Obama cancels manned space exploration...

[HashiriyaS14]

IMO, the "earth science" missions are of great value. If the earth is warming and we can better study it from space, we should definitely be doing so, regardless of whether it's being caused by man or by natural phenomenon, the consequences would be the same and thus it warrants great time and trouble to understand the rate/extent of it.

[bcar240]

Yeah, no diss on earth science here. We just already have a federal agency called NOAA where I think that type of research would be much more at home. No complaints if they collaborate, but the new budget would make several aspects of the two agencies seem redundant.

For...another broken promise?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policySp ... _FINAL.pdf

The "mission statement" and implementation of this plan are so contradictory I have a hard time taking it seriously, it's like it's a joke that hasn't been revealed yet.

[audtatious]

IMO, the "earth science" missions are of great value. If the earth is warming and we can better study it from space, we should definitely be doing so, regardless of whether it's being caused by man or by natural phenomenon, the consequences would be the same and thus it warrants great time and trouble to understand the rate/extent of it.

There are plenty of weather satellites already tracking everything. CIA satellites are being used to monitor and investigate MMGW as it is (http://www.onearth.org/node/1784)

[mattblancarte]

We aren't sending people out to Mars because cosmonauts would most likely die on the way, or be severely handicapped upon return.

I'm all for Tyson's vigor for exploration, but can you imagine the media frenzy if NASA failed a manned mission to Mars? They don't want to send people out there yet because it's a huge waste of money to have a man do what a machine can do, especially when weighing the risks/costs against return.

I see this as less of a cancelling, and more of a realistic use of resources until it really makes sense.

Once they feel comfortable exposing humans to cosmic rays (which flare up to ridiculously high levels, making it really hard to shield), keeping them healthy in a <1g enviroment in space for 1.5 years, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure we will venture back out.

It's easy for guys like us on NICO to be all about exploration at any cost (even human), but most people are p****** and don't think it's worth it for people to die gloriously for mankind. NASA realizes this to some degree, and I'm sure it is part of the reason (along with the other logical reasons above).

[mattblancarte]

I'm going to further my opinion here because I'm bored, and I love love loooove space engineering.

So, in response to the hyperbolic (and borderline offensive) description of space robots made by the OP, I'd like to present to you a very old visual aid of what's up with our OLDER said "roombas." The new roombas we send out can do some just utterly mind-blowing things...



I mean have you seen some of the latest sun imagery that the roomba, SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) have captured and sent back magically via fairy dust wings to earth? Tell me that doesn't just blow your freaking gord when you look at it.



More respect for space robotics is due here. They've been advancing physics and astronomy (and computing power) with such velocity lately that we are able to come up with this image... the most detailed view of the ENTIRE FREAKING UNIVERSE ever:

[mattblancarte]

AGH...this whole situation makes me so MAD. People need to get their heads out of each others asses long enough to see that the future of the human species IS OUTER SPACE. None of this low earth orbit bull crap.

I agree, we do need to focus on colonizing new worlds. The only problem is that we have absolutely no place to go at this point. Current research shows that low-gravity environments are extremely hard on the human body over any significant period of time.

We literally need to find a planet that is within the habitable zone of a star with similar mass and composition. Hard to do, for obvious reasons.

Hate to say it, but human bodies suck for space travel, and I have little hope for us really doing anything significant in the next 100-200 years. The engineering required to build habitable spacecraft that can venture beyond our solar system, battle cosmic dust and radiation, sustain human life, navigate with extreme precision with the extreme chance for multiple course changes due to unforeseen contigiencies... It's all so far out of our current realm of understanding and technological capabilities.

We know a lot now, but not enough to really travel in space.

I'm behind funding the crap out of robots, observatories, and things that we need to get figured out before we start sending human bodies out into the abyss. We most likely won't ever hear from the real space travelers again, regardless of their mission's outcome.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I agree, we do need to focus on colonizing new worlds. The only problem is that we have absolutely no place to go at this point. Current research shows that low-gravity environments are extremely hard on the human body over any significant period of time.

We literally need to find a planet that is within the habitable zone of a star with similar mass and composition. Hard to do, for obvious reasons.

This is a valid point, but too narrow in vision. You don't start with the ideal scenario. Progress is called progress for a reason. You do what you can with what you have and learn from it. Then you take that new knowledge and apply it, and learn from that. Understanding is not an instantaneous thing. By its nature, it requires iterative process. And that becomes increasingly more true with greater complexity. Simply put: you have to start somewhere. And there's no reason to put off what we're ready for now. Sure, we're not ready to colonize new worlds on a large scale. But we are ready to visit them, study them, and learn what we can about off-earth living conditions. This stuff is critical to moving forward.

[mattblancarte]

While I agree with your opinion that boundaries need to be pushed, I strongly disagree that "we are ready to visit them (distant, temp. habitable rocks)."

Namely, the specific issues with the human body in low-g environments, the ridiculous distance issue, cosmic radiation and debris, etc.

I don't see how my opinion is narrow at all. In no way shape or form did I say that it isn't possible in the future, or that we shouldn't be doing what we can to achieve the goal of space colonization. In fact, I believe I said that we need to be behind the specific advancements in technology required to send humans into space safely.

Our robots are ready to visit, though, and are currently doing so all over the place. NASA and other space agencies around the world have TONS of missions going on right now.

We are already visiting and studying all kinds of good stuff (with robots) that is so utterly far beyond what the human body can endure or experience... Have you read about the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna? Pretty sweet experiment regarding Einstein's gravitational theories. It utilizes three spacecraft in a triangle with lasers detecting even the smallest changes in gravity. Should be interesting... considering that the three crafts are 3 freaking million miles apart from each other while conducting the experiment.

In the NASA space program, they do actually start with the ideal scenario! They don't just "wing it" on hopes and prayers lol.

I still present the argument that humans are not ready (even close) to travel easily within our own solar system. We aren't even ready to hop over to Mars, yet, for the specific reasons I've mentioned.

Any specific responses as to how humans will travel off-world to a specific destination? Mars even? I've yet to see a viable plan that doesn't require technology outside of our current scope.

[srellim234]

A specific destination within reasonable possibility is the moon. Much as the orbiting space platform has provided a lot of information on weightless construction and effects, a lunar station would provide a valid low weight platform in which to experiment and learn. Both will be needed in the future in order to survive visits to planets farther out.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I don't see how my opinion is narrow at all.

I don't think your opinion is narrow. Just one of the particular ideals you expressed. I guess one could claim that's the same thing, but I chose the word "vision" rather than "opinion" or "viewpoint" for that specific reason.

[mattblancarte]

The moon is definitely a good place to stage our first colony. Prior to colonizing the moon, I'm expecting more experiments in LEO attempting to combat and understand how we can adapt to low-g environments.

The astronauts aboard Skylab and Salyut-6 (up to 184 day missions in zero-g) have confirmed that not only do the vast majority of the strongest candidates lose bone density, but they do not regain it once they've returned to Earth (studied after even 5 years).

You could argue that there have been examples of astronauts on long missions that haven't fully succumbed to this issue, but it's only a matter of time before they break down too. If you have a crew of three going to Mars, and 2 of 3 have match-stick bones by the time they get back (if they get back) in 1.5 years or so, that's not so good.

Same deal with long-term stints on the Moon. You aren't going to shuttle people off world for 2-week work stints, followed up with a few weeks rehabilitation, only to send them back for more.

[mattblancarte]

I don't think your opinion is narrow. Just one of the particular ideals you expressed. I guess one could claim that's the same thing, but I chose the word "vision" rather than "opinion" or "viewpoint" for that specific reason.

Hehe, I want to make clear that I'm fully open minded to ANY ideas that encourage the furthering of manned space exploration.

From my viewpoint, the denial of space robotics being superior to manned space travel at this point in history is narrow-minded.

I just listen to what the experts at NASA say.

[C-Kwik]

Frankly, I see no reason for manned space travel. There may be some validity to the maintenance and repair of existing equipment in space and such, but what practical purpose would traveling to the moon serve? Let alone another planet. I'd also speculate that manned travel would be much more expensive. Robotic equipment have relatively few requirements needed to ensure survival to a particular destination. They don't need air and other life support systems. We don't have to place some kind of over-the-top protective devices to maximize our astronauts' safety. The vehicle can be built to be only large enough to serve the purpose of travel to the destination and deployment of the robot itself. Manned space travel increases the amount of complexity of a project and thus increases the cost. And in the end, any manned flights have to try and reasonably attempt to bring the people back. That adds a lot of bigger constraints as many long distance space travel will require a lot of advanced planning to reduce the complexity and energy required for the trip (such as launching in a certain direction at a certain time to intercept the destination). These kinds of windows are already small enough. Manned flights would mean they would have to find a window that would ensure the astronauts have a good window to make a trip back. Unmanned flights can just be shut down when done and the robot is just left to become a part of the rest of the universe.

Ultimately though, if long distance space travel is important, there are a lot of bigger challenges to overcome before it becomes a reality. I highly doubt manned space travel will provide any reasonably proportionate amount of information to increase our abilities to make long distance travel more feasible. The biggest questions that come to my mind when I think of manned space launches is what reasons are there for putting said people into space. Are there any alternatives? What are the comparisons of cost of said alternatives with putting a man in space? And lastly, is it worth the investment and risk?

[srellim234]

With that kind of thinking the United States of America wouldn't exist . We'd all be living in Europe, Asia and Africa.

I'm not in favor of a huge amount of it given currnt technology and cost overruns but I am in favor of some continued progress in manned exploration.

[C-Kwik]

With that kind of thinking the United States of America wouldn't exist . We'd all be living in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Care to elaborate on this? It makes no sense at all.

I'm not in favor of a huge amount of it given current technology and cost overruns but I am in favor of some continued progress in manned exploration.

But for what purpose? I'm not so much against manned space exploration for the sake of being against it. But if we are to fund it, I want to have a clearly defined and reaslistic goal in mind that warrants it. And until some really big engineering challenges are out of the way, I just don't see anything outside of earth's orbit providing any practical value. We already did the "we are the first to the moon" bit. We have probes already heading out to the outer reaches of our solar system. And despite what would appear to be a very fast 38,000 mph, it still taken some 33 years to just start getting close to the outer edge. Considering the closest star would take only 4 years to reach at the speed of light, we are nowhere close to interstellar travel. Travelling to the moon or even mars doesn't really have any real value. Colonization? Why? None of the planets in our system would be able to sustain life. The amount of money and resource needed to provide a sustainable habitat on either would be enormous. And even if we got past that, what purpose would it serve? Would it be cool as hell? Yep. But it just isn't that important at this point in time. And unless we make some seriously huge leaps in technology, I don't anticipate it will ever be.

[srellim234]

Take man's pushing the envelope and the human element out of exploration and those sailors never would have set out across the ocean for fear of falling off the edge of the earth. Robotic discovery is great but human adaptation and innovation in space should still be part of the equation. A scientific platform for construction and testing in a low gravity environment is something that I would personally still like to see.

Current technology indicates that the human body cannot be sustained in a zero gravity environment. We need to explore at what g's the body can sustain itself. 0,9? 0.8? 0.2? If deterioration happens, at what rate will the risk finally be acceptable? We're not going to find that rate without a human body involved in the testing. Then we need to be able to create and build vehicles, probably assembled in space, that have an ability to create their own gravitational forces for the occupants, be it by rotation or some other as of yet undiscovered technology.

I am in favor of a lot more robotics but I really don't want to see manned exploration abandoned. And I'm not particularly keen on depending 100%on other country's launch vehicles. How do we repair our own near earth satellites when the launch vehicle country denies us the flight? Hubble required a "hands-on" repair.

I never liked the shuttle program, especially its cost and some of its design. My dad's cousin was involved with the space program and astronauts from Mercury through Apollo and left when the shutle program started. He cited too much risk, too much money and too complicated a vehicle. I beieve he was right. A simplified approach would still allow more robotics and limited manned exploration.

[C-Kwik]

Take man's pushing the envelope and the human element out of exploration and those sailors never would have set out across the ocean for fear of falling off the edge of the earth. Robotic discovery is great but human adaptation and innovation in space should still be part of the equation. A scientific platform for construction and testing in a low gravity environment is something that I would personally still like to see.

Ok, now I see the point you were trying to make. But, there is a huge order (several orders) of difference in magnitude between space travel and travelling across an ocean. And I'm not even talking about the aspects of taking risks or a trip that might take several months. The issue is its really not feasible in any forseeable future that we would be able to travel outside outside our solar system in anyone's lifetime. Hell, a trip within or solar system outside any significant effects of Earth's gravity would take months at minimum. Until we have some kind of technology that can make it possible (which from an energy standpoint, presents a HUGE problem), manned exploration outide the confines of what has already been done is not likely to yield much.

Current technology indicates that the human body cannot be sustained in a zero gravity environment. We need to explore at what g's the body can sustain itself. 0,9? 0.8? 0.2? If deterioration happens, at what rate will the risk finally be acceptable? We're not going to find that rate without a human body involved in the testing. Then we need to be able to create and build vehicles, probably assembled in space, that have an ability to create their own gravitational forces for the occupants, be it by rotation or some other as of yet undiscovered technology.

That's a hugely expensive science project considering the energy problem I keep referring to. Ultimately, if we have no way of reasonably leaving this rock to explore other galaxies, then such testing would be pointless. The amount of energy required to even put something in space is a huge expense already. Anything that requires greater speeds and more mass increases the amount of energy needed. And unless we disprove the most fundamental laws of energy, that is always going to be the case.

I am in favor of a lot more robotics but I really don't want to see manned exploration abandoned. And I'm not particularly keen on depending 100%on other country's launch vehicles. How do we repair our own near earth satellites when the launch vehicle country denies us the flight? Hubble required a "hands-on" repair.

Again, if there is a realistic and practical reason for it, I'm fine with it. But I would imagine, with today's technology, we could build a robot that can perform repairs on just about anything. Then again, depending on what would be repaired, it might be easier and cheaper just to build and deploy a new satellite or whatever (I'm sure the Hubble doesn't fall into this category).

I never liked the shuttle program, especially its cost and some of its design. My dad's cousin was involved with the space program and astronauts from Mercury through Apollo and left when the shutle program started. He cited too much risk, too much money and too complicated a vehicle. I beieve he was right. A simplified approach would still allow more robotics and limited manned exploration.

Again, what practical goals would be set for any manned exploration program? As intrigued as I am by space and all, unless we can reasonably have a chance of meeting those goals, manned flights for the sake of exploration is likely just a big waste of money. We might indeed learn a few things, but I doubt it would be very practical for use on Earth nor would it be likely to offer a very good return on such an expensive investment.

[bcar240]

The major roadblock for space exploration is and (for the foreseeable future) will always be cost (and politics a close second). There is certainly a lot of room for improvements in human life support and protection systems, but the tech we have now will work it just may not be perfect or the most weight-efficient.

Take man's pushing the envelope and the human element out of exploration and those sailors never would have set out across the ocean for fear of falling off the edge of the earth. Robotic discovery is great but human adaptation and innovation in space should still be part of the equation.

Thanks for making this point. Many things said about manned space flight could have been said about every great endeavor in history before it was accomplished. With robotic exploration, it depends on how you look at it. Robots are a very cost effective way to get some potentially groundbreaking science done with only financial risk. But a robot can only do what it is specifically designed to do. A human can adapt and be flexible, a robot is limited by the configuration that is fixed when it leaves the factory. Try to ask your roomba to wash your windows for example. Really, they complement each other, each doing things not really practical for the other. It's interesting now that we are in an age where there is actually a viable replacement for actually being there in most respects. But there will always be people who are not satisfied watching things via remote control.

[bcar240]

That's a hugely expensive science project considering the energy problem I keep referring to. Ultimately, if we have no way of reasonably leaving this rock to explore other galaxies, then such testing would be pointless. The amount of energy required to even put something in space is a huge expense already. Anything that requires greater speeds and more mass increases the amount of energy needed. And unless we disprove the most fundamental laws of energy, that is always going to be the case.

The problem is that without a need, the technologies needed to overcome long-distance space travel don't get adequate attention or funding. If we had not been determined to go to the moon, some of that tech they developed back then may have taken decades to come about otherwise. In my opinion, further exploration is inevitable, there is no reason to delay it.

Again, if there is a realistic and practical reason for it, I'm fine with it. But I would imagine, with today's technology, we could build a robot that can perform repairs on just about anything. Then again, depending on what would be repaired, it might be easier and cheaper just to build and deploy a new satellite or whatever (I'm sure the Hubble doesn't fall into this category).

As long as it doesn't encounter any unforeseen problems as noted above. On the last Hubble mission, there was a hopelessly stuck bolt. The answer was to have the spacewalking astronaut use brute force to rip the bracket off the panel. There is significant development going on for space repair robots though. If future satellites are designed for repair by such a robot it is possible.

Again, what practical goals would be set for any manned exploration program? As intrigued as I am by space and all, unless we can reasonably have a chance of meeting those goals, manned flights for the sake of exploration is likely just a big waste of money. We might indeed learn a few things, but I doubt it would be very practical for use on Earth nor would it be likely to offer a very good return on such an expensive investment.

I can think of a lot of human activities these days that have much less practical goals than space exploration. There are amazing lists of items that were technological offshoots of the original moon program. It is estimated that the US government has returned up to 7 times their initial investment in the Apollo program in the form of taxes of companies that do business with technologies they spun off space tech.

[C-Kwik]

The problem is that without a need, the technologies needed to overcome long-distance space travel don't get adequate attention or funding. If we had not been determined to go to the moon, some of that tech they developed back then may have taken decades to come about otherwise. In my opinion, further exploration is inevitable, there is no reason to delay it.

Sure, but at this point in time, are we to expect the same type of advance in technology? I doubt it. Most things start out with a steep learning curve. I think we are beyond that point until we can develop a more reasonable method of space travel beyond what we have been able to explore. And while I feel like a broken record here, there isn't any feasible solution to the energy aspect of long distance space travel. Calculate the simple equation for energy just for an average human to reach escape velocity and you'll see what I mean. Then you have to figure the vessel, the fuel, the life support systems, cargo, etc, etc, etc. Its not a lack of knowledge or technology that is a problem. Energy is the problem. Consider the above calculation would not even figure in the inefficiencies of our current propulsion systems. Even if we use a theoretical 100% efficiency, its still a lot of energy. The Voyager 1 used gravitational acceleration and still only mustered up 37,800 MPH. The speed of light is 671 million MPH. That is a huge difference in magnitude.

As long as it doesn't encounter any unforeseen problems as noted above. On the last Hubble mission, there was a hopelessly stuck bolt. The answer was to have the spacewalking astronaut use brute force to rip the bracket off the panel. There is significant development going on for space repair robots though. If future satellites are designed for repair by such a robot it is possible.

And that would be a justifiable reason with a practical purpose and a well defined goal.

I can think of a lot of human activities these days that have much less practical goals than space exploration. There are amazing lists of items that were technological offshoots of the original moon program. It is estimated that the US government has returned up to 7 times their initial investment in the Apollo program in the form of taxes of companies that do business with technologies they spun off space tech.

Yes but what do those activities cost and who pays for them?

I'm not saying the space program was a total waste. But just because a program developed such technologies then, doesn't mean its going to have the similar results now. Considering we put something like 500 people in space, and more than 10,000 satellites into orbit, the learning curve is not likely to be that steep anymore. And certainly, we are likely to continue propelling cargo into space so its not like development and improvements of vessels are going to stop. I don't think anyone is trying to say to stop exploring space. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to send people up into space. For the most part, I don't see the cost-benefit working in favor of it. There might be some specific cases where it does, but we can surely consider that on a case-by-case basis. Most of the research needed to propel us further into space is going to happen on Earth anyways.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

There have been connections made between stem cells and space-travel. Apparently they act quite different in zero-g. Using stem-cells to repair radiation damage and decrease muscle and bone loss would greatly improve life in space for the astronauts.
We possess the technology to make a trip to mars happen. It's just the largest logistical nightmare in the history of the human race. It's not a sure thing either. That and spending 352 days in a shipping container with several other people would be a difficult experience at best.
Among other things...

[HashiriyaS14]

The SpaceX Falcon 9 launched successfully and has achieved earth orbit.

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php


THIS is why the "Obama killed NASA" complaints are dumb. He didn't kill anything, he's just trying to privatize the launches. He increased their budget and, if the SpaceX achievements are any indicator, they'll soon be able to do a lot more manned spaceflight than they could previously afford to do.

The SpaceX "Dragon" reusable spacecraft has been selected to replace the shuttle as the primary ISS resupply vehicle. It costs about $130 million per mission ($1.6b / 12 flights). This is in comparison to $450 million/mission for the shuttle (Kennedy Space Center's own figure).

How is ANY of this a bad thing?

Also, the decision to go with the Dragon once the shuttle was retired was a Bush-era decision (Dec 2008). The policies aren't even that different between the two administrations. NASA needed a major shake-up and it got one. The US space program will be better off for it.

[bcar240]

Sorry for being absent for a while, I had a bit of a rough injury that made computer use difficult.

Here are some interesting (maybe) facts in the realm of energy requirements. Last time I heard, I believe they were looking at a 1000 to 1 ratio of launch mass to payload for a proposed Mars mission, meaning that for each pound they wanted to get to Mars, they would have to have 1000 pounds of launch vehicle on the pad (I believe it's currently about 150:1 for low Earth orbit.) Also, it was speculated that the in-orbit infrastructure required for the mission would exceed the mass of the current space station and require up to 12 separate launches to put up there.

But at any rate. I thought I'd just bring anyone up to speed that had missed the recent news in the spaceflight arena. Due to an obscure, never before enforced clause in the contract agreements, the Constellation program has effectively been stopped. It is called "termination liability" and the way it was enacted required all the government contractors to set aside their own funds in a sort of escrow account in case the contract is terminated to cover their own shutdown costs. Since previously this had never been enforced and the government had covered contractor termination costs on a good-faith effort, no contractors had set aside this funding. But this time it was decided to have this funding come from the project, so essentially $991 million dollars allocated for Constellation until the end of the fiscal year in October are now behind withheld. Due to this money not getting to the program, it left many contractors with approximately one month's worth of budget to cover the next three months. The entire program is essentially in a stop work order and massive layoffs are expected.

I'm not going to speculating on the political agenda here. But I am going to say this will probably prevent NASA from launching a new vehicle of any sort probably until around 2018. They not only are going to have to start over from scratch, but start over from scratch without experienced employees.