Obama and the moon

Obama calls off Bush's equal parts unlikely and pathetic plan to return to the moon fifty years after we went there the first time—by biplane, I think.

Say it ain't so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35131431/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Here is the OMB fact sheet on the NASA budget.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

Politics aside, I am deeply saddened by this. I am a "moon nut" and think it's one of the most glorious things that we, as a species, have accomplished.

The Apollo program was our national cathedral--in the same way that whole regions and generations would bond and toil to create those masterworks.

I am saddened that when I was 8 years old, I watched a man walk on the moon and it inspired and uplifted me. When my son was 8, he watched the Twin Towers fall. What a contrast.

As a country we need technological innovation, we need to push engineering and science as a desired goal for our children, to carry us forward and to lift us, and the rest of the world, up by our ingenuity and perserverance in areas like this.

We need manned space exploration for all of its poetic and romantic implications, as well as for its practical motivation for us to invent, to innovate, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(apologies to Tennyson)

note: I also see the utility and practicality of unmanned missions--and the wonderful things about the universe that they have discovered and taught us. But there is something of the explorer in us, I think, that needs to strive for such things. No, it doesn't feed people here, or solve oppression or hate--but it is an oasis of possibility for us to embrace and admire.

Not that it is directly related, but if I wanted to come up with the least effective way to reduce the deficit while pretending to do so, I would be hard pressed to come up with one less effective than the plan Obama has outlined. Excluding budget items like defense and entitlements basically makes about 80% of the budget off limits for deficit reduction.

ref #3
All of us sci fi geeks knew the drill: Maybe first a space station at one of the libration points, but definitely "man on the moon", then colonists, Luna City, and the push to Mars. Manned exploration of mars, establishment of Marsport, bubble cities, terra forming, and interplanetary civilization. Ah the romance of it all. Seems a pity that it didn't work out that way.

People walking on the moon in 1969 was absurdly ahead of schedule, but the big surprise was the rapidity with which the whole interplanetary thing went exactly nowhere.

I still feel the romance, and I agree that in the end, we haven't done it until there are people on the moon and mars; but (Ah! you knew there was going to be a "but", didn't you?) we can do good scientific work remotely with robots and "telefactors" and the like, keep the science going, and maybe develop some technology that is not only good for space exploration but which might have practical applicability back home on earth too.

The "send machines, not people" strategy can cost way less than sending people, and doesn't preclude sending people later when we know more, have better technology and better knowledge of extraterrestrial conditions and oh, by the way, have more disposable money.

I don't say wait for space exploration until every terrestrial problem is solved; but in a world of scarce resources and big problems right here in river ciry, we need to walk before we can fly. Sure, spend something on space exploration, but for the time being, keep it focused and try to get the most bang for our buck, substance over flash.

Sure, spend something on space exploration, but for the time being, keep it focused and try to get the most bang for our buck, substance over flash.

The real problem is that we spend almost nothing on space exploration, but for some reason people think we do. The current budget proposal is for roughly $3.55 trillion. The budget proposes to allocate about $18 billion to NASA. That's 0.5% of the budget. A half a percent. Even if one were to allocate the entire $104 billion or so that NASA says a return to the moon would cost, that would only be 2.9% of the budget of a single fiscal year. We spend next to nothing on space exploration - effectively the government metaphorically goes through the couch for quarters to fund it.

I'm in favor of smaller government, but there's something weird about space. As StormRaven put it, we spent next to nothing. Yet, weirdly, most Americans think it's very expensive. The flip side of that is that they also put more stock in it. You could fly a man to the Mars for relatively little money, but people would get a lot more "out of it" than if you sunk it elsewhere in the budget—say to a 1% increase in social security spending.

To put this in perspective, NASA costs about a dollar a week for every citizen in the U.S. The Federal government as a whole costs each of us about $228 per week. To fund NASA to send us to the moon would cost about $5 per person per week for a single year.

What's the ROI?

Unobtanium.

What was the ROI in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs? I think that there was more than enough benefit gained (and probably would be more than enough benefit in a future program, even if it is just to be there) to justify a couple percentage points of the budget.

Tang.

What if America's creditor spends some interest on CLEP?
Do benefits accrue uniquely to the citizens of the country whose government undertakes this effort?

What was the ROI in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs?

You could very easily ask that question, also. Does manned flight accomplish much that unmanned flight doesn't?

Unobtanium.

Just throwing one's hat over the fence, as it were? Figure there's got to be something on the other side?

14: I'd suggest that the ROI was fairly substantial. This page is a general take on NASA spinoff benefits, but a fair amount of the benefits appear to have been directly the result of manned spaceflight.

The ROI is we're still talking about it. School kids are still thinking about it. It inspired a generation. Also, better missiles to wipe out the Soviets!

Human beings will go to the moon again, and will establish bases there. You will need to recognize this word, among others, if you want to follow the exciting venture in real time.

The socialist President is more interested in the Red Planet.

#18: "Also, better missiles to wipe out the Soviets!"
Well, that worked, didn't it?

#20: *lol*!

I've got to say, I am more interested in Mars, too!

I guess I should make the obvious right-wing conservative observation: we'll go there (Moon, Mars, wherever) when someone with enough money, or who can mobilize a lot of other people who collectively have enough money, thinks that a dollar (or, more likely, a yuan) can be made from it.

I understand the Coca Cola corporation is planning to paint their logo on the moon when it becomes feasible.

And notice: unless we suffer some terrible planetary social catastrophe, the world is getting steadily wealthier. What is terribly expensive for us to do now, will be relatively much cheaper in a century or two. (Modalursine is right: the Americans prematurely ejected themselves to the moon.)

To get across the Atlantic from Europe 500 years ago took persuading a Queen to pawn her jewels, or so the story I was told in school goes. Now any inhabitant of an advanced country can do it for a week's wages.

I'm sure there will be spacebus loads of tourists wandering around the Martian surface and buying souvenirs at some point in the future.

Did they ask Columbus what the ROI for the trip would be?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jun/HQ_M09-107_Earth_science_symposium.html

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html

Smell what the Rock is cooking.

NASA is a government program that produces. And I hate to limit the discussion of ROI to just spinoffs. Knowledge.

A radio guest (on NPR?) stated that sending people to Mars was quite affordable, as long as the people in question understood and accepted that there would be no guarantee of return from the Martian colony. He noted that many of our ancestors came to the New World without any expectation of seeing family again. I suspect NASA could find one or two people who would accept a one-way ticket. The public, however, would find the idea unacceptable? Remember the media coverage of the MD who discovered she had breast cancer, while stuck on an Antarctic base for a long winter?

This problem will really arise when we -- our distant descendants -- have figured out how to control enough energy to accelerate spaceships to some large fraction of the speed of light, which would mean that even if stellar explorers came back, they would find a world where time had passed much faster than it had for them.

Which suggests a personal way out of the Left/Right polarization the US seems doomed to: if you can't stand living in a country where the other side has won power, you just take a short holiday to Proxima Centauri and come back after a decade or two has passed on earth, hoping the pendulum has swung back and your guys are running things. Just think: a few weeks on a stellar cruise liner and you could have, if you wanted, avoided the Bush Years. Off you get into Obamaworld, while the berths are refilled by conservatives.

#26 Earth--Love it or Leave it!

Did they ask Columbus what the ROI for the trip would be?

Yes.

Did Columbus over or under quote the ROI?

ref #26
Not a bad idea, but you had better have picked the right investment vehicles before blast off, 'cause upon your return you will be ten or 15 years out of date in your specialty. No job for you Mr Fortran II and IBM/JCL when all the cool kids are doing Python and Ruby on Rails.

Money for private space companies

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/03/dawn-of-a-new-era-nasa-give...

"That $50 million isn’t from the revised budget, but rather the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (or in more common parlance, the $787 billion federal stimulus package)."

Well, now there is a rat, two turtles and some worms in space that weren't there a week ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html

Turtles is kind of weird/cool.

As I recall, George's Excellent Lunar Adventure was rolled out in the midst of one of his many crises of management. I can't remember which. I didn't take it seriously then, so Obama cutting it now means nothing to me.

The dream of space travel is the ultimate (I hesitate to say elitist) escapism. I would prefer that we spend the pittance on this planet: revitalizing the oceans might be a good place to start, if the money is burning a hole in our pockets. Most earthlings yearn for a better quality of life. Poor people don't dream of going to the moon - they dream of a home and enough to eat. It is the ultimate arrogance for the wealthiest nation to set its sights on the stars after we have helped foul the nest on our home planet.

Not that I'm against unmanned ventures, but in my opinion we need to get our priorities straight.

ref #33
Great Atun (is that the right name? From Diskworld, I mean) ? Oh! He's (or is it she's?) a tortoise. Never mind.

34: The accepted figure is that every dollar spent on NASA returns seven dollars in taxes and commercial benefits to the economy. Much of the commercial benefits generated by NASA accrue from manned spaceflight. The poor would seem to benefit quite a bit using this metric.

But in real terms, the 2010 Federal budget plans on spending about $1.9 trillion on entitlement spending, including about $670 billion on medicare/medicaid. Even if we funded the entire projected $105 billion cost for a lunar program in a single fiscal year it would only amount to less than one-sixth of what we spend on subsidizing health coverage for the poor and elderly. The balance of how we spend our money is tilted so far away from "NASA is a priority" that arguments like you make concerning how we need to make sure to feed the poor and so on are just silly. We already spend enormously more on feeding and caring for the poor than we do on space exploration, and we would still do so even if the most free spending fantasy version of NASA were in place.

NASA works. I don't understand why there is not a bigger emphasis. Manned space pushes life science. I don't think that is the goal, but it is a product.

I wish we could discuss where we should spend $1 trillion in science and progress - NASA, a collider, oceanographic, biology, medical research, educating and inspiring gifted youth (and maybe deserving old guys) - rather than how much we should give AIG for their next bailout or how much we need to fund the war in Iraq?

36

Well, I guess I'm just in a silly mood. Gil Scott-Heron just keeps running through my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

A rat done bit my sister Nell
And Whitey's on the moon

And I think it's about a hell of a lot more than feeding the poor. I'm sure exploration and management of ocean resources would generate some tax and commercial benefits, and would help stave off a potential environmental catastrophe right here on Mother Earth.

38: And there have been several dozen spinoff technologies resulting from solving problems related to manned spaceflight that clearly have applications in managing the environment on Earth, public health and safety, and making industry run better and cleaner. That's one of the big things about spaceflight, by putting people in an hostile enviornment and setting about solving the problems of keeping them alive and well, we learn a lot about how to improve the lives of everyone else too.

And it really isn't an "either, or" situation. We spend so little on space exploration that it is a blip in the budget. Granted we spend fairly little on ocean exploration (NOAA's budget proposal for 2010 is only about $4.5 billion), but the EPA's 2010 budget proposal is $10.5 billion. We could double all of the amounts for these agencies (NOAA, NASA, and EPA) and it would still only account for a tiny fraction of the federal budget (about 1%).

It seems to me that the political discourse in the US does not allow for consideration of the kind of secondary benefits—new skills and knowledge, technology, materials, etc—that come from the space program. Public spending on many other programs (highways and infrastructure, school lunch subsidies, forest management, just as examples) also has ancillary benefits. Government spending can be thought of as an investment, or it can be thought of as stiffing the taxpayers. A powerful faction in American politics has succeeded in fostering the perception that any and all government spending is bad, so that discussion of something like the space program is framed in terms of “fiscal responsibility,” “efficiency,” “deficit,” “affordability”, even when the actual numbers are reasonable by any practical measure. I’m not interested in triggering an ideological dispute here; I just find it interesting how difficult it is to argue in favor of the Glories of Exploration or the Wonders of Space or Unintended Benefits in today’s fiscal climate.

ETA: I'm pretty sure that bureaucracies are usually stupid, but I sort of like the idea of a Space program.

Sure would be nice to have a plan and program in place to detect and divert the next killer asteroid!

#41

That's being crowd-sourced.

asteroid over Indionesia

WISE

"2010 AL30 was only discovered on Monday. It’s escaped our previous notice because it’s dinky. "

WOW!

Buzz Aldrin has come out wholeheartedly in favor of Obama's plan.

Read what he has to say about it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.htm...

I haven't read it closely, but will have to take it seriously.

It's freakin' Buzz Aldrin, after all. :)

44

Sure you don't mean Buzz Lightyear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ

Seriously, that's a pretty heavy endorsement.

Phil Plait's, Bad Astronomy blog, comments are along the same line as those of Buzz Aldrin.

I had posted a topic in astronomy hoping for some comments from the professionals there, but the topic did not develop in that group.

I think the consensus here is not so much against the change in the approach, as in support of more funding.

Plait's comments though share the confidence in Congress that so many seem to have.

"If it’s business as usual with Congress, then I suspect it may be a lot like the health care plan all over again: lots of spin and noise, lots of knee-jerk reactions because it’s Obama’s plan, lots of "compromise" that’s really just watering down something to make it worse, and then a budget will be passed that won’t be able to get anything done."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10099249

SpaceX private enterprise exploration passes test - launch date next month?

The President to speak on the US space program tomorrow.

White House space fact sheet

ETA
What can NASA do to get the word out more about all the great things happening with robots and satellites in space? I would like to hear the President spend some of the speech time on the exciting things happening now. NASA seems to me to be the good news about government.

Yeah, well Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan don't think so.

I saw that about Armstrong on the MSN page the other day. It is hard for me to evaluate the varying goals of NASA given budgetary constraints. It is embarrassing for the US to depend on Russian and civilian rocket power. And the potential loss of expertise in manned space flight is a real concern. Is Constellation good or bad?

The cost, benefit, and direction of NASA will be decided. It may even be changed later, as this direction is a change.

The success of Hubble, Cassini, Kepler, Wise, the Martian Rovers, New Horizon, earth observations, Mars Reconnaissance, et al, should be part of the President's speech. To communicate the great things that are now being done by NASA.

And along the lines I would like to hear more about what will be done on board the ISS with the extended mission.

It is hard for me to evaluate the varying goals of NASA given budgetary constraints.

The thing is, the budgetary constraints are self-imposed. NASA, as an agency, costs a pittance. If we doubled it's budget the entire agency would still barely a single percent of the federal budget. For every $1 spent on NASA, the government spends $98 on social programs. NASA is funded on a shoestring because we are stingy and shortsighted, not because NASA is somehow really expensive.

Yes, and if I had an effective say there would be more money.

Perhaps if the President could bully pulpit the great results in so many areas and ROI on the spare investment, NASA would be recognized as the jewel it is. (in my opinion it is a jewel.)

Perhaps if the President could bully pulpit the great results in so many areas and ROI on the spare investment, NASA would be recognized as the jewel it is. (in my opinion it is a jewel.)

Given that Obama opined on the campaign trail that we could help fund entitlements by cutting the NASA budget, I doubt it. I would also point out that having made that statement during the campaign demonstrates that Obama is either (a) ignorant as to the nature of the federal budget, (b) pandering because he thinks his constituents are too stupid to realize what a dumb statement that was, or (c) both. None of these options make me think favorably of the president.

stormraven,

I can't tell if we are arguing or not.

I would love more money to NASA.

I am not qualified to speak to whether Constellation is a good program or whether we can easily restore a manned space program if lose whatever we will lose by taking the president's approach.

I also think unemployment benefits should be extended.

I would like banks to put in place an effective loan modification program and to address the rising foreclosure problem.

I cannot understand why we spend what we spend where we spend.

I cannot understand why we can afford a large deficit for some things and not for others.

I would like the President to speak about the great things that NASA has done, rather that spend his time campaigning to justify his movement away from manned space flight and a reliance on Russia rockets.

Perhaps the recent announcement that the deficit is less than projected, "the annual deficit would be $300 billion lower than initial estimates " can fund unemployment extension, education, jobs, and more for NASA.

Then again maybe we do not even have a clue what we are spending where? or what we are taking in.

Aldrin and Armstrong are not in agreement on the proposals.

Another commentor with authority is Phil Plait. He has offered modest support for the new approach.

But to your point on the size of the NASA budget, can you find NASA here?

Then again maybe we do not even have a clue what we are spending where? or what we are taking in.

This. The level of ignorance among the general public concerning the federal budget is shocking. And politicians encourage it by obfuscating the truth as much as possible. It allows them to lie to the public more effectively.

The "average" person thinks the U.S. spends enormous amounts of money on things like foreign aid and NASA, when in reality, in federal budget terms, they are little more than rounding errors. At its highest funding level ever in budget percentage terms (during the heady days of the Apollo program), NASA had a budget that amounted to 5% of the federal budget. That's ten times the funding the agency has now.

People don't realize this. They don't realize that we spend about 25 times as much on interest on the national debt as we spend on NASA. They don't realzie that about 60% of the federal budget (in a normal, non-TARP bailout year) goes to entitlements and interest payments. People don't realize that the typical deficit is larger than all the non-defense discretionary spending for the federal government.

Think about that the next time some senator or Congressman grandstands about helping balance the federal budget by eliminating "fraud, waste, and abuse". If you eliminated everything from the federal budget except entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, and so on), and the defense apparatus (the Department of Defense, the CIA, DHS, and so on), the federal government would still run a deficit. In other words, even if you eliminated in their entirety the Departments of Interior, State, Justice, Education, Labor, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, and every other non-defense/security related agency, the government would still be in the red.

Our federal government is now little more than a support system for the giant ponzi scheme that is social security. And the health care bill just added to that. We are so screwed, and most people don't even have a clue why.

"We are so screwed, and most people don't even have a clue why."

Then we are not arguing.

Stormraven is absolutely wrong.

President Obama is "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." And the president even has a picture of Jupiter on his private office wall.

Here is the speech.

Here is a Republican rebuttal from Science and Technology Committee Ranking Member Ralph Hall R(Tx).

Assuming we are stuck with the budgeted amount and can have none of the $300 billion recently saved by the latest and greatest accounting methods, maybe we can discuss the general outline of the president's plan focusing on robotics, Russian rockets, and development of new propulsion technology looking further in the future for a return to manned space travel versus continued work in the Constellation program and immediate development of Ares 1 and current rocket technology and possibly sooner manned space travel.

And perhaps the issue is as stormraven comments, that we should have the budget necessary for an expanded NASA that might incorporate both. We do get a big bang for each NASA buck.

President Obama is "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." And the president even has a picture of Jupiter on his private office wall.

I think this is the juncture where I point out that Obama is a complete tool who is really good at lying in a very pretty manner.

Space X launches Falcon 9.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/05/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-20100605

Budget details and objectives on the proposed changes to NASA mission not so clear?

NY Times article

Maybe a little morale problem?

NASA as PR? Never.

Jumping in late on this conversation, I think there was a similar topic in the SF section.

I think shifting NASA priorities to learning more about "killer" asteroids is the only sane plan. I like building another giant erection to the moon as much as any male but working globally with other countries to at least have a game plan for averting a world wide cataclysm seems to be the most desirable to me and evidently a lot of other concerned folks. { Hmmm, I think I mentioned before I am more worried about killer asteroids and hemorrhoids than first back to the moon ;-) }

I read in several sources if not mistaken that spin off technology from NASA, which was tremendous in the past as noted above, has slowed and that much of the tech used now is "off the shelf". With those killer asteroids as a focus there would be a lot of technology developed that would be useful for manned space exploration. Saving the earth from a single event is a pretty huge ROI.

Succumbing to my SF side I would prefer developing a doughnut shaped space ship with "artificial gravity" as a base to explore the moon & Mars.

Great links to interesting stuff by everyone thanks.

I like building another giant erection to the moon as much as any male...

Shouldn't that be a female turn-on?