Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget

[garyw]

I love the way people say that NASA is "bloated an bureacratic" yet it's the same people who complain when there is an accident that NASA "hasn't got the right procedures in place".

Spaceflight is cheaped but it is also paperwork intensive. NASA is probably one of the most cost effective agencies out there and that's working WITHIN senate requirements and these people are there to spend as much of NASA's money as possible in their home states.

Finally, What went wrong with the ARES 1-X test? Some people might complain about how ugly the rocket is or how it's never going to work but that 1-X test proved the concept is sound.

This is NOT a step in the right direction. It's a slow death for NASA. Wait until next year and I'll bet the amount of money given to NASA is half what Obama has stated it will be or that hte money has been "postponed due to unforseen economic issues but will be issued in 2012".

 

[T.Neo]

but that 1-X test proved the concept is sound.

The concept, not the system.

I guess the logic behind scrapping Ares I is that it's an entirely seperate system which has to be operated. By using one launcher, you can avoid those costs.
Best guess, anyway.

 

[Urwumpe]

Finally, What went wrong with the ARES 1-X test? Some people might complain about how ugly the rocket is or how it's never going to work but that 1-X test proved the concept is sound.

Actually it also showed how much hot needle work had been involved when the parachutes failed, and I am pretty sure, the evaluation of the guidance performance will also be interesting. That it used less RoCS fuel as calculated is not the key quantity (this was expected, since the estimates had been rather conservative), rather the factor is, how the vibrations induced by the guidance system are in relation to the calculated values. Was it really stable or was it nearly instable? If it was nearly instable, this already means bad news for the moment you have liquid cryogen fuel on-board.

 

[n122vu]

Well, at least they might have a clear direction. Get to the moon, get to the asteroids and the get to Mars. Skip Ares I which doesn't have much point any more and go straight for the big on.

This seems at least positive news.

Not exactly. The article says going to the moons of Mars, not Mars itself. I guess they feel that would be safer and easier? Since we've landed on a moon before, we already know how to do it? Not sure I understand the logic there....

 

[eveningsky339]

Needlessly invading and occupying Iraq, the financial meltdown, lack of public interest in space flight-- the cards are stacked against NASA for sure.

Obama may have halted the recession, but only saddled more debt onto the backs of U.S. citizens by doing so. Instead of bailing out the fat cats who caused this mess in the first place, Obama should have allowed the recession to run its course will providing additional aide to those in need (things would have gotten a lot worse before they got better). This approach would have produced a healthier market without the additional debt.

Financial bickerings aside, I really can't be happy about Obama's support. He's silver-tongued for sure, but we cannot blindly believe all of a politicians rhetoric, no matter how much integrity he may possess. That's the nature of politics-- try to appease everyone while pleasing few.

 

[T.Neo]

Not exactly. The article says going to the moons of Mars, not Mars itself. I guess they feel that would be safer and easier? Since we've landed on a moon before, we already know how to do it? Not sure I understand the logic there....

Phobos and Deimos are nothing like the Moon. They're essentially asteroids. The equipment to land on them would probably be very similar to the equipment that would be used to land on an NEO.

In terms of "landing", it'd be more like a docking. It would be a walk in the park compared to Mars or the Moon.

But it seems rather stupid to expend all that effort on a manned mission all the way to Mars orbit, only to land on the moons. Sure, they have certain strange properties when it comes to asteroids, but the science to be done there pales in comparison to the science to be done on Mars.

 

[Istochnikov]

But the trip to Mars neighbourhood IS the challenge. I rather prefer a series of little jumps before goind directly to Mars. Before going there, there is A LOT of things to learn.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes, but the thing is- once you've covered the trip there, you've covered 80% of the challenge...

The EDL problem can be (and has to be, if we ever want to land large payloads on Mars regardless of human presence) solved by testing on unmanned probes.

 

[Urwumpe]

But how often do you want to test things with unmanned probes? We CAN already land stuff reliable on Mars. We can send spacecraft there.

 

[Jake]

But how often do you want to test things with unmanned probes? We CAN already land stuff reliable on Mars. We can send spacecraft there.

Uh... IIRC the Mars missions had a 50% success rate. And out of twelve landings, five failed as far as I remember. I can see how a manned mission to mars won't be that reliable in some eyes.

That being said, someone has to take that first step. And we won't get there if we treat our space programs like a retarded child.

 

[T.Neo]

We CAN already land stuff reliable on Mars.

Yes, but not large payloads, AFAIK.

We can send spacecraft there.

Yes, but we've never sent humans there. A rover in cruise phase is far less demanding then a human crew.

 

[JamesG]

So... no extension on the STS, Aries comes to a screeching halt with that development down the tubes, and we futz around trying to come up with a "simpler" heavy lift system.
Its the worst of both worlds, even more money wasted with nothing to show for it...

 

[Arrowstar]

So... no extension on the STS, Aries comes to a screeching halt with that development down the tubes, and we futz around trying to come up with a "simpler" heavy lift system.
Its the worst of both worlds, even more money wasted with nothing to show for it...

Sort of what I'm afraid of, as well...

 

[Urwumpe]

Uh... IIRC the Mars missions had a 50% success rate. And out of twelve landings, five failed as far as I remember. I can see how a manned mission to mars won't be that reliable in some eyes.

The 50% figure includes the Russian spacecraft send to Mars as early as 1963. If you look at NASA/ESA or only the past 30 years, the figure is much better.

That being said, someone has to take that first step. And we won't get there if we treat our space programs like a retarded child.

Yeah, sometimes you need to DO something, instead of only testing it.

 

[Unstung]

I don't like the government interfering with NASA's plan this late in the game, but it better be cheaper, at least as useful/efficient, and at least as safe. With a rocket ready to go to the moon by 2018, 2020 is still possible. Apollo 7 and 8 were late 1968.
But, making the moon a joint project with Canada, Japan, etc. is an excellent idea. It's a human endeavor, and will be more efficient/cheaper. But, they better do a good job.

 

[Dambuster]

Has that article been backed corroborated by anything else? It is just a blog post so far...

 

[insanity]

Has that article been backed corroborated by anything else? It is just a blog post so far...

That is actually a great question and all of the stories seem to cite the science magazine blog.

 

[n122vu]

TNeo - my questions may not have seemed rhetorical, but I intended them to be. I understand the differences between Mars' moons and our own. I was merely trying to get inside the mindset behind this course of action.

And I agree with you. Pointless to get that far and not go all the way down to the surface of Mars. Although I'm wondering if that's how the Apollo astronauts might have felt (just a little) in the missions leading up to #11.

 

[tl8]

Not exactly. The article says going to the moons of Mars, not Mars itself. I guess they feel that would be safer and easier? Since we've landed on a moon before, we already know how to do it? Not sure I understand the logic there....

Hence why I said get to Mars (As the moons are in Orbit around Mars) rather than land on Mars

 

[Arrowstar]

That is actually a great question and all of the stories seem to cite the science magazine blog.

As far as I know, it's primarily speculation. Folks from NASASpaceFlight.com cited a tweet by a NASA official that suggests the meeting between Mr. Bolden and President Obama was merely informational and did not involve any decision making.