Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by Cocytus » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:32 am


sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by sonofccn » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:06 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:The problem is not that Obama has killed off manned spaceflight completely, it is the fact that he is carrying out a policy that would have been better started years ago when by now that policy could have at least produced one or two private manned space systems to pick up the slack once shuttle is retired.
True, true. I fully agree this is too little too late but, if you will indulge me, I personally think Obama couldn't care one whit about space/exploration. He seems primarly a domestic minded bloke and sees NASA as simply another bank account for him to withdrawal from as needed. The Hail Mary is merely a smoke screen to avoid the barbs. In my opinon of course.
Mike DiCenso wrote:The other problem is even if Space X or someone manages to come through, what next? What's the vision? What's the actual goal here?
Space the final frontier...our five year mission...to seek out new worlds...and strip mine them! ;-)

Well if the private sector does take hold in space ultimatly there won't be a vision, just a multitude of individuals all making random decisions based on avaliable data which will only form a coherent tapestry in retrospect. Yeah that does sound kinda disapointing.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by Cocytus » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:23 am

sonofccn wrote:True, true. I fully agree this is too little too late but, if you will indulge me, I personally think Obama couldn't care one whit about space/exploration. He seems primarly a domestic minded bloke and sees NASA as simply another bank account for him to withdrawal from as needed. The Hail Mary is merely a smoke screen to avoid the barbs. In my opinon of course.
This is one issue I completely disagree with Obama on, even though I'm not as concerned about Soyuz as Mike is. The trouble is that, even if he is a purely domestic minded bloke, the space program has produced hundreds of tangible returns to domestic markets and the average citizen that have impacted everything from airplane safety to fabric roofs on stadiums to Michael Phelp's swimsuit.

As for the private sector, my main worry is ensuring proper regulation to keep private space companies on the level. I find it all too easy to envisage scandals regarding catastrophic failures due to low-bid contracts on, say, hatches or air scrubbers or something.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by 2046 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:44 pm

Right now, space beyond LEO has little purpose except pure research. There is no great defense need (unless it can be suggested that the Chinese are gonna take over the outer solar system), and whether it's true or false the fact is that there can be debate on manned exploration. (I'm for it, but still.)

Put simply, there's nothing out there, it's expensive to get there, and so from a capitalist perspective it's just sort of bleh. Consider the taming of the Americas . . . there was stuff here, rivers and food and riches. Even as Europeans made contact with China, the point was that China was out there. Made it a big and interesting world.

In our solar system? There's not really anything interesting, from that perspective.

Except . . .

1. Helium-3 and whatnot on the moon could be a good energy source, provided a means of mining it in a cost-efficient manner could be found.

2. A wide variety of space rocks would provide an extraordinary fortune in metals. But mining them in situ is difficult, and even if you could bring a rock to Earth, the price of whatever substance you're interested in might decline, because everyone would know it wasn't "really" scarce . . . just expensive to get to.

Not to mention the potential problems of space-rock-piracy, or the more obvious issue of having a little oops and causing a gigantic frakking rock to slam into Earth.

Even done gently, I'm pretty sure that even the most controlled deorbit of a huge space rock (even, say, a kilometer wide) would be a pain in the ass and rather destructive, or at the very least would cause absurd insurance levels, legal claims, enviro-hippy nonsense, and so on.

3. Right now, it still costs a lot to get up there. Nanotech and the Orbital Tether are probably our best hopes in that regard. Indeed, orbital tethers mixed with rocks moved to orbit mixed with good power supplies that got them there could be a boon for manufacturing.

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by Trinoya » Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:35 am

I'll admit that when I first heard about this I was pissed.... I had a friend of mine show me some pretty disturbing facts and trends however shortly there after. I've been firmly convinced that this was the right move.

Simply put... I just don't see the political, economic, or social profit in continuing man spaced flight with our current technology level and interest. We have no means of maintaining any colonies on the moon or mars, and we have a hard enough time taking care of our own problems here on earth.

I do believe, however, that the shuttles should be maintained and kept ready for emergency use for the ISS.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by PunkMaister » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:05 pm

Trinoya wrote:I'll admit that when I first heard about this I was pissed.... I had a friend of mine show me some pretty disturbing facts and trends however shortly there after. I've been firmly convinced that this was the right move.

Simply put... I just don't see the political, economic, or social profit in continuing man spaced flight with our current technology level and interest. We have no means of maintaining any colonies on the moon or mars, and we have a hard enough time taking care of our own problems here on earth.

I do believe, however, that the shuttles should be maintained and kept ready for emergency use for the ISS.
What facts were those? Because the truth of the matter is that without a manned space program NASA will cease to exist, so I'm guessing you are thinking China should take the lead in the human quest for space then which I absolutely 100% disagree with and there is no way something as expensive as a Shuttle fleet will be maintained for emergency purposes, I predict the ISS will be abandoned within 2 years and that it will be the Chinesse who will dominate Space for the next 2 or 3 centuries if not longer.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by sonofccn » Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:02 pm

PunkMaister wrote:
Trinoya wrote:I'll admit that when I first heard about this I was pissed.... I had a friend of mine show me some pretty disturbing facts and trends however shortly there after. I've been firmly convinced that this was the right move.

Simply put... I just don't see the political, economic, or social profit in continuing man spaced flight with our current technology level and interest. We have no means of maintaining any colonies on the moon or mars, and we have a hard enough time taking care of our own problems here on earth.

I do believe, however, that the shuttles should be maintained and kept ready for emergency use for the ISS.
What facts were those? Because the truth of the matter is that without a manned space program NASA will cease to exist, so I'm guessing you are thinking China should take the lead in the human quest for space then which I absolutely 100% disagree with and there is no way something as expensive as a Shuttle fleet will be maintained for emergency purposes, I predict the ISS will be abandoned within 2 years and that it will be the Chinesse who will dominate Space for the next 2 or 3 centuries if not longer.
1.While I also disagree with Trinoya he clearly stated his opinon regarding cost versus benifite. I very much doubt he's rooting for the Chinese to take over the stars.

2. a dominance of 2 or more centuries? Isn't that a little extreme even not taking into account the wild cards such stretches of time throws.

@Trinoya:
If possible I would be curious to know what these facts and trends were.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:48 pm

Trinoya wrote: I'll admit that when I first heard about this I was pissed.... I had a friend of mine show me some pretty disturbing facts and trends however shortly there after. I've been firmly convinced that this was the right move.
I'm also curious as to these trends. To be honest, there aren't any trends now that really weren't there centuries ago when Spain had Columbus sail to the Americas, or when the Montgolfier brothers rose into the air in 1783, or more than a century later with the Wright brothers in 1903. It took another 50 years to get to the modern jet age. Now here we are in the first 50 years of space flight, and we've made tremendous progress given how inherently difficult it is to put something into orbit, never mind send anything anywhere else. But stopping manned spaceflight at this point is silly, and only puts us in at disadvantage, especially because we lose out on the lessons that continuing to fly teaches us. What you would have us is the equivalent of having the Montgolfier brothers other aeronauts wait until the technology was available to build a 747. That makes no sense and when you are not flying, why would anyone work to develop such technology in the first place?
Trinoya wrote:I do believe, however, that the shuttles should be maintained and kept ready for emergency use for the ISS.
Trinoya, you can't simply do that, not with any rocket or spacecraft as it requires keeping it's infrastructure paid for and personel paid to sit around on stand by who would otherwise go elsewhere for employment. For Shuttle, that means around 2.4 billion a year spent in fixed infrastructure costs. The incremental costs of flying the orbiters is not anywhere near as high as people think: between $80-200 million USD. So it's better to fly them, then let them sit. And right now we still have the option of flying them because there is one extra fully built external tank, plus the parts for three additional ones still available that could be assembled. This would allow 2 flights per year starting late next year, and in 2012 when the production of additional tanks now lets you fly more missions until the successor vehicle or vehicles come online and prove themselves, then you retire Shuttle.
-Mike

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by Trinoya » Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:53 pm

Whoa, that was discovery of posts based on an opinion if there ever was one! That said I can't deny a challenger I guess so I'll provide some data on what influenced my opinion (this is everything I was told, but I'm not my pal, so I'll point out what stood out in my mind)

After a review of the costs of the shuttle program (which is 450 million per launch, and that's not counting a lot of other things), and the decline in research conducted on board the shuttle (this is the trend, and to be fair a lot of that is now conducted on the ISS) I was swayed to the other camp. That simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mind you, that's just what influenced my opinion... I'm not interested in debating it because I don't know as much of the program like my friend does. As more data is presented in this thread my opinion may continue to be swayed, and my friend may once again present more evidence to change my mind again... we'll see what happens.

And damn Punkmaster, doomsayer much? I was half expecting a theory on Atlantis destroying the United States in 2012 due to a commie plot... yikes... simmer down.

To Mike: Well I would hope that private enterprise would pick up where NASA left off. Many of those people who chose to endeavor to advance those very items you listed were in the private sector after all. Even the exploration of Columbia and her riches was mostly headed up by private companies afterward.

But I digress again, simply put, I'm willing to hear both sides still and listen to more arguments on it (although I'm less inclined to hear about the doom of the USA now). While not on the fence my mind is still open to new data. I just feel right now it was the right choice.

And for those of you reading this in a relaxed enough manner to catch it, it's meant as a jovial tribute, and you get a cookie. ^_^

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Obama has permanently shut the U.S manned Space program.

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:21 am

Trinoya wrote: After a review of the costs of the shuttle program (which is 450 million per launch, and that's not counting a lot of other things), and the decline in research conducted on board the shuttle (this is the trend, and to be fair a lot of that is now conducted on the ISS) I was swayed to the other camp. That simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mind you, that's just what influenced my opinion... I'm not interested in debating it because I don't know as much of the program like my friend does. As more data is presented in this thread my opinion may continue to be swayed, and my friend may once again present more evidence to change my mind again... we'll see what happens.
First off, you made the mistake of going to one source, you friend. I too follow space-related developments and I can tell you that that the cost of a Shuttle or other rocket is a fairly complicated thing at times. The shuttle is budgeted at between 2.4 to 3.4 billion USD each fiscal year. Most of that covers the fixed cost of maintaining things that are totally unrelated to an actual launch, such as the upkeep and operation of facilities like the launch pad, the VAB, the OPFs, and so on. To actually ready and launch a Shuttle orbiter and it's stack (ET and SRBs), is where the incremental or marginal costs come in. So buying a new ET, refurbishing and reloading the SRBs, Orbiter turnaround, , astronaut training, mission support, payload processing to load aboard the orbiter and so on can cost between 80-200 million USD. Once you understand this, you now can understand the actual costs of flying the Shuttle. The fixed costs won't go away by not flying. They still existed, even when the Shuttle was grounded because of the Columbia and Challenger accidents. Many rocket companies are trying to change the fixed cost issue by going with higher automation, health monitoring, and "clean pad" concepts to reduce those standing expenses. Then there are the seperate costs for the payload, but most people who are honest recognize that the payload usually costs what it does regardless of what launch vehicle it rides to space on.

So to put it in simpler terms, Trinoya, NASA is paying $80-200 million per launch, and in addition to that is paying around 2.4 billion for the infrastucture. As for research on Shuttle, that is all supposed to be taken care of by ISS, but Shuttle is supposed to carry up the experiments and supplies along with Progess, ATV and HTV. More importantly, when Shuttle is gone, we have no way to return or change out large volume cargo. So it's a lose-lose situation all around. Space X is the only company so far that is even in any capacity trying to make a cargo ship that can return a few hundred to a couple thousand kilograms of cargo back. All the others just let things burn up on reentry.
-Mike

Post Reply