posted 11-10-2009 12:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:

Credit: Roger Launius/Smithsonian

---

It's interesting to compare the poll results in July 1967 versus July 2003. In July 1967, roughly 6 months after the Apollo 1 fire, public support for the moon landing seemed to drop off somewhat. Whereas, in July 2003, roughly 6 months after the STS-107 tragedy, public support appeared to increase.

I guess one could attribute the differences to a couple of different reasons:

• The public in 2003 knew that a moon landing was possible, having already seen it done before. The public in 1967 didn't have that luxury and perhaps assumed a lunar landing might not be possible or might require more loss of life to achieve the goal.
• The public in 2003 had started to grow a bit weary of seeing a flawed shuttle design continue flying to low earth orbit...well, at least the public who knew the shuttle doesn't fly to moon. To some, the accomplishments of Apollo seemed more like forward progress than the shuttle program did.
• One could also point out that, in youth culture at least, there was a growing anti-establishment movement by mid 1967...rejecting programs and policys that were led by the government.

posted 11-10-2009 03:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
If you want to make the moon seem more interesting, bring some IMAX cameras to the lunar surface and give people a sense of what it is actually like to be there. But don't forsake real science in the process.

---

There's no point in going if you forsake the science. I'm not advocating that. But how would it hurt to add entertainment to the mix?

In addition to watching the live broadcasts as a boy, I've recently watched the complete coverage of the Apollo missions on the Spacecraft Films DVDs. As a space geek, I enjoyed every minute of it. But frankly, the TV coverage wasn't intended to promote audience involvement or provide entertainment value. To the average person, much of it must have seemed like watching paint dry.

IMAX is essential to raise public awareness, but it isn't enough. Only a small percentage of people go to IMAX theaters to watch space documentaries. We need informative, entertaining, and accessible programming available to the masses to gain public support for the space program.

posted 11-10-2009 03:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Also, I would be curious to see the results of a poll taken in January 1969 and August 1969, shortly after the missions of Apollo 8 and Apollo 11.

---

Credit: Roger Launius/Smithsonian

posted 11-14-2009 03:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Unless there is a genuine and pressing reason to do so, we (the human race) may as well stay in LEO.

---

posted 11-27-2009 04:16 AM               

I am in agreement that ditching shuttle entirely is not a good idea since it is the best LEO work platform flying today (in fact it is the only one unless you count self maintenance on the ISS). It is a flying pickup truck. But you don't need to use a pickup truck for all the jobs when a bus will do the job of taking people up and down.

posted 12-09-2009 10:46 PM               

In doing so, Congress protected the Constellation architecture from changes, at least for now:

posted 12-11-2009 08:57 PM               

First up was Norman Augustine. His discussion was mainly a preamble to Ed Crawley. The meat of his comments were about how NASA's budget does not adequately fund it's work scope for space flight. That NASA has a history of shutting down old programs in order to start new programs and thus creates a gap in space flight.

Mr. Augustine further stated that Ares 1 has slipped 5 years behind schedule at this point. Ares 1 will not be ready by the time we deorbit the ISS and the program has no money for lunar exploration due to the slippage and cost overruns. We are looking at a 7 year gap.

Finally, he stated that there is a clear need for the Ares V and for commercial space flight (COTS) to have a greater role in LEO operations in order to free up NASA to explore space.

Ed Crawley was up next and he was the systems engineer of the committee and he discussed the options that the President will have to review in order to make his decision.

He had two major points.

1. Get the money to support NASA.
   
2. Create good science plans and get the money to do them.

Ed said that the options were to land and live on the Moon, land on Mars and explore the planet and maintain the ISS. Our international partners have basically told us that if we want to ever a lead a future space expedition, then we had better extend the ISS. Which is just now starting to work as a lab in space.

In their discussions, the committee came to the conclusion that a Mars landing and exploration phase is too expensive, too long term and not safe, based upon our current knowledge of space flight biomedical issues like radiation. That leaves two exploration options open to the President, Moon landing and long term stays or the "Flexible Path."

You will start hearing a lot about the "Flexible Path (FP)" in the future on newscasts when Obama takes up the task of making a decision on the future of human space flight. What the "Flexible Path" title means is that the Constellation Program will fly into deep space, but will not go into the deep gravity wells of the Moon or Mars. That means they wouldn't land on either planet. The "FP" will fly lunar orbit missions, LaGrange Point missions and Near Earth Object missions in an ever expanding stepping stone process to gain experience in deep space.

It only takes a few extra meters per second of Specific Impulse (Isp) to leave LEO and fly to these various targets. The program will also need the development of an rocket engine capable of restarting after a few months in space. This type of process could lead to a Mars flyby in 2040.

The "FP" doesn't rule out landing on the Moon. It is just a interim series of missions that will hopefully keep the public engaged and the children inspired until the money can be found to build the Altair lunar lander and the habitats needed to survive long term (500 days) on the Moon. The cost of those two projects are estimated at $15B each and that money is not there now or in the next five years.

This means that the Ares V is really what the whole Constellation Project will rely on for a launch vehicle. The Ares 1 will be overkill for LEO, so what is hoped is that COTS will save the day in privately launching cargo and crews in LEO or the ISS. The committee admits that COTS is a big risk and the NASA administrator will need insurance against their failure. That insurance is the Ares V.

To do all this means that the NASA budget will have to be ramped up by $3B in the 2011 FY budget.

So be prepared to hear about the "Flexible Path" in the coming weeks.

It was then John Logsdon's turn to get speak. John's first comment was key to me. "It has been 48 years since man went into Space and we are still arguing about it."

John continued on about the changes in policies with each changing administration starting with Eisenhower and really ending with Nixon. Nixon changed space policy decision making from a special political decision to a normal political decision. That is the way all the following administrations have looked at decisions in space policy.

John characterized the Augustine Report as "like throwing a grenade into the room." NASA, the OSTP and the OMB are trying to pick up the pieces and move on. It also has caused NASA some concern with the line, "other than NASA can carry humans into space." While a high risk proposition, if NASA doesn't get the $3B extra funding to continue the Constellation Project, COTS could fill the gap. Dr. Logsdon is of the opinion that NASA will not get the added funding. That the US Government will invite international partners in to fund the needed $3B by building sections of the project that include Critical Path projects like the second stage of the Ares launch vehicles or, even, the LEAM descent stage.

John feels that we may not see either the Ares 1 or the Ares V, but a reduced Ares III that will carry out deep space missions, but not launch the LEAM. It would be a stop gap during the "Flexible Path" period of exploration.

Finally, Asif Siddiqi, was up to discuss the international history of space flight. I will say that I have worked with Asif on the MIT white paper. He is an expert in the Russian, Chinese and Indian space programs. He wrote the definitive book on the Soviet's lunar landing attempts. His book is titled, "Challenge to Apollo" and is over 1000 pages in length. You don't read it, you use it as a reference. He has taught me a lot about the various countries space programs.

Basically, Asif said that our lead in space flight has eroded. In the last ten years, more players have come on the stage and include, China, India, Japan and Europe.

He explained why China has developed a manned space program. He commented on the prestige China has gained with manned launches into space. Their country is now perceived as a country that no longer produces cheap inferior goods. China has shown that they can produce technological goods of superior quality and have become a competitor in market areas where we have had a long developed superiority. He also publicly stated that he does not think China will be on the Moon prior to 2030. They don't have the technology.

As for India, they have jumped on the manned space flight bandwagon using cold war rhetoric like "first in space is first in the world." They appear to be in a race with China. They plan to launch a two manned spacecraft by 2017 at the latest.

Asif's final comment was telling. He advocated cooperation by saying "We either cooperate or lose prestige if China or India get to the Moon before us.

posted 12-11-2009 09:55 PM               

Keith Cowing at NASA Watch is reporting some signs that Obama will soon make a decision on the future of manned spaceflight-- he reports that Charlie Bolden cancelled a speech on the West Coast at the last minute to remain in Washington and that Augustine said that the papers were on Obama's desk.

posted 12-15-2009 07:23 PM               

...the President will also meet with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden in the Oval Office to discuss the Administrator's work at NASA and they will also discuss the Augustine Committee's analysis.

3:05PM THE PRESIDENT meets with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden [Oval Office]

posted 12-16-2009 03:51 PM               

President Obama and the head of NASA met in the Oval Office this afternoon and discussed the future of the nation's space exploration program

"The President confirmed his commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a sustainable path to achieving our aspirations in space," said White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro...

posted 12-16-2009 04:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry McGlynn:
I attended the MIT seminar today about the Augustine Committee Report.

---

posted 12-16-2009 06:28 PM            

"The President confirmed his commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a sustainable path to achieving our aspirations in space," said White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro...

With that caveat in mind, I look at the above remarks and see several interesting words. First, I find it reasonably reassuring that the word "exploration" was used, rather than "flight" or "travel." NASA hasn't done human space exploration for 37 years, just space flight.

Second, "sustainable path" might just mean that NASA will have to cut its cloth according to America's means, but if NASA is going to do exploration, 'sustainable path' must mean that appropriate funding to do exploration will be made available, i.e. more than current funding, which Augustine rightly said was insufficient to fund Constellation.

Third, 'aspirations' ought not to mean simply maintaining that which is already there, i.e. the ISS. It surely must mean plans for something in the future which is NOT yet available.

Of course the key words in the White House statement were 'new plan.' Will that be new to NASA, or new to the Obama administration?

posted 12-17-2009 09:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Of course the key words in the White House statement were 'new plan.' Will that be new to NASA, or new to the Obama administration?

---

ScienceInsider: Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget

President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency's fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft...

• The President's chosen launch vehicle does not include Ares I or Ares V, but rather a "simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018" (the article doesn't provide any further details as to the nature of this vehicle).

• European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base.

• Commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the International Space Station (no mention of commercial crew supply).

posted 12-17-2009 11:52 PM               

Of course, one thing I will also make mention of is how this might affect not necessarily the Alabama economy but also Florida's space coast. A very extended gap in manned spaceflight (eight years?!?!) is going to be not so good for the tourist dollars to the region as I see it. Sure you've got places like Cocoa Beach and Meritt Island which get tourism dollars from spring break. But I have a feeling some of those towns that subsist on additional tourism dollars provided by space launches might be seeing red in just a couple years.

I suppose if shuttle is extended it might help ease things a little, but that approach has its own risks.

posted 12-18-2009 07:27 AM               

With sufficient funds, it would make sense to do both Ares 1 and an HLV. However, if the choice is one or the other, it is clearly best for the future of space exploration to do the HLV.

posted 12-18-2009 09:36 AM               

Wondering if reports on Obama-Bolden meeting are accurate or just blather. No hard news has appeared.

Inaccurate. The meeting was informational, not decisional...

posted 12-18-2009 09:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
If much of the HLV work is done at Marshall, why should Sen. Shelby be so outraged? He is a perfect example of a senator putting parochial interest ahead of the national interest.

---

posted 12-18-2009 06:07 PM               

It just seems crazy to want to pull an about face right now when things are trending positive and the testing is in work. If it is true NASA will only get 1 billion more out of the 3 they need for Ares 1 and to make a new booster by 2018 (which based on past performance of similar contracts will probably get hit with a two year delay if the budget is still a shoestring), then to me that doesn't seem like a smart decision at all, just the cheap one.

posted 12-18-2009 06:08 PM               

Spaceflight Now: White House says no decision yet on NASA's future

White House officials say President Obama has not yet made a decision on the fate of NASA's moon program, two days after an Oval Office meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

...NASA and White House officials claim such reports [as in the ScienceInsider] are mere speculation, but they are providing no information on when a decision could be announced.

posted 12-31-2009 04:42 AM            

Obama set to launch vision for NASA

President Obama will chart a course for NASA within weeks, based on the advice of a handful of key advisers in the administration and Congress.

Obama, who met Dec. 16 with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, hasn't said when or how he'll announce his new policy.

The announcement likely will come by the time the president releases his fiscal 2011 budget in early February, because he must decide how much money the space agency should get...

posted 12-31-2009 03:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
...US politics right now is as bitter as ever and the voting public acutely fickle.

---