Nasa's New Budget Graph For The Bush Initiative..., ...or, This You Gotta See To Believe Options

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/..._repo.html#more

Do they actually think they can SELL this? Even to this Congress? (Actually, I don't think they really do.)

[nprev]

(sigh)....No, but wouldn't it be nice....

[dvandorn]

I don't really know that NASA can sell this -- but then again, that's not what they were tasked to do. They were tasked to come up with an architecture that would give America a manned interplanetary capability. This does just that, and it's not as expensive as many other options.

Please don't start the argument that there's no good reason for humans to travel back to the Moon or to other solar system bodies, because I will never agree with that argument. I don't care what the fianancial factors might be. I think it's very bad for the human spirit to stay holed up here, when we have the ability to explore beyond -- in person.

-the other Doug

[Tom Ames]

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/..._repo.html#more

Do they actually think they can SELL this?  Even to this Congress?  (Actually, I don't think they really do.)

Someone seems to have successfully sold Congrss on the idea that massive tax cuts and spending increases are the means to a balanced budget. So NASA's probably thinking "what the heck -- who knows WHAT these suckers will buy."

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It's also bad for the human spirit to reduce people's prosperity, against their will, for things they don't as a whole want to do. We've already seen the polls: Gallup reports that the American people would favor a return to the Moon ONLY if the total cost of the program was less than a billion dollars -- which is to say they don't want it at all. If there's no actual concrete benefit from it, how does this give Congress and the White house the right to cram it down their throats with their own money? Particularly, I may add, when we can "explore" without the gigantic added expense of lugging out own bodies along -- and the people as a whole seem quite content with THAT kind of space exploration.

Let's just keep in mind that we are talking about a manned return to the Moon, which -- however interesting it may be to geologists -- is an utterly barren, monotonous desert that most people find boring as hell, which is why interest in the Apollo program vanished the moment Apollo 11 was over. If you're going to explore something like that, the way to do it is as cheaply as possible, with machines.

[nprev]

It's also bad for the human spirit to reduce people's prosperity, against their will, for things they don't as a whole want to do.  We've already seen the polls: Gallup reports that the American people would favor a return to the Moon ONLY if the total cost of the program was less than a billion dollars -- which is to say they don't want it at all.  If there's no actual concrete benefit from it, how does this give Congress and the White house the right to cram it down their throats with their own money?  Particularly, I may add, when we can "explore" without the gigantic added expense of lugging out own bodies along -- and the people as a whole seem quite content with THAT kind of space exploration.

Let's just keep in mind that we are talking about a manned return to the Moon, which -- however interesting it may be to geologists -- is an utterly barren, monotonous desert that most people find boring as hell, which is why interest in the Apollo program vanished the moment Apollo 11 was over.  If you're going to explore something like that, the way to do it is as cheaply as possible, with machines.

Certainly a point well taken, Bruce, but I would argue that we would not only betray the spirit of the United States but also the long evolutionary struggle of life on Earth if we fail to expand permanent human presence throughout the solar system and, eventually, to the stars...and that won't ever happen unless we try.

Appalling as the price tag for manned exploration is, one (sort of) good thing about it is that it provides one hell of a lot of incentive to develop cheaper and more effective propulsion technologies. That and an enduring mandate to do these missions at all are desperately needed to make such development possible, and history shows that technology usually rises to meet the challenge but only if a challenge is perceived.

Remember Alexander's steam engine. If ancient Greece had had an urge to explore the ocean beyond the Mediterranean Sea, then its full potential as a propulsion method might have been realized and the spin-off (besides the probable early discovery and colonization of the Americas) would have been the Industrial Revolution several centuries early...

[David]

Particularly, I may add, when we can "explore" without the gigantic added expense of lugging out own bodies along

But we don't do this kind of exploration. Where's our Lunar Exploration Rover?

Let's just keep in mind that we are talking about a manned return to the Moon, which -- however interesting it may be to geologists -- is an utterly barren, monotonous desert that most people find boring as hell

There's a heckuva lotta Moon we haven't seen close up -- some of which is a good deal more visually interesting than the parts we have seen. Well, okay, it's still gray.

Maybe our visual artists could tint lunar images to a more exciting hue. I bet that a popular survey could easily determine which color Americans would most like images from the Moon to be. Probably pink.

[nprev]

The "boring as hell" aspect of the Moon to some is indeed undeniable, but I have the feeling that the sight of people exploring it in person again might capture the imagination of the public in a way that Apollo failed to do. Plus, I'm sure that there are some unique places yet to be seen...Oppy proved that point for Mars beyond a doubt!

Remember, the present generation grew up with Star Wars, Star Trek, and therefore science fiction (well...space opera, anyhow; real SF is still beyond the limited imagination of Hollywood) as a mainstream phenomenon. Apollo was framed primarily as a one-shot strategic national goal and/or propaganda stunt instead of as a sustained exploration initiative, and that's why everyone lost interest after July 1969..."mission accomplished".

The Moon/Mars Initiative has a chance to become something much more than that, and this is the point that has to be made to achieve enduring public support.

[djellison]

I think it's quite obvious that NASA isnt going to get a 400% budget hike, so this report will probably just highlight the fact that yes, we could go back to the moon etc, but if you want to do it it's going to cost a LOT of money.

Doug

[David]

Apollo was framed primarily as a one-shot strategic national goal and/or propaganda stunt instead of as a sustained exploration initiative, and that's why everyone lost interest after July 1969..."mission accomplished".

I think that's not so much of the problem as that the Soviets failed and then gave up on their moon program -- which apparently came a bit closer to success that we knew at the time. Learning the psychology behind the Soviets' figuring that 0th place was better than 2nd place would doubtless be fascinating, but that's all water under the bridge by now.

Looking back on the events, the best thing for NASA, in terms of the budget, advancing lunar exploration, and so on, would have been to deliberately stall the program to allow the Soviets time to catch up. (Of course, we'd have needed much better intelligence about the Soviet program than maybe the Americans had -- I don't really know what information the CIA had and how widely they shared it, if at all, with NASA.) If Apollo had actually had the character of a race, with both the Soviets and the Americans coming closer and closer toward a lunar landing goal, then the Americans would have been terribly excited about it all, and if both Americans and Soviets had landed on the moon at about the same time, there would have been great pressure to follow up and create more "firsts" on the moon. We'd probably have a 20-year old lunar settlement up there by now. (Which would also probably have depressurized, caught on fire, and undergone all other sorts of scary adventures.)

As it was, it looked like the Americans were going to the Moon with no Soviet opposition at all, and that made the Apollo program just a series of technical accomplishments -- which would have been very boring even if the moon were a blooming garden.

[JRehling]

As it was, it looked like the Americans were going to the Moon with no Soviet opposition at all, and that made the Apollo program just a series of technical accomplishments -- which would have been very boring even if the moon were a blooming garden.

In terms of a human landing, yes, but recall that a Soviet sample return mission that would have beaten Apollo 11 by hours failed in a dramatic bid to upstage the American mission (although asymmetrically: without a crew).

One thing about the space race is that the "finish line"s were always arbitrary. A human landing on the Moon was dramatic enough to seem like an objective win, but the whole thing was entirely subjective. The Soviets might have attempted to trump it, within Tass/Pravda's ability to spin things, by sending a cosmonaut on a no-landing flyby of Venus or Mars while NASA was still trifling with the mere Moon...

The Soviets actually directed their efforts towards marathon Earth orbit flights, and not long after Apollo attempted the first robot landers on Venus *and* Mars (finishing half -- and a bit more -- successful). Even with the first-crew-to-Moon race in the bag, the US didn't have much of a lead to squander all around.

[ljk4-1]

In terms of a human landing, yes, but recall that a Soviet sample return mission that would have beaten Apollo 11 by hours failed in a dramatic bid to upstage the American mission (although asymmetrically: without a crew).

One thing about the space race is that the "finish line"s were always arbitrary. A human landing on the Moon was dramatic enough to seem like an objective win, but the whole thing was entirely subjective. The Soviets might have attempted to trump it, within Tass/Pravda's ability to spin things, by sending a cosmonaut on a no-landing flyby of Venus or Mars while NASA was still trifling with the mere Moon...

The Soviets actually directed their efforts towards marathon Earth orbit flights, and not long after Apollo attempted the first robot landers on Venus *and* Mars (finishing half -- and a bit more -- successful). Even with the first-crew-to-Moon race in the bag, the US didn't have much of a lead to squander all around.

Now there's a question: Why did they launch Luna 15 so late in the game? Why not send a sample return mission earlier so that if it failed they had several more chances to try and beat the US before Apollo 11?

Did they really do it out of a sense of drama?

BTW, anyone ever see the 1968 film Countdown? An often forgotten "realistic" space film in the tradition of Marooned. That one had the Soviets coming way closer to beating the US to the Moon.

[JRehling]

I think it's quite obvious that NASA isnt going to get a 400% budget hike, so this report will probably just highlight the fact that yes, we could go back to the moon etc, but if you want to do it it's going to cost a LOT of money.

Doug

Note the obvious that the growth is little-now, much-later. Well, relatively "little" now.

This is about as evil as a plan could be if it is begun because it would mean many billions spent now, then a fateful decision to be made way off (when many/most of the guilty parties OKing it now will have moved on) to cancel it and make all of the money spent up to that point a no-return waste.

Spirit of exploration my shoe. Just like any purchase, you have to consider the return relative to the cost. Only two people have ever been to the deepest part of the ocean floor. Let's inspire people by sending a new crew to the Marianas Trench and spend the savings from the Moon/Mars plan on fancy dinner for the world. If that's not inspiring enough, take 1/1,000 of the budget to hire a really good Hollywood director to MAKE it inspiring.

The meaningless of this cashcow of a program is that we are supposed to quantify inspirational value vs. billions of dollars, or provide some sort of a "I'll know it when I see it" definition of what worthwhileness is in the realm of megaexploration programs. If the reason why the ocean-bottom program doesn't edge out the Moon-Mars program is that someone's gut feeling is that it's not inspiring enough, that gut feeling isn't worth $100 billion.

I'd like to see Tradesports begin a betting line on a human Mars landing taking place by the timeline in this plan. It'd give the pragmatists a good chance to take the optimists' money.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I'll have to review the details; but Luna 15 was apparently NOT their first attempt to launch a sample-return mission -- they had had one or two launch failures before then.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It should also be noted that -- while they may have come within a few months of beating us in sending men around the Moon on a nonstop circumlunar flight -- they never came even remotely close to beating us in putting men into lunar orbit, let alone landing them.