Subscription Center
Feb 27, 2009 04:18 PM | 11
Pres. Obama's budget proposal for fiscal year 2010 throws White House support behind two of the more controversial NASA plans of the Bush era: retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and returning humans to the moon by 2020.
The shuttle's scheduled phaseout, part of Pres. Bush's 2004 Vision for Space Exploration, is opposed by thousands of people who work at Cape Canaveral or in jobs tied to the shuttle missions as well as lawmakers such as Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who don't want the U.S. to rely on Russia for transport to and from the International Space Station. As currently planned, the U.S. will not ready a replacement manned transport system before 2015.
But many in the space community, including the nonprofit Planetary Society, have encouraged NASA to hold fast to the 2010 retirement, citing the orbiter's spotty safety record, outmoded technology and limited reach—shuttle flights can only reach low Earth orbit, leaving the moon, let alone Mars, well out of reach. (The Obama budget leaves the door open for an additional shuttle flight beyond the nine currently scheduled, "if it can safely and affordably be flown by the end of 2010.")
The Planetary Society, however, is against a firm timetable for returning Americans to the moon. In its November roadmap for space exploration, the nonprofit argued that concentrating efforts on a goal that NASA reached decades ago should be reconsidered. The 2020 deadline, the report said, "has driven a series of programmatic decisions that may instead lead to multi-decade delays in the expansion of human activity beyond the Earth-Moon system." A recent report, co-authored by Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin, similarly argued that the moon is a shortsighted target.
The president's budget request (a pdf of the NASA portion is available here), along with a boost in funding from the economic stimulus package, would provide roughly $19.7 billion for the space agency, an overall increase of $2.4 billion compared to 2008 levels.
Space shuttle patch courtesy of NASA
Tags:
NASA,
Vision for Space Exploration,
Ares,
Constellation,
manned space exploration,
Barack Obama
More News Blog:
Next: Sebelius is pick for HHS secretary
Previous: Meet H. psychedelica, a new species of fish
See what we're tweeting about
FlyingTrilobite Picture it #topoli: @iamdavidmiller and @oliviachow walking in slo-mo toward City Hall with The Chemical Brothers' "Galvanize" playing.
BoraZ Why a Science Experiment Gone Bad Doesn't Make Me a Criminal http://t.co/1jWbYNgtqw BoraZ RT @jayrosen_nyu: Public television’s attempts to placate David Koch. http://t.co/Bpn8E6sH1W A devastating account ...
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
11 Comments
Add CommentUnfortunately, Bush's plan to go back to the Moon, and then on to Mars was not a good one. I am quite surprised to see Obama simply to keep a plan that really was never vetted properly, (nor did it make much good sense politically). 43 was merely trying to give his dad's idea a boost, but that wasn't a particularly well brainstormed, or received, idea back then!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about Obama sits down with some true Space professionals, and takes the same $$ to come up with a solid plan to get to Mars?
Ummm, why does Wow Gold Pig, a site that sells jewelery, have to do with Obama's Space Exploration plans?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" returning humans to the moon " is a waste of (borrowed) money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever science such mission could do can be done much much much cheaper with robotic probes.
And one has to ask if knowing more about the Moon is such a priority?
How about finding a cure for diabetes? alzheimer? cancer? malaria?
How about a high-speed train network?
(Europe has one, Japan has one, China is building one.)
How about a new subway line near your place?
(New York has had no new subway station in the last 60 years, yet they really need some).
I am all for science, but when I have to walk 2 miles in the snow to get some milk, I would like some help here.
Bug:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's 2 comments using "oldest to newest" button,
but 3 using "newest to oldest" button.
There are possibly two discussions going on in Washington. One about the science of going back to the moon - which, at first blush, may seem to have low value. The other, is about establishing a beach head on our moon before other countries develop the knowledge and skill necessary to create a manned outpost that would have significant military and security implications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 2nd idea is logical given the kind of paranoia the Bush era was known for. It is also logical that Obama would continue to support this idea since I'm sure many believe that it would be reckless for the US to abandon the moon to other nations - for reasons ranging from future colonization, to research, and as a stepping stone to further exploration.
Developing a scientific community on the moon with the capability to launch probes into the solar system would have great benefits, not the least of which would be the lack of an atmosphere and the low escape velocity.
Going to the moon may actually allow us to serve both masters of scientific undertaking and greater security.
It seems that we get more results for our unmanned missions, which are infinitesimally priced compared to manned missions. There is also the problem of putting humans into space and getting them back alive - how dependable are our manned space vehicles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not against manned space flight, but I do not like to see the lives of astronauts snuffed out in unsafe ventures. In the meantime, we have been getting fantastic results from our unmanned flights, which, when they fail, are soon forgotten.
I agree with jamerz3294 on this one. This issue is sufficiently complex that it should be informed by the best scientific and political thinking that we can muster. Given the Bush administration's demonstrably muddy thinking on so many topics, it seems that adopting its goals without due diligence would be foolhardy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the moon is a baby step into space exploration, we need to know lots more about how we would adapt to long term (several years) in a lower gravity, if the immune system weakening is dangerous enough to pose any danger a la "Forget about Avian Flu!!! here comes Martian Flu!!!, it will kill you in just 2 weeks! guaranteed!", and not necessarily to have some cootie on mars, but something that went with the astronauts and was changed by the environment, radiation, too much dehydrated food, or whatever, second, it is far safer to make the moon a test bed for equipment than to ferry a whole bunch of untested equipment to mars, just to find out that it won't work 100% and one of the astronauts will need to stay back, or simply to realize, the equipment X is prone to failure under unforeseen conditions, and have the proper spares ferried in 8 days than to try to hold on jerry rigged spares for the 6 months that the mission will last, and then hope you can make it back home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the reason no other nation has tried to land on the Moon is because they realize it is a complete waste. Getting there first was the coolest thing ever. Second, not so much. Who wants to say, “Look at us, we are only 50 years behind the Americans!”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would anyone think we are “Loosing it to another nation”? It is so ridiculously expensive to drop a few pounds on the surface, a colony would cost more then Europe spent to colonize America. Imagine if America had been a barren desert with no plants, animals, or water (or air). Would Spain, France, and England have ever returned here?
The idea that it is a security risk to have another nation there is laughable. What do you think; they are going to launch some sort of attack from Tranquility Base?!? NORAD could go home for the weekend waiting for incoming. Do you think that it would be easier to build and launch space vehicles from there? Do you actually believe this? If you don’t like Earth’s gravity well, then build a space station that is far enough out in orbit to provide the exact escape energy as the moon, and it would be a damn site easier to get there then to go all the way to the lunar surface.
The Moon is a barren, lifeless desert with no scientific or monetary value. There is no reason whatsoever to return there. That is why no one else wants to, and no one is planning to. And if they do, who cares? Let then squander vast resources, while we head to Mars. There is only one way to reach Mars: A Mars Mission. The Moon is of no value in that effort. Forget the Moon! Go to Mars.
Moon has monetary value to it, first it has the same basic ores as the Earth, second, it has some scientific value per se, such as the only spot on the solar system that is shielded from human radio transmissions, on the dark side, which would work wonders for radioastronomy, third, as I said, it is a test ground for missions to Mars and whatever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApollo missions were a technological bluff, intended more to test Saturn rockets as launching vehicles (replace the capsule, the LEM, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins with a heavier bunch of nukes and aim a little lower... like to Moscow, and you'll get my point).
Now, this missions left some loose ends, like places where they couldn't go, or which turned out more interesting than they expected, that would be science to make, and will definitely teach astronauts to live off the land (BTW, Mars is also a barren dry wasteland, so they'll need to know how to exploit the resources they find there too)
returning humans to the moon is not a waste of money the whole point of getting to the moon is to start setting up a base. Then from that base we will travel to mars. And im pretty sure that 99% of the worlds population would say that getting to mars is not a waste of money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this