -0.3% inflation for 2009), almost 0% real interest rates, 3% to 4% GDP growth for the last quarters & on track for 3% to 4% growth this year.. & gov spending has to go higher if you want the 9.7% unemployment rate to decrease faster..

production increases is enough to offset & halt any inflation (this isn't Wiemar Germany that had no production because their industrial sector go on strike for 6+ months to protest war reparations or Zimbabe that had little production because 30-50% of the spending went in security/civil war spending & expelling all the white farmers/businessmen)

Click here for UPDATED Economics Site of the most accurate evidence-supported of economicst/bank CEO - -- The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy

RE: Lost all faith
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 4/16/2010 4:43:21 PM , Rating: 3

FYI, Obama has funded & is funding NASA more than Bush & most Republicans ever has (see chart below).. $2 BILLION HIGHER than 2008 .. and ya, he is funding Florida more as well as Colorado (both swing states).. the ones who voted for him.. it looks like Texas(who will always vote repub in 2012/16) is getting the short end of the stick .. there's an old southern saying, "you dance with the one who brought you to the ball"--if one were cynical, one could say FL & CO were being rewarded for voting for him.. and TX is being written off as always going Repub so dollars are diverted to FL/CO


The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2010 Budget

"When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. We cannot cede our leadership in space. We need a real vision for space exploration. Let's also tap NASA's ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy." -- President Barack Obama

The President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) which, when combined with the $1 billion provided for NASA in the Recovery Act, is more than $2.4 billion above the 2008 level. The Budget funds a program of space-based research to advance our understanding of climate change and its effects, as well as human and robotic space exploration. It also supports the use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station.

Under the proposed budget, the agency would receive $18.7 billion in 2010. Combined with $1 billion in funding provided in an economic stimulus package signed into law last week, NASA would get $2.4 billion more than it did in 2008.

RE: Lost all faith
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/16/2010 6:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
President Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave from your words.... He would not agree with you at all.

"gov spending has to go higher if you want the 9.7% unemployment rate to decrease faster.."

It is a 100% fact that more government spending means higher taxes. Higher taxes means less money for business to work with. Less money for businesses to work with means less profits. Less profits means firing or laying off people not hiring people. No government has successfully spent their way out of poor economy. The spending they are doing now is creating a false positive economy. In time the bill is going to come in for the money they spent. When that happens we are going to be in for one hell of a ride. However, by then you will blame the person who is President at that time verse the one who created the mess. If they want to see lower employment then they need to lower taxes (always works) and make it easier for people to start businesses and create jobs.

RE: Lost all faith
By bigbrent88 on 4/16/2010 5:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
+1 AU for you!

RE: Lost all faith
By NullSubroutine on 4/16/2010 4:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was waiting for this article to come out because after hearing part of his speech he pretty much did a 180 on Bush's NASA plans that he laid out (and was pretty fast time table). Not only can NASA or any long term government agency survive with the executive branch of the government changing its long term goals every 4-8 years, but what Obama did was entirely destroy the NASA space program.

He spoke pretty words about putting someone on Mars which was entirely a red herring. It is like your boss comes in and talks about how awesome your company is going to be in 10 years, but you are all fired.

I don't have a problem cutting spending (when it is done across the board), but I'm not really following how he gives these great speeches about education and how kids need dreams and we need to invest in science and math...while single handily destroying the agency responsible for Humankind's greatest achievement. What kids are going to "study science and math real hard" to grow up and have no real job where literally not even the sky is the limit? Not everyone can be lawyers and community organizers (and do we really need more lawyers?).

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki