NASA: "We're going back to the moon!"

I was hoping this would have greater implications for their wacko lizard people conspiracies but so far just vague distrust of NASA volleyed about, a bit disappointing.

this was rad news for sure! made today near cool

This is sad.

A former Air Force barrack-turned-bar that counted astronauts among its regular patrons will close next month after more than three decades serving the NASA community in Houston.

"The Outpost is closing... and this time, it is for good," wrote owner Stephanie Foster in a note added Tuesday to the Webster, Texas tavern's Web site. "All-in-all, you must admit that it has been an interesting and fun run for this little bar."

The "little bar", located just down the road from NASA's Johnson Space Center, has been a landmark for space history enthusiasts, in part for what its patronage have left behind: The Outpost's walls are lined in space memorabilia ranging from astronaut-autographed photos to posters and decals.

I visited The Outpost years ago and it was a total throwback to The Right Stuff era. Tons of astronaut stuff, in-jokes you don't understand, and a BBQ that was adequate but yet pretty dang good.

"We're not going back to the moon!"

President Obama will end NASA’s return mission to the moon and turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week, an administration official said Thursday.

The shift would “put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But the changes have angered some members of Congress, particularly from Texas, the location of the Johnson Space Center, and Florida, the location of the Kennedy Space Center.

“My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation’s human space flight program,” Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement.

Mr. Obama’s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget compared with projections last year. With the increase, NASA would receive $100 billion over the 2011 through 2015 fiscal years.

The new money would largely go to commercial companies that would provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. Until now, NASA has designed and operated its own spacecraft, like the space shuttles.

The commercial rockets would displace the Ares I, the rocket that NASA has been developing for the past four years to replace the shuttles, which are scheduled to be retired this year. Companies expected to seek the new space taxi business include United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that launches rockets for the United States Air Force, and Space Exploration Technologies, a start-up company led by Elon Musk, who founded PayPal.

Speaking at a news conference in Israel on Wednesday, Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., the NASA administrator, gave hints of the new direction. “What NASA will focus on is facilitating the success of — I like to use the term ‘entrepreneurial interests,’ ” General Bolden said.

Skeptics wonder whether the commercial approach would be significantly faster or cheaper than completing the Ares I and the Orion capsule that would carry the astronauts, and how astronaut safety would be maintained. NASA has spent about $9 billion on Ares I and Orion.

“We have already spent valuable time and billions of dollars developing this program,” Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, said in an e-mail statement. “It makes no sense to throw away a plan backed by 50 years of NASA experience and institutional knowledge in favor of start-up operations, which may encounter delays and unknown obstacles.”

My response... GOOD.

NASA budget actually increases under this plan and becomes more of a research-directed organization a la DARPA. More $$$ for experimental technology and cool robots from JPL and less for that black hole of pork in Texas and Florida.

Negative side: screaming from Fox and the right-wing about how China will take over the Moon and Mars (and yes, they've used the phrase "Red Planet")

http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/Misc%20Art/Asmodee%20Editions/ae_missionredplanet.jpg

My response... GOOD.

Exactly.

Whilst looking around for Richard Garriot's blog, whom do I stumble upon but:

Buzz Aldrin is on Twitter

less for that black hole of pork in Texas and Florida.

That black hole of pork in Florida puts dinner on my table.

United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin

These two behemoth companies already get about half of Nasa's money anyway, and now they're going to get all of it (and increased, too!) shutting smaller companies (of which half my family works for) out completely. This is complete lobbying bullshit.

Really? Got in any aero/engin contacts in Portland?

xp

This is complete lobbying bullshit.

Given the current state of things, anything with a budget over $1 billion is complete lobbying bullshit.

Interestingly, United Launch Alliance isn't lobbying much money - only http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=United+Launch+Alliance&year=2009%20?20,000 compared with the http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Lockheed+Martin&year=20093mil dropped by Lockheed Martin alone

(argh, sorry about the URLs)

That's true. However, Boeing and Lockheed Martin not only get NASA cash, but Pentagon cash as well. With this development, about 50% of the annual budget will just be handed over to these guys to essentially do whatever w/ far less congressional oversight. S-M-R-T

Didn't Tombot work for LM at one point?

Not that congressional oversight has done any good so far. The Ares program has pretty much been an Edsel from the get go.

Or to put it another way... Space-X has launched two orbital flights of the Falcon 1 (a completely new design) in the time it's taken NASA to modify a shuttle SRB to make one sub-orbital flight. In the best case, Ares I wouldn't be making an orbital flight until 2014. Bigelow's two experimental space stations are still orbiting.

Anyway, there's a better written essay on this here: http://gizmodo.com/5461719/its-time-to-get-serious-about-colonizing-space

imo it's a sad day when the teleprompter jesus kowtows to ed anger

http://weeklyworldnews.com/opinion/ed-anger/6743/ed-anger-says-shut-down-nasa/

Maybe we should amend the thread title with "update February 2010: ... BY FOOT!" ?

Booming post: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1378

These are the current and future US space telescopes.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2010/10/nasa.jpg

JWST is the "new Hubble". By launch in 2014, development on JWST will have taken ~25 years. There are some more specialized non-US missions missing from that diagram (notably GAIA), but there is no new Hubble-type space telescope is in planning at the moment anywhere. So assuming a similar development timescale, JWST is the only hope any currently working astronomer has to do optical/infrared astronomy in space for the rest of their career. It's being placed in a more distant orbit than Hubble, which means it can't be repaired if something goes wrong, and it's lifetime can't be extended if things go well (both were the case for Hubble). Fingers crossed, eh? This is a good summary of the situation: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/full/4671028a.html

it looks barmy!

http://penwalprototypes.com/images/portfolio/Signature/JWST.jpg

ok i tell a lie re: no further plans coming down the pipe. development began in the last couple of years on a new infrared space telescope which, after a few mergers of different projects was named WFIRST this year. there won't spend any money on it until jwst launches though, so it's probably ~20 years away at least.

aw yeah

http://news.discovery.com/space/2011/06/07/shuttle-station4-825.jpg

I liked this one with an upside down Endeavour.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/557842main_iss027e036638_1600_428-321.jpg

Big size here...
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/557848main_iss027e036638_full.jpg

oh nice http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=250023

― caek, Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:18 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

> >This is not the last word.  The House Appropriations Subcommittee
> >will consider this bill tomorrow.  And the Senate will also have a
> >separate bill on NASA funding. However, in the present climate this
> >step puts the centerpiece of astronomy's future at great risk.
> >
> >JWST and Astrophysics has entered a very dangerous zone.
> >
> >The impacts are numerous if JWST is terminated:
> >
> >1)  termination is very damaging for future astronomy and
> >astrophysics scientific productivity and for the pre-eminence of US
> >science;
> >
> >2)  termination would result in no observatory-class mission to carry
> >out broadly-based research when the current Great Observatories reach
> >end-of-life;
> >
> >3)  termination undercuts the Decadal Survey process since it was the
> >top ranked program in the prior 2000 Decadal Survey, and it is
> >identified numerous times in the 2010 Decadal Survey as a
> >foundational program for future astrophysics research;
> >
> >4)  termination of JWST, as the natural successor to Hubble, would
> >result in the loss, once Hubble fails, of a very large part of the
> >remarkable public interest that astronomy has enjoyed;
> >
> >5)  termination would eliminate a major source of inspirational
> >science education and outreach results, particularly for the interest
> >in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) that comes from
> >the high profile HST and JWST science results;
> >
> >6)  termination would reduce the strength and visibility world-wide
> >of the US science program, not just astrophysics;
> >
> >7)  termination would reduce US credibility as an international
> >partner given the Canadian and European partnership on JWST and their
> >substantial contributions to the program;
> >
> >8)  termination of JWST, following on from the termination of the SSC
> >(Superconducting Super Collider), would send the message that the US
> >is relinquishing leadership in major science projects -- it will be
> >very difficult to start any other major science project or mission;
> >
> >9)  termination would eliminate the broadly-based research funding
> >for the community that results from the Great Observatory-class
> >missions if none are operating, and greatly reduces opportunities for
> >undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate education;
> >
> >It is essential that we make our voices heard.

So assuming a similar development timescale, JWST is the only hope any currently working astronomer has to do optical/infrared astronomy in space for the rest of their career. It's being placed in a more distant orbit than Hubble, which means it can't be repaired if something goes wrong, and it's lifetime can't be extended if things go well (both were the case for Hubble). Fingers crossed, eh? This is a good summary of the situation: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/full/4671028a.html

― caek, Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:56 PM (8 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol

:(

seriously. it's been a clusterfuck, but it's our clusterfuck, you know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html

don't have much to add but yeah this is super depressing.

ha this happened over the weekend too:

http://www.universetoday.com/87245/subaru-8-meter-telescope-damaged-by-leaking-coolant/

^ aw shit that explains why my dad had to be on the summit the other day. all he told me was that he listened to joan jett on the way down and it was a "beautiful morning" though.

(my dad is an engineer for subaru)

oh rad!

looks like the Spielberg war of the worlds

oh man the inside is so cool. the whole summit is so cool. nothing up there except those huge domes, like cathedrals.

us in our regulation hard hats:
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/47572_705670264166_19506071_38038078_7669841_n.jpg

anyway yeah :( :( about the jwst but i guess Big Science stuff is the first to go when people get upset about "spending". because what does it do for me.

oh cool! i would love to got to mauna kea.

i have only been to palomar and the mcdonald.

i would love to go to hubble too but space does not work that way.

american astronomical society responds

http://lists.aas.org/pipermail/aasmembers/2011-July/000215.html

(kind of)

there is a great section in David Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas" where a post-apocalyptic tribal dude finds Mauna Kea

just FYI

that is in my unread pile. i will keep an eye out!

I gotta say that the press release caek quotes above, listing 9 (count 'em 9!) devastating impacts if JWST is terminated just struck me as very weak arguments on the whole, just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it will stick. The preeminence of USA science will be jeopardized! Children will have fewer pretty pictures of nebulae to get them interested in astronomy and science, and therefore we will generate Fewer Technicians for The Future.

Face it, there's just one impact that matters; astronomy will lose an exceptionally valuable for tool for advancing our knowledge about the remoter parts of the universe, which knowledge would enable astronomers to piece together a more accurate picture of the universe as a whole. Entire areas of research would be gutted. We'd be throwing away an opportunity to learn many interesting things.

If that reason isn't enough, none of the others will make a dime's worth of difference.

Otoh, really big expensive projects are also opportunities for expensive and spectacular failure, too.

it's not just a "we're #1 at science" thing. scientific leadership since the war has resulted in the us growing a huge skilled economy. both through migration, and american kids growing up in an environment where academic science is prestigious (in a way it isn't in a lot of the rest of the world) and so choosing to go into it. it's been kind of the unique selling point of the u.s. economy for 70+ years.

the potential scientific impact of jwst is massive but it's not particularly cost effective compared to, e.g., SDSS ($200/scientific paper!). personally, i don't think the cost of any space mission is worth it merely on the grounds that we find stuff out we don't know. pure knowledge just isn't that important. astronomy is culture: we get paid to do it because society finds it profound and exciting and stuff, and also because many economies recognize that if you want a strong applied knowledge economy (and you do) having a strong basic research sector is demonstrably a necessary condition, even if it does feel like wasting money.

also manned space exploration sucks.

it's not just a "we're #1 at science" thing. scientific leadership since the war has resulted in the us growing a huge skilled economy. both through migration, and american kids growing up in an environment where academic science is prestigious (in a way it isn't in a lot of the rest of the world) and so choosing to go into it. it's been kind of the unique selling point of the u.s. economy for 70+ years.

So that's why perhaps over half the population thinks global warming is a hoax.

-- Gorge, Ph.D.

the median person in the u.s. thinks less of science than the median person in most other developed countries, sure.

but you don't need everyone to think science is great for the prestige attractor effect to operate.

On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.