# Obama cancels Moon return project



## GAP (1 Feb 2010)

Obama cancels Moon return project
By Jonathan Amos
Science correspondent, BBC News
Article Link

President Barack Obama has cancelled the American project designed to take humans back to the Moon.

The Constellation programme envisaged new rockets and a new crewship called Orion to put astronauts on the lunar surface by 2020.

But in his 2011 budget request issued on Monday, Mr Obama said the project was too costly, "behind schedule, and lacking in innovation".

US space agency Nasa has already spent $9bn (£5.6bn) on the programme.

The president said Constellation was draining resources from other US space agency activities. He plans instead to turn to the private sector for launch services.

"While we're cancelling Constellation, we're not cancelling our ambitions," said Jim Kohlenberger, chief of staff at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2010)

While I am a big fan of space missions (having watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon as a young boy), this actually makes sense, although probably not for the reasons President Obama listed.

By removing a lot of funding and sole sourcing from NASA and implicitly allowing the private sector to eneter the field, private industry can now take multiple paths to reach the goal, and set multiple alternative goals that will not be crowded out by NASA's huge spending clout and influence on aerospace contractors. While Americans might not get back to the moon in 2020, I suspect that seeing China and India making attempts to go to the moon in that time frame will spur many efforts by US companies and visionaries to make the attempt.

As well, the US has lots of potential cards in play, given the remarkable amount of R&D funded over the years then put on the shelf for various reasons. There are all kinds of technologies that can be revived, and I'm sure we will be hearing a lot about them in the coming years.


----------



## Brasidas (1 Feb 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While I am a big fan of space missions (having watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon as a young boy), this actually makes sense, although probably not for the reasons President Obama listed.
> 
> By removing a lot of funding and sole sourcing from NASA and implicitly allowing the private sector to eneter the field, private industry can now take multiple paths to reach the goal, and set multiple alternative goals that will not be crowded out by NASA's huge spending clout and influence on aerospace contractors. While Americans might not get back to the moon in 2020, I suspect that seeing China and India making attempts to go to the moon in that time frame will spur many efforts by US companies and visionaries to make the attempt.
> 
> As well, the US has lots of potential cards in play, given the remarkable amount of R&D funded over the years then put on the shelf for various reasons. There are all kinds of technologies that can be revived, and I'm sure we will be hearing a lot about them in the coming years.



I'm curious what corporate interest there would be in lunar missions, let alone manned lunar missions. Jack Schmidt's helium-3 mining lobby? Some sort of extravagant demonstration system for innovative space launch systems (eg. "We put a 5lb payload on the moon for $20 million with our launch system. We can put your payloads in GEO cheaper and more reliably than anyone else")?

I see space tourism as a viable corporate venture, but you seem to explicitly reference "China and India making attempts to go to the moon in that time frame will spur many efforts by US companies and visionaries to make the attempt."


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2010)

Pride is a huge spur, and the ability to land a substancial payload on the moon implies the ability to launch very large payloads into LEO and the ability to operate throughout cis-lunar space. This is a very flexible capability which can be used for virtually any mission (including deep space launches throughout the solar system).

Continuing the discussion:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4344512.html



> *Human Space Flight Needn't Rely on NASA: Analysis*
> By Michael Belfiore
> Published on: February 1, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2010)

Private space:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks



> *Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?*
> A debate on the pros and cons of commercializing the cosmos; valuing asteroids at $20 trillion each. Peter Diamandis makes a case for private space.
> 
> By PETER DIAMANDIS
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2010)

While the space program is directionless at the moment, this commenter has some ideas of why and how to reconnect with the public:

http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2010/02/24/to-the-moon-i-think-not-alice/



> *To the Moon? I think not, Alice….*
> By MILES O'BRIEN
> 
> (ed. note: these remarks are part of my testimony to the Senate Committee on Science and Transportation hearing “Challenges and Opportunities in the NASA FY 2011 Budget Proposal” on February 24, 2010)
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (15 Apr 2010)

We'll see if the Americans get there before the Chinese and the Russians (or perhaps even the Indians who seem to be joining the space race).



> Canadian Press link
> 
> CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - *President Barack Obama predicted Thursday his new space exploration plans would lead American astronauts to Mars and back in his lifetime, a bold forecast relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Apr 2010)

Going to the moon seems to me like an absolute "nice to have" if your country is over-flowing with money, but it is extremely difficult to justify when you're so extremely in debt.

Unless all of your other issues like jobs, security, infrastructure, health care, and other services are taken care of why would you spend it?

It's like being in huge debt and buying a new plasma TV when you can't afford food or your mortgage.

You could probably make the entire city of LA run on free solar and wind energy for the same price of going to the moon and have an infinitely better impact on everyone's life.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2010)

While "grandstanding" missions like a return to the Moon are probably as Petamonco says, the R&D from the broader program has the potential to spur new industry and provide economic payback for the initial investment (so long as it doesn't devolve into a porkfest of special interest projects that never actually deliver results [the US government's nuiclear fusion program falls heavily into this trap]). On the other hand, don't expect a single "transformative" technology or idea to come from the space program, rather hundreds or even thousand of incrimental improvements and small things will filter into the general economy. (Probably the greatest single advance from the manned space program was improvements in quality control, which have moved into the general economy from aerospace).

I also have a bit of a laugh at people who are selling the return to the Moon as a potential bonanza due to the presence of 3He (Helium 3) in the lunar soil, a potential nuclear fuel. This is a bit like the investors, colonists and workers who signed on to the "Virginia Company" and the "Company of Adventurers" being sold on the promise of gold and the North West Passage to China and Japan. The ones who stayed and started really looking at their environment got rich due to Tobacco and Furs...Once we get there, all kinds of unexpected problems and opportunities will present themselves.


----------



## SeanNewman (16 Apr 2010)

True (reference second-order development).

I think expenditures in war can be justified because you can make an argument that your survival was at risk, where as the moon is just maxing out the credit card just to have the biggest phallic symbol.

WW2 had all sorts of side benefits to those who lived like jet travel and medical technology, but you can justify spending money on those things when the Germans and Japanese are trying to kill you the average citizen every day.

Now though, the only threat is losing your job and house, so money should be spent on those things before moon missions.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2010)

I hope that one of the second or third order effects involves moon maidens:


----------



## mariomike (16 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Now though, the only threat is losing your job and house, so money should be spent on those things before moon missions.



"No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Loved the book, and the movie.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2010)

Petamocto, I am referring to the "new" program as outlined by the President; more R&D, more reliance on private industry providing services and launch capability directly rather than as government contractors and an end or at least hiatus on "spectacles" like a Moon shot, mission to Mars etc. I have to admit a large part of me is actually dissapointed, having been a witness to Niel Armstrong's stepping on the Moon, but maybe the spectacle of Chinese and Indian astronauts racing towards a Moon landing will spur some American company to try to beat them on their own (Virgin Galactic is building thier own private fleet of sub orbital craft, and Space-X has a launcher capable of lifting 32,000 kg  Kg to LEO (comparable to Titan IIIc, Ariane V, Delta IV or Proton rockets, so the technology exists in private hands).

Technoviking, I have been waiting for that and my flying car for decades!   


(edit to correct performance comparison; I had mistakenly listed the Falcon 9 [10,450kg to LEO] rather than the Falcon 9 heavy, which is capable of matching other HLV's and potentially launching part of a Moon shot)


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2010)

As I understand things (Al Gore notwithstanding), but the launch of Sputnik was the direct catalyst to the development of the Internet.  So, that being said, I find it ironic to complain on an internet forum the uselessness of space travel and the knock on effects.  


Sputnik ->Advanced Research Projects Agency ->Information Processing Technology Office ->Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) program 
-> Packet Networks ->ARPANET ->etc ->to today's Information Superhighway.


----------



## SeanNewman (16 Apr 2010)

Space is the new ocean and private companies are the new countries.

It's no longer Spain, Portugal, England and France trying to find new worlds, but Virgin, etc.

As long as it stays relatively peaceful we should be okay, but as soon as it turns into Blackwater (Xe) and Tundra fighting for space on the moon, we're in a new kind of hurt locker.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Apr 2010)

Battles in space?


----------



## SeanNewman (16 Apr 2010)

You are in a photo posting frenzy, my friend!  First the Stones, then hot moon women, now Star Wars...

Edit - And now zombies...

Edit again - And now grizzly bears doing the face palm...

Edit thrice - Now a monk looking at a bunch of weapons...


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2010)

Perhaps a better way of looking at what is happening:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-translation-guide-to-the-obama-space-program/?singlepage=true



> *A Translation Guide to the Obama Space Program*
> 
> Noted space blogger Rand Simberg translates the current controversy over Obama's revised space program.
> May 15, 2010
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (16 May 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...



Sweet Jesus, $30B for one rocket.  That's more than the entire CF's budget for a year, including paying all of us.


----------



## spear (24 Jun 2010)

Sometimes i tend to believe that the previous journey to the moon was not true at all.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Jun 2010)

spear said:
			
		

> Sometimes i tend to believe that the previous journey to the moon was not true at all.



Haha, nice thread revival.

There are just as many "fake moon landing" conspiracy people as there are "911 was a hoax/missiles/planted explosives" theorists.

The newest fear propaganda one I saw is on Muslims taking over the world through over breeding.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Haha, nice thread revival.
> 
> There are just as many "fake moon landing" conspiracy people as there are "911 was a hoax/missiles/planted explosives" theorists.
> 
> The newest fear propaganda one I saw is on Muslims taking over the world through over breeding.



If you are referring to "America Alone", the demographics and actions of the unasimilated Muslim populations in the West do support the idea of a displacement of Western culture and civilization in some parts of the world; unlike the Moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy theories which can be easily refuted with real evidence (such as the laser reflectors placed on the Moon, or a study of just how buildings are actually taken down by controlled demolitions).


----------

