posted 04-15-2010 10:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
[Armstrong's] involvement in penning its content is unknown.

---

posted 04-15-2010 11:13 AM               

Mr. Aldrin did a fairly good job of articulating his position and outlining his plan for NASA on a recent "This Week In Space" episode. Mr. Aldrin's plan was for the most part very good. However, it was in no way like the President's plan.

The President would be well served if he listened to "The Aldrin Plan" (build/fly a winged shuttle-like reusable crew to orbit vehicle, adopt shuttle-C for heavy lift with continual improvements, start building interplanetary spacecraft for the US to go to the Moon, Mars, etc, and do it now... and to repeat: do it now) and then followed it.

posted 04-15-2010 11:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
Cernan indicated Armstrong's involvement in constructing the letter was direct

---

posted 04-15-2010 12:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
I fail to understand Mr. Aldrin's continued attempts to show support for the President's NASA proposal.

---

Other astronauts may have different views, and I respect them, but I believe that working with this president toward a consensus on how America can lead human exploration, commercialize that effort in a timely way as possible, and set our collective sites on Mars is more likely to create the kind of sustained effort, commitment and legacy that we all want to see. This seems more productive than simply opposing a change of course.

posted 04-15-2010 01:08 PM               

At Long Last, an Inspiring Future for Space Exploration

Statement by Elon Musk, CEO

The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.

In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.

By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.

The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, "If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it," because we can't afford the annual operating costs.

Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a President with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an "Apollo on steroids", as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!

Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. 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. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.

Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.

posted 04-15-2010 02:36 PM               

"We are setting a course with specific and achievable milestones.

"Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space.

"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history.

"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."

posted 04-15-2010 02:58 PM               

Early next decade. So, it will take us 10+ years to leave LEO and another decade or two to go any further.

Great clear and bold initiatives there Mr. President.

posted 04-15-2010 03:06 PM               

We are setting a course with specific and achievable milestones.

Hopefully the damage can be undone by the next President in a little over two years.

posted 04-15-2010 03:13 PM               

It is pretty much still the same proposal in the OMB press release as again it mentioned the unmanned probe efforts, earth based observation, investigation into new technologies and the "partnership" with private industry. Only things new were the revival of Orion as a lifeboat and a firm timeline of 2015 for the beginning of construction of a new heavy lift launcher (which is supposedly two years ahead of when Ares V was supposed to begin to take shape). And of course there was mention of abandoning the moon because "we've been there," heading to an asteroid and then on to Mars by sometime in the 2030s. Well, IMHO what I hear is "better" then what it was, but still lacking on so many levels. Of course, the President also mentioned that Constellation was "over budget and behind schedule." Behind schedule yes, but I again ask how a program that has been underfunded from day one can be considered "over budget"?

While it is nice to have Mars mentioned as the target, twenty years is a very LONG time away and it does not ring the same as "within this decade". Now I am not saying we should have a crash program to get there sooner, but it is really hard to generate interest in such a far out there goal among the general public IMHO. At the same time, abandoning the moon all together because "we've been there" seems short-sided as well.

We've had some unmanned probes (Ranger, Surveyor, Clementine, LRO) and the Apollo missions. But to me it is a lot like saying that Lewis and Clarke did their trek through the Louisiana Purchase and the United States didn't opt to expand westward because "they have been there, we know what is there." Nobody would be around to discover gold in California. Okay, I admit the analogy is a bit skewed, but you see my point. Am I saying we will find some game changing minerals on the moon, or new technologies? No I am not. But at the same time, by not going back to the moon we are closing the door on the potential resources that it could offer to aid in trips further out into the solar system later on. At the same time, a goal such as a return to the moon does offer a carrot sooner then Mars. With what NASA potentially has in place now, I still believe it is possible to land men on the moon by maybe not 2019 or 2020, but certainly by 2022 and do investigations for longer periods then what Gene and Jack did on Apollo 17.

It doesn't appear that shuttle will be extended since there was no mention of it in the President's speech. No surprise there as the program is at the point right now that it will end and anything done at this point will just stretch that end out further. Maybe one more flight will be added, but I doubt much will happen beyond that unless Marshall is given the go ahead to build the last two tanks from the structural spares.

In summary, what I hear is better, but still not good in my opinion. I have a feeling there is still going to be some opposition to this in Congress and personally I would like to see some more concessions made on getting more of Constellation back in operation as opposed to just an Orion lifeboat. My biggest contention with the last proposal was not necessarily just the lack of a goal and a vision, but it also made NASA the target for budget cuts two years down the road. The Orion lifeboat means that the budget is maybe a little more stable as NASA proponants can argue that if the budget is cut, it will compromise the safety of astronauts on the ISS. But that was by no means a protection against the X-38 getting cut a decade ago.

posted 04-15-2010 04:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fezman92:
My generation did not get to see the Apollo program and it would have been really something to see us back on the moon.

---

As I said a long time ago, It's the younger generation primarily griping. I'd like to have them re-dig the Panama Canal, because I didn't get to see it. Never mind about the cost; entertain me.

posted 04-15-2010 05:43 PM               

Anyone can say 'we are going to Mars in 20 years' I can say I am going to the moon next week, but without a clear means to get there it is just talk.

posted 04-15-2010 05:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanh_7:
Anyone can say 'we are going to Mars in 20 years' I can say I am going to the moon next week, but without a clear means to get there it is just talk.

---

In fact, there are far more 'means' in existence today for us to get to Mars, then there were for NASA to get to the Moon then.

But I suppose you would have just dismissed Kennedy's speech as just talk...

posted 04-15-2010 06:27 PM               

Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite.

To me, that's the crux of this change in vision. It's the difference between a warmed over rehash of the Apollo program and the establishment of a permanent spacefaring society.

posted 04-15-2010 07:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
Kennedy's plan was to "go to the moon" He didn't make any mention of the hardware or other minutiae.

---

"...we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun -- almost as hot as it is here today -- and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out -- then we must be bold."

"In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where five F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field."

posted 04-15-2010 07:09 PM            

It is a tale told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

- W. Shakespeare ("Macbeth")

posted 04-15-2010 07:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
But I suppose you would have just dismissed Kennedy's speech as just talk...

(Did you really expect President Obama to deliver a technical presentation with the fine points of each vehicle design and the flight trajectory they would follow?)

---

Had he lived, who can say? And he had Lyndon Johnson, a huge supporter of the space program.

But they did have some idea how they were going to get to the moon. Mercury was underway when Kennedy made the speech at Rice and to Congress, and Apollo was on the drawing boards.

Von Braun and his team were working designing the Saturn rockets that would do the job.

No I did not expect a technical briefing. There were few technical details he could brief on since he canceled NASA's Constellation.

The President today, under pressure about job losses and to fight off adverse publicity, tossed a bone with the Resurrection of Orion as a CRV. Why waist the money. How many CRVs will they need? Three or four?

posted 04-15-2010 07:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
In fact, there are far more 'means' in existence today for us to get to Mars, then there were for NASA to get to the Moon then.

---

posted 04-15-2010 08:46 PM               

After listening to and thinking about the President's speech today, I have come to the conclusion that the President's poorly defined "vision" is an incredibly weak visionless waste of money that is a path to no where. Please allow me to explain.

First, the President's plan obviously kills Constellation and with it the US manned space program for an unknown period of time. He makes the claim that a commercial program can do it faster and cheaper. Oh really? Where is one piece of evidence that will occur? The US already has about $9 billion invested and work well under way. A commercial firm can jump in and do it faster ...even though they (SpaceX) have no experience? Where is any evidence for this belief?

Now he proposes wasting money on an Orion lite. Why? There are rescue vehicles at the station. Are they not working? NASA has extremely limited funds, yet he proposes spending money on hardware that is not needed? Oh, as a test bed. For what? What is the point of designing and building hardware that is not needed and will have such an extremely limited roll? What would we learn? We are not going back to the Moon by the President's plan because we have been there...yet we will "re-build" a lite version of Apollo? And at what cost? $2 Billion more? $4 Billion more? $8 Billion more? Surely for this money one could have a heavy lift shuttle variant. And where is the money? Mr. President, you have been spending trillions of dollars recently. NASA only gets a tiny $6 Billion? What about $30 or $40 billion of the stimulus or TARP or other that is being thrown around for NASA?

Then he is going to decide to build a heavy lift vehicle in five years. To carry what? He mentions a capsule. Not Orion lite? Not the SpaceX Dragon. What? There will be no capsule for it to launch because NASA is not developing one, there will be no interplanetary craft, and there will be no mission. (...and please notice we have no timetable in which the vehicle is to be built... just when to decide what will be built.) To what end? If it is heavy lift you want, could the $3 Billion to research the heavy lift vehicle again be better used to make the heavy lift shuttle variant? (Looks like we have already spent almost enough money to have a heavy lift vehicle and a capsule, but have built nothing.) And guess what, he may not be President. So who is to say that the next President will not look at the deficit (you do remember it is projected to run near a trillion dollars a year for some time to come) and the vehicle and ask why? No use, no program, no manned vehicle. There is no good answer to save this future vehicle.

Then one day we may go to an asteroid... I guess for a picnic, because he did not give a reason why. Why spend the money? He had better hope his successors have a really good answer, because he obviously does not. I can hear it now: "Why are we spending all this money to fly a couple of astronauts to an asteroid when a robot craft can do it better and cheaper! (Remember this line?) And you know what? They would be right. If there ever was an excellent target for an exploration robot and sample return, its an asteroid. They are a long way away, take a long time to reach, and have high risk. Remember, going to an asteroid has all the risk of going to Mars (long duration, radiation problems, reliability problems, propulsion problems, etc.) but without the big payoff. Everyone wants to go to Mars, most look to asteroids as boring places. (The public has to pay the bill.) An asteroid is low mass which means very low escape velocity. A small robot craft or two can bring back lots of rocks!

Finally, the President tries to copy Kennedy (sorry Mr. President, you are no Jack Kennedy) with his Mars flyby in 25 years (or more maybe) and "return them safely to earth"...25 years out! Wow... and just to drive by. I am excited, aren't you? Not. We cannot get Constellation (a program that Democrats and Republicans agreed upon) or any other program to 10 years, how in the world are you going to make this last 25 or more? ...and for what? A flyby? You have got to be kidding. Several hundred billion dollars spent to fly some people by Mars? I hope they get some super pictures. (If they have a long enough lens they can probably get some shots of the Chinese and Indians waving at them from the surface!) This is a super easy kill by congress. Such a trip has absolutely no technical, prestige, or scientific merit. This is dead decades before it begins.

I am no big fan of Constellation. It had underfunding problems and problems from the "been there, done that" crowd from the start. However, like it or not, IMHO its slow steady path was the best chance of ever getting to the moon or Mars or beyond. The slow turtle potentially had staying power, with the commercial one day coming on line to supplement and NASA then on a slow but steady path beyond earth orbit.

posted 04-15-2010 09:25 PM               

Constellation was a ticket to nowhere. How anyone can review the short history of the program and conclude otherwise is beyond me. If it isn't politics, it must be collective delusion, because it sure isn't based on the facts.

If eventual reliance on the commercial sector does not work out, we have little future in space anyway. The Moon will be settled by commercial interests, or it will never be settled. Bases in Antarctica are maintained by governmental entities, and how many people live there on a permanent basis? None.

A vibrant, spacefaring society requires the participation of public and private entities. Obama is suggesting that we increase the NASA budget to provide money to both the public and private sectors to get started on our collective future.

posted 04-15-2010 09:36 PM               

This sequence of missions will begin with a set of crewed flights to prove the capabilities required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

posted 04-15-2010 09:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Aren't we supposed to be running out of oil in the coming decades? If so, why develop such an engine?

---

posted 04-15-2010 10:08 PM               

[It] increases the number of astronaut days in space by 3,500 over the next decade"

posted 04-15-2010 10:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by music_space:
I know little about the alternatives to hydrocarbon engines for first-stage applications. What are the promising fields of R?D?

---

posted 04-15-2010 10:47 PM               

"I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first. But I, I just have to say pretty bluntly here: we've been there before... Buzz has been there. There's a lot more space to explore".

...our long-duration human spaceflight technologies will enable human explorers to... venture into deep space locations such as the Lagrange points (potential sites of fuel depots that would enable more capable future missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations)

posted 04-16-2010 12:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
Hybrids - HTPB as an example provided the containment issue associated with scaled up application can be resolved.

---

From what I've read, hybrids may be better than solids but liquids (LH/LOX) still have the best performance (Isp).

posted 04-16-2010 01:16 AM               

I doubt I'll live to see the day where the commercial sector is routinely servicing space stations in LEO, taking tourists into space, and establishing colonies on the Moon--while NASA and its counterparts from partner countries explore Mars and seek ways to build humanity's future in the Solar System. But that's where I think we should be going, and it's time we got started.

posted 04-16-2010 01:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
If eventual reliance on the commercial sector does not work out, we have little future in space anyway. The Moon will be settled by commercial interests, or it will never be settled. Bases in Antarctica are maintained by governmental entities, and how many people live there on a permanent basis? None.

---

Antarctica is a strange choice of analogy to support your argument. Commercial interest in Antarctica is limited to tourist visits - lots of them - but nothing more substantial. Exactly the sort of directionless joy riding that the commercial LEO future holds for us in space.

Government interest has so far covered several generations of research stations & is now moving inexorably towards exploitation, hence Russia's recent undersea flag planting stunt. Over several decades this now amounts hundreds (thousands?) of long term residents.

Commercial interests are nowhere near the technical capability to achieve manned flights to the moon and far more importantly, haven't shown the slightest interest in anything that even hints towards colonisation or broader human spacefaring goals.

posted 04-16-2010 02:15 AM               

As such, I don't resent not going back to the moon as a goal. Instead I believe it is misguided and not because I want to see somebody plant more footprints there. I personally think if we do some stuff in LEO, test out some craft beyond Earth, heading to asteroids and such, THEN make a shot at Mars, it is only going to be a single trip or two trips at most unless something very game changing is found on the red planet. In a sense, it would potentially be a similar mistake to what happened after Apollo, where we turned more inward and turned our back on the moon because we had "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Having Mars as the only target to me means there isn't that much to look forward to after that.

Now I am not saying that the Moon will solve all the problems. But it does at least offer a closer target and a potentially better support platform to test stuff then just LEO. Even if we put aside all the claims of Helium 3 for use in fusion reactors, I can see some engineering problems for a Mars mission that could be tested out on or near the moon.

The first is radiation exposure. Since the moon lies outside the majority of the Earth's magnetic field and the Van Allen belts, new radiation shielding could be tested more effectively there then in LEO. You could park something on the far side and let it get bombarded, collecting long term data on the results. Every once in awhile, you could shoot up a new sample for further testing and refinement.

The second as I see it would be propulsion technology. One of the things that spurred the advances in aviation technology was having the Atlantic routes between Europe and the US as a proving route for new equipment. After Lindberg did it solo, work was done to get to Europe faster with more passengers in newer airplanes.Granted there are no cities on the moon to fly to, but it is still a target. Apollo and follow on early craft use free return trajectory as a measure of fuel savings and safety where Isaac Newton is in the drivers seat. You know if the engine doesn't light to put you into orbit, you'll be coming home anyway if on that trajectory. But it also means a three day trip to the moon at minimum. Say somebody tried to break that record and go faster to the moon? Imagine how much propulsion development could be done just from trying to overcome the three day barrier of getting there?

posted 04-16-2010 02:40 AM            

Schweikart was an Apollo 9 astronaut and now cofounder of the B612 Foundation, a group that aims to defend Earth from asteroid impacts. If we all don't take this big outer space asteroid serious than we will never reach Moon "for the seventh touchdown" or Mars. It's not a question if but when one will hit.

posted 04-16-2010 03:19 AM            

Die-hard supporters of Constellation want to re-live the Apollo days at the tune of hundreds of billions. So I particularly liked the "been there, done that" part of his speech.

He's also the first US president to specifically mention Mars as a primary destination for astronauts. Okay a fly-by mission, but Obama is saying NASA should be around in the 2030s to lead the way. That flies in the face of vocal critics who rant "Obama lied, NASA died".

Curiously, Obama didn't mention an additional shuttle flight (STS-135), but it could be added I suppose. Nor any mention how this Orion-type capsule will be delivered to ISS. Though he did suggest ISS may fly beyond 2020 (which makes sense).

It's also good to hear that a heavy lift booster for cargo/crew should be in development later this decade. And he also challenged NASA to develop advanced technology to sustain human beings during deep space missions.

posted 04-16-2010 03:40 AM               

The same thinking would have it that the Mayflower pilgrims were just 'reliving Christopher Columbus', Captain Cook was just 'reliving Abel Tasman', D-Day was just 'reliving Dunkirk', etc.

posted 04-16-2010 06:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
From what I've read, hybrids may be better than solids but liquids (LH/LOX) still have the best performance (Isp).

---