@41. Chris Winter :

Another quote without comment — a memory of a memorial:
Keith Cowing’s Devon Island Journal 20 July 2003: Arctic Memorials and Starship Yearnings

Thanks for sharing that article with us all. I’ve quoted and linked it again in the Challenger astronauts memorialized on the Moon BA blog thread (posted January 30th, 2011 7:00 AM) for those who might’ve missed it. (Comment #21 awaiting moderation.) Also because I think its worth repeating and belongs on that thread too. Hope you don’t mind.

@72. Keith Bowden : Thanks, glad to hear it.

Gary 7

MTU, thanks for your enthusiastic support for the US space program; even though you hate the current plans, your passion is evident and appreciated, mate! I can’t say that I agree or disagree with you (as I say, I appreciate both sides of the argument), but I always enjoy reading your contributions to the conversations here.

@ MTU : “Instead of giving up on the whole idea of a Lunar return.”
For the last time, we haven’t. We’ve only given up the idea of a completely stupid and pointless boots-and-flag mission.

You asserting that Ares-Constellation was that does NOT make it true.

Constellation would have been far from pointless – it would’ve explored new regions with new more advanced spacecraft, more people, more time on the Moon to do and discover more. It would’ve been a great step forward from where we are now, going nowhere but LEO indefinitely hoping that private space agencies can do the work we found too hard to keep doing and that the Russians still show us charity and let us ride with them in exchange for large sums of US cash.

All just when we were finally getting the rocket program that was going to do the job – to resume the leadership of the space race, to lift national morale, boost the economy and start the Western world and esp. the US really moving forward positively again. Constellation was too far advanced to cut at this stage – Obama’s decision was as dumb – or dumber – as cancelling Apollo before it’s first manned flight.

Yes, Constellation had its teething problems – so did the early Apollo program, so did the early Mercury problem, so did the Hubble Space Telescope when it was launched with a flawed mirror.

The answer to that is getting on with it, persisting with the program, properly funding what was needed and fixing those problems. That approach worked for Apollo, worked for Mercury and we fixed the Hubble with many Shuttle missions* – I think doing that would have worked for Constellation too. We’ll never know now I guess.

As #61. gss_000 correctly observed :

… you’re wrong about the goal of Constellation at least. Constellation was working to develop long term exploration of the moon and head towards Mars. In many ways, it had the same goals as President Obama’s plan now: to end at Mars. … [SNIP] … NASA was solving the problems you mention, but a lot of that got lost in the rhetoric.

In fact, if you look at Obama’s space plans, it’s just as likely to be a flags and footsteps mission as Constellation was. The tech to stay on Mars is the same tech that was under development with Constellation.

…[SNIP] … What Constellation detractors forget is that it survived multiple Congresses led by different parties. Very few plans have done that. It needed revision as its future was bleak, but no long term plan doesn’t. In fact, if you see the Augustine Report, while the committee did say the budget made its future questionable, the members actually praised NASA for its management with the lower funds NASA always got in the budget.

I guess its easy to denigrate Constellation now its been cancelled. I guess Obama-maniacs kind of *have* to do so otherwise they’ll have to ‘fess up that their idol is imperfect and stuffed up badly.

We’ll never know what we’ve missed out on, we’ll never see Constellation lift off or know where it would’ve landed, who it would have landed and how brilliantly they might have suceeded had Constellation gone ahead.

I like to think somewhere there’s a better parallel reality where Constellation is moving forward and having astounding successes. Where NASA and the USA are restoring pride and hope and making ground-breaking discoveries and spin-offs. Where we know the names of the first Constellation crews and the first lady on the Moon has a high school named after her already, where astronomers are building a farside telescope and .. all the other stuff that’s now just wishful thinking in this universe. Sigh.

@65.Joseph G : @ Messier Tidy Upper: You do make quite a convincing case. I get the impression that this is a bit of a personal cause celebre.

Yeah, you could say that – & thanks.

————–

* That fact alone is enough in itself to justify the Shuttle as a positive for science many times over in my view for those who like to knock that program.

I can’t argue with you there…

“But cost to orbit must be reduced…”

Well, of course it must. But “must be” “will be”.

“…and it’s not like there’s been zero work done in that area. There are decent ideas floating about.”

Okay, now I’m curious. Can you tell me what these ideas are?

“We’re not mice. We’re a sapient species. Someone will figure out how to bell the cat.”

The analogy I like to use in these circumstances is to imagine President Teddy Roosevelt challenged the American aeronautical community to develop a supersonic aircraft. We know *now* how to make supersonic aircraft, but it surely wouldn’t have been obvious to people 100 years ago. Depending on your answer above, why should we assume someone *will* work out how to cut cost-to-orbit by 99% or even 90%?

Are you serious?

Seriously, are you serious?

*If* NASA wanted to eliminate Gus Grissom, how do you think they’d do it? A car or plane accident, such as killed other astronauts, or a very public one which would cause a Congressional inquiry?

And why do you think NASA would need to fake the Apollo Moon landings?

While you are right that oversights led to these problems, to say “The root cause of all three accidents is the same and it is shameful that NASA human spaceflight has refused to learn the lesson” is wrong. Look at what is happening with the shuttle now. It could have launched if NASA had not learned its lesson. Instead, they decided to be extra cautions with Discovery and Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon has repeatedly said he has felt no pressure to launch just because of schedule. They are waiting to be sure they are comfortable with the safety.

Let’s not let NASA, or any of the commercial spacecraft companies, get complacent. But let’s give them the credit where credit is due. Every analyst who holds your view also notes that the NASA of today has learned the lessons of those tragedies and are applying them.

Please, take the time to actually carefully read the extensive literature on the deeply flawed culture that lead directly to all three of these tragedies. One could of course forgive one mistake, or perhaps three different mistakes, but that is not the case. The root cause of all three accidents is the same and it is shameful that NASA human spaceflight has refused to learn the lesson. Please, don’t be a part of the problem by providing cover for the organization by being a weak mouthpiece that just repeats the shameful, manipulative PR we’ve been fed the past four decades.

P.S. I see your subsequent post, and am glad you’ve taken the time to consider what is actually the result of the deaths involved. I agree, nothing is risk free. But I hope also you understand why your original point is so objectionable – it reads exactly like the standard cover for neglect and ineptitude. Let ‘em die and then call it inevitable making the victims heroes when we feel guilty about it.

I agree with some of your points, but you’re wrong about the goal of Constellation at least. Constellation was working to develop long term exploration of the moon and head towards Mars. In many ways, it had the same goals as President Obama’s plan now: to end at Mars. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin did no favors when he said it was “Apollo on steroids,” but anyone saying it was a “flags and footsteps” mission is just as wrong as those who say Obama killed human spaceflight. NASA was solving the problems you mention, but a lot of that got lost in the rhetoric.

In fact, if you look at Obama’s space plans, it’s just as likely to be a flags and footsteps mission as Constellation was. The tech to stay on Mars is the same tech that was under development with Constellation. Now I love the idea of heavier tech development under the new plan, but there’s no systematic development plan under it right now. It’s a “shotgun” format where a lot will be developed and we’ll see what happens then. I don’t know if this can be sustained long term. I am looking forward to what comes out, though.

What Constellation detractors forget is that it survived multiple Congresses led by different parties. Very few plans have done that. It needed revision as its future was bleak, but no long term plan doesn’t. In fact, if you see the Augustine Report, while the committee did say the budget made its future questionable, the members actually praised NASA for its management with the lower funds NASA always got in the budget.

Again, I like a lot in the new plan, but what you say isn’t really different than the old plan. This is NEOs and Mars instead of moon and Mars. The tactics are different, but they both aim to do the same thing in the end. The way things are going, I think this new plan will be killed too after a commission during the next Presidency or the first Republican President. (Remember candidate Obama supported a return to the moon).

Instead of giving up on the whole idea of a Lunar return?

For the last time, we haven’t. We’ve only given up the idea of a completely stupid and pointless boots-and-flag mission.

Doing more, doing some real exploration, means developing a variety of technologies and capabilities first. Which is the plan. There is no specific plan for a moon landing because that would be foolish when you aren’t sure yet what capabilities you will have and when.

Setting hard goals and dates, “We must get back to the moon by 2020″ and whatnot, do nothing but force NASA to begin solving the problem with the tools they have on hand. It’s how we got Constellation, a project that solved zero of the real problems limiting space travel.

The current NASA plan is the best way to expand our presence in space. Every realistic vision of a future where humans are exploring the solar system and establishing colonies on other worlds makes use of technologies and capabilities NASA is in the process of developing.

It does not involve launching everything you’re ever going to send on a single heavy-lift vehicle. Constellation, Ares, DIRECT, are all detrimental diversions from the goal of true progress.

Progress is not doing the same thing again. Vision is not limiting your sight to the way things were done before. Progress is doing new things. Vision is seeing how a new way of doing things can expand the possibilities beyond what they would ever be if you restricted yourself to the old ways.

Have vision. The future of space exploration is brighter than ever. Assuming Congress doesn’t gut the effort. Sadly those who simply hate NASA, and those who love it but are fixated on the past, are working together.

I read it on the Internets.

MTU said “Obama is, let’s face it, doing a terrible job of “fixing the mess.”

When it comes to the economy, some of us understand the Executive Branch has little power over it. Heck, the Congress has limited power, and most of it is negative. Government and taxation is in the “necessary evil” category, and the optimal route is to pass the minimal law required to help solve a problem. We *never* do that, and you get endless abuses and unintended consequences. I’m not preaching libertarianism here. If something honestly requires a large, detailed law and administrative entity (FAA & air travel is a good example), then so be it. The TSA would be a related bad eaxmple. Some entities embody both. The FCC is needed to regulated limited spectrum and keep idiots from making planes crash. When they start telling me what I can and can’t watch on TV, I reach for the pitchfork and torch.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/10/that-leaves-more-than-14-million-square-miles-left-to-explore/

Dealing with those innumerable reasons to explore the Moon. The title says it all really – although there’s plenty more there.

Also, *if* Ares-Constellation had to be cancelled for whatever reason – & I don’t think it did but *if* it had to be – then why the blazes couldn’t we have moved to plan B :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/03/nasas-plan-b/

or even plan C :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An508xfQyDY&feature=related

(Imagine here a modified version with a LEO rendezvous and then a lunar mission from there using two launches – separate rocket for the Lander and CSM type craft?)

Instead of giving up on the whole idea of a Lunar return?

Actually, you just proved my point: “Even the worst plan is better than no plan!”. We agree to disagree on that one.

And one more time: Ares I-X was nothing compared to Apollo 7. It wasn’t even close to Ares I (apart from the outer appearance of the rocket). It was merely a SRB of the Shuttle with a new head. Not very far into a program that ran about 4 years or longer up to that point. The Augustine Commission found out that Ares I wouldn’t be ready to flight before the (then) proposed ending of the ISS, Ares V even further away (not one piece of hardware built up to that point). So, NASA wasn’t much further in the program than blueprints.
Actually, it may have been the last moment to cancel it, and in my opinion (and, yes, you disagree here) it was the right thing.

I agree with you, that it would be unwise if every new president cancels the programs of his predecessor.

Btw: I don’t want tons of plans, I just want a good one, with new (and most likely better) rockets. And not something that looks like a stripped down version of the Shuttle (Ares I was exactly that).

The decision to abandon the Constellation program was of course a good one. NASA doesn’t build rockets. They don’t build capsules. Really, they don’t build much. The building is done by private contractors. Having a contract with the government is a tricky affair. They do levy heavy fines for failing to live up to the contract, and the people with the fining power don’t play politics. But very large contractors can afford very sneaky lawyers.

Essentially, we’re discussing incentive.

Government contractors have an incentive to add cost to the project. By having a contract that makes NASA foot the bill for added expenses, and finding ways to add such expenses without violating the contract is the object of the game. This is why so many military (and NASA) inventions are so completely unnecessary they’re never even used. Successful government contractors make more money the more they waste.

Private industry, though, has an incentive to cut costs. This is a problem when such companies take over public programs and can force their business model rather than try to entice (I point this out so as not to be mislabeled as a “Free Market” capitalist). But for now, this is not the case. If Verizon wants new satellites, they would pick the company that can get a satellite functioning in orbit for the smallest cost. Waste [i]loses[/i] money for private industry.

We still need the unwieldy government contractors, but for space exploration not offering returns on the investment, like going to Mars or an asteroid.