

Neil Armstrong: Obama NASA plan 'devastating' - davidcann
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/

======
_delirium
This seems like another skirmish in a fight that's been simmering for ~20
years within NASA over its various missions. One side, which most of the
astronauts (incl. Armstrong) are on, thinks that manned exploration ought to
be paramount, and therefore supports things like a return to the moon, a
manned mission to Mars, etc. Another side, made up mostly of scientists,
thinks collecting interesting data ought to be paramount, and tends to believe
the most cost-effective way of doing that is via probes, satellites, and
robotic rovers.

Bush mostly sided with the first group, making a manned return to the moon as
a stepping-stone to a manned trip to Mars the centerpiece of his NASA policy.
Obama's mostly siding with the second group.

~~~
houseabsolute
As cool as manned exploration is, it's hard to see what real benefit it brings
besides that a lucky few get to experience space firsthand. Not worth the
hundreds of millions of dollars it costs.

~~~
derefr
I believe there's a direct correlation between the number of new objects NASA
has filmed astronauts landing on, and the number of people wishing to go into
the astronomical sciences and the aerospace industry.

~~~
rflrob
I think you're on the right track, but replace "astronomical sciences" with
"science", and I think it's more accurate. Of every 100 third graders who
wanted to become a scientist because of something cool NASA did, I'd guess you
get 10 who become scientists, maybe another 15 engineers, but maybe only one
of those 25 will have something to do with space. The rest are doing cool
things that have nothing to do with space, but they got started on that path
because of it.

~~~
jordanb
I agree that NASA is a huge engine for interest in science, but I don't think
that's exclusive to the manned program. Spirit and Opportunity, for instance,
are probes to which the public have made an emotional connection.

Certainly the manned space program gets people excited, but pictures of
Jupiter and Saturn do too, and the manned program could never have given us
those.

I think that the enthusiasm lost by ending the manned program could be more
than compensated for by connecting the public with the exciting things that
are discovered by the robotic program.

------
Bjoern
This article gives more context and seem an more interesting read:
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_scien...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science-
space/)

While Armstrong is on one side, Aldrin is on the other:

On the other side of the debate, the most outspoken Apollo-era advocate of
NASA's new policy is the man who was Armstrong's co-pilot for the first moon
landing: Buzz Aldrin.

"Many said the president's decision was misguided, short-sighted and
disappointing," Aldrin wrote in an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal.
"Having the experience of walking on the moon's surface on the Apollo 11
mission, I think he made the right call. If we follow the president's plan,
our next destination in space, Mars, will be within our reach."

What is the Constallation program?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program>

An excerpt from the wikipedia page:

President Obama's argument[32][2] is that the lifetime for the International
Space Station would be extended by an additional 5 years and an additional
US$6 billion would be paid to private companies for shuttling astronauts to
and from it after the Space Shuttle program ends while NASA develops new
technology for future space exploration missions. According to Obama, his
vision embodies a "bold new approach to human space flight that embraces
commercial industry, forges international partnerships, and invests in the
building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration."

~~~
CamperBob
The first time one of those private companies blows up a rocket and kills a
crew of astronauts, the resulting public outcry will put NASA back in the
astronaut-launching business instantly.

And if that doesn't turn out to happen, so much the better.

It's possible Obama is calculating enough to see this.

~~~
kierank
3 people were killed in the Mojave desert after an explosion at a Virgin
Galactic facility.

~~~
CamperBob
They weren't astronauts wearing US flag patches, though. And it didn't rain
hardware all over Texas.

------
metamemetics
Going commercial for land-to-orbit ferrying makes sense: it's a proven concept
that's been done plenty of times and just needs to become more efficient.

Building land-to-deep space vessels makes little sense. It unnecessarily
reinvents the land-to-orbit step. The launch rockets are one more thing to
invent and maintain. Every space mission needs to get into orbit: don't "roll
your own", factor it out and let industry tackle it.

NASA should go commercial for ferrying and focus on robots and proof of
concept projects. Manned deep space missions should be launched starting in
orbit from starports, and are unnecessary before then. They can be assembled
modularly in space.

As far as pragmatic and profitable reasons to go into space, mining is
probably the biggest. Asteroids often contain rare metals in abundance and are
worth trillions. Space mining will only develop if we first invest in: 1)
Making orbital ferrying as cheap as possible 2) Orbital facilities to serve as
launch platforms for research and ventures. 3) Advanced Robotics

I think NASA's new plan is doing everything right and heading in this
direction.

------
khelloworld
This is what worries me the most:

<http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/12041303534>

Until we get out of our comfort zone, we won't make much progress.

~~~
AngryParsley
On the bright side, we have launched probes out of the solar system. New
Horizons will reach Pluto in 5 years.

The problem with human spaceflight is that humans are hard to keep alive in
space. We need air, food, water, constant exercise (or artificial gravity),
and protection from cosmic rays. All of this support equipment has mass. More
mass means bigger rockets full of more fuel. The Saturn V only launched three
guys to the Moon and it was 110 meters tall. It was practically a skyscraper
built to explode in just the right way so that the top floor ended up on the
Moon.

On the other hand, probes just need a radioisotope thermal generator or solar
panels. Not to mention that probes don't mind one-way tickets. And family
members don't cry when a probe is lost in an accident.

Barring new propulsion technologies (NERVA? Unlikely in this political
climate.), humans won't be going anywhere.

A pie-in-the-sky solution would be to put a brain in a vat and shoot that into
space. (A simulation of a brain would be even better, but's probably farther
off.) A brain doesn't have bones that weaken in microgravity. 3lbs of brain
needs fewer resources than 170lbs of meat. Also, I'd bet on brain-machine
interfaces advancing before space propulsion.

~~~
c1sc0
Or make manned missions one-way only? Send out humans, bring back the data
they collected?

------
motters
It all boils down to whether you believe that activities in space should
consist of a series of big grandstanding stunts, or whether you think that
space should become just another place where people live and work - expanding
human horizons. It seems clear that the sorts of missions upon which Armstrong
embarked, though pioneering at the time, were not sustainable. The main reason
for this lack of sustainability was that the hardware was bespoke and too
expensive, and required too large a ground crew to operate. What we should
probably be working towards are sustainable and increasing levels of human
activity in space. This means working towards lowering costs and standardising
hardware, and greater commercial involvement.

------
jsz0
It's tough to question Neil Armstrong but to me $50M/seat for launch seems
like a bargain compared to the alternative. Just based on the $10B we've spent
on Constellation so far that's 200 seats. I don't know how much Constellation
is supposed to cost in the end but let's say it's another $20B for the sake of
argument. Do we have a pressing need to send 400 people into LEO over the next
5-10 years? Over the next 20 years? Maybe we should just consider dusting off
the Apollo.

------
nfg
Some context: <http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/is-a-human-spac.html>
(definitely worth reading the comments on that too)

------
wtn
He pretty much lost me with his "the USA is far too likely to be on a long
downhill slide to mediocrity" and the "to be without carriage to low Earth
orbit ... destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate
stature" lines.

In an environment of extreme political and economic turbulence, the status of
the space program is about the last thing I'm concerned about. The space
program was a useful ideological tool when it was fresh. Now any state with
enough cash can launch.

~~~
melling
How many nations have put a man into space? I think we're up to three.

I can't say I'm all for a race to Mars, but I think need to make constant
progress, and we can't let the program fall apart. It will cost even more
money and years to restart it.

As it currently stands, we have a space station and for the next few years
America won't own a ship to get there.

------
zackattack
Shouldn't we continue to invest in long-term infrastructure development
(education, research) before shedding cash for hyperexpensive space trips? I'm
just about efficiency

~~~
zackattack
Would love a polite answer to my question.

~~~
nfg
Why choose to cut space exploration? Surely there are a myriad of more
"worthy" targets to cut in favour of social programs?

~~~
zackattack
For example: I don't see the point of a manned mission to mars at this point
in time. We clearly wouldn't be able to settle a colony there. Until it
becomes so cheap/easy/efficient, we're better of diverting resources
elsewhere.

I am by no means categorically opposed to space exploration or research.

