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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, for a measly hundred billion we can get some more astronomers. Great ! It's the geniuses that do most of the science and I think they tend to gravitate there anyway.
I'm reminded of Feynman's comments on the field of gravity, back in the 60's even before grade inflation and a huge increase in the number of Phds
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Steven Weinberg's essay in "Lake Views", Bush's idea of returning to the Moon etc. was never anything but a smoke curtain, i.e., they wanted to cancel a number of scientific projects planned by NASA (e.g., an experiment aimed at detecting gravitational waves) but didn't want it to look bad. So they came up with this ploy of announcing we're going to Moon and Mars, and all the cost cutting was justified by saying that all other NASA efforts had to be deprioritized to focus on the president's vision, while in reality never even a half-hearted effort was made to make the vision any closer to reality.
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."
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."
I'm totally with Obama on this. I'm crazy about space and although I'll almost certainly never go I'd love to see us on Mars or with orbital colonies before I die. Open sourcing NASA and treating commercial space ventures on an equal footing would be a great step towards that.
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.
Accidents happen. You can't calculate for accidents. Currently Space exploration are very centralized around government's willingness and ability to invest on it. For long terms sustainability and for space program to really expand we need more than a few players.
We need heavy investment from private sectors. This will happen eventually, why wait?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.