News Moon Mission: Obama's Panel Says No Go

[aquitaine]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-space-panel-says-moon-apf-2656818175.html?x=0&.v=4

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.

The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current $18 billion annual budget.

"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday

This should be really embarrasing, we spend $3 billion A DAY in Iraq, yet we suddenly won't pay for this?

Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.

So let me get this straight, he wanted to shut it down only 6 years after the station is finally completed and has just started to actually do real research. That makes no sense to me given the obscenely long construction time.

The panel called "unwise" the Bush plan to shut down the space station in 2015 and steer it into the ocean, after 25 years of construction and only five years of fully operational life.

Finally some sense, but this raises another question, why did it take so ****ing long in the first place? 25 years of construction? That's pathetic, surely we can do better than that the next time...

 

[Cyrus]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-space-panel-says-moon-apf-2656818175.html?x=0&.v=4

This should be really embarrasing, we spend $3 billion A DAY in Iraq, yet we suddenly won't pay for this?

Is going to the moon more important than stabilizing Iraq? (The answer is no).

 

[Pengwuino]

This should be really embarrasing, we spend $3 billion A DAY in Iraq, yet we suddenly won't pay for this?

Does this at all sound accurate? Do you know what that adds up to in a year?

has just started to actually do real research.

Really?

Finally some sense, but this raises another question, why did it take so ****ing long in the first place? 25 years of construction? That's pathetic, surely we can do better than that the next time...

Was this statement as well thought out as the one before it was? Do you actually think it was sitting up there all that time dormant? Or that it was just a matter of tossing it up in space and saying 'wala!'?

 

[aquitaine]

Does this at all sound accurate? Do you know what that adds up to in a year?

That should be $1.8 billion per week, I was in a hurry when I wrote it.

Really?

It wasn't doing nearly as much as it is now. How could it? For example, the Columbus module for conducting genetics (and fluid physics) research wasn't even launched until last year.

Was this statement as well thought out as the one before it was? Do you actually think it was sitting up there all that time dormant? Or that it was just a matter of tossing it up in space and saying 'wala!'?

Nice dodging the issue with snide remarks.

 

[D H]

This should be really embarrasing, we spend $3 billion A DAY in Iraq, yet we suddenly won't pay for this?

Your $3 billion dollar a day figure is just a bit high -- if you call an order of magnitude plus "a bit".

Now to the meat: Where have you been for the last 40 years?

NASA was able to get to the Moon in short order in the 1960s for a few simple reasons.

1. Crystal clear and stable goals and objectives.
2. 5% of the federal budget went to NASA.
3. Minimal interference by the executive and legislative branches.
4. NASA was not a bureaucracy.
5. Narrow interfaces, a targeted design, minimal overlap between centers. In short, NASA followed solid engineering principles.

Flip those around and you can see why NASA hasn't accomplished as much since then.

1. Goals and objectives that are as clear as and as stable as mud.
2. 0.5% of the federal budget goes to NASA.
3. Maximal interference by the executive and legislative branches.
4. NASA has grown up and is now a full-fledged bureaucracy.
5. Fat interfaces, multi-purpose design, lots of competition between centers for 0.5% of the federal budget. In short, NASA no longer follows solid engineering principles.

So let me get this straight, he wanted to shut it down only 6 years after the station is finally completed and has just started to actually do real research. That makes no sense to me given the obscenely long construction time.

That was a political statement aimed at Democrats who hate everything Bush more than a statement aimed at reality, plus a bit of NASA playing chicken with Congress.

To get to that 25 year construction figure one has to go back to 1984, when Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom. Freedom was never more than a paper study because Congress never anted up the needed amount of money. What finally got construction started a decade later was a treaty with Russia to build the station jointly. The first piece of the International Space Station was finally put in orbit in 1998.

Regarding the 2015 end of the ISS: By international treaty, anything big put in low Earth orbit must have a planned end, complete with the vehicle being intentionally sent into the atmosphere to burn up on re-entry and have any pieces that didn't burn up fall somewhere safe such as the middle of the Pacific. By the initial treaty with Russia, this end date is in 2015. NASA has been telling Congress and the executive branch for quite a few years that this treaty is still in effect (hint, hint). NASA cannot renegotiate treaties. Until Congress and the executive branch tell NASA otherwise, the ISS has to come down in 2015.