Rumors are reports are that the State of the Union speech, along with the forthcoming budget, will cut all funding not only for the Ares I launcher, but also the Ares V and the whole Constellation/Orion CEV program. With the end of the Shuttle program this year, that leaves the US with no way to send humans into space… likely for a decade or longer (Ares I began half a decade ago, and was about half a decade from first manend flight). With luck, the commercial sector (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Xcor, etc.) will be able to take over. But the commerical human-launch sector is based pretty much wholly on the hope of space tourism. And space tourism is probably a pretty flighty sort of industry. And what will happen to space tourism if the US government withdraws entirely from space? Will the interest among America’s investors to go to space increase, or decrease? Damned if I know.
11 Responses to “Back to the Moon? Well, so much for that…”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Orlando Sentinel article says that private launchers will be encouraged to take over the space station work. Someone in Washington is smoking something funny.
I still feel that space tourism now is the same thing as barnstorming in 1920. What’s needed is travel, not wandering.
I wonder whether the space program was a factor in the end of the USSR. The fact that it was a matter of great national pride, but it was also doing something bigger than the Glorious Motherland or the Revolution or any damn thing any politician dreamed up to stay in office. Obama’s kind sees no need to anything more than sharing all the wealth because that’s as far as the Revolution goes — and therein lies its failure. A British friend has pointed out to me that the mindset that defeated communism was the one in which there is quick reaction to new ideas, and production in great quantities; to do that requires a populace that is educated and trained so that no one is suicidally unhappy with what they are doing.. Our current education system and society is geared toward putting everyone in a place and away from analysis and creation and production.
Maybe it’s time to move to Russia.
Of course they’ll cancel it. Gotta use that money to buy more “stray” votes ya know.
We haven’t gone back in 40 years because no one has come up with the answer to the most basic question… “Why go back?”
How ’bout “so we don’t forget how”.
Why go back? What else are we going to do? What other activity engages the mind and heart — and in every way returns on the investment?
Go back to the moon? Mars? Pfft! Why do we need to leave? We have hope and change here on Earth! What more could we possibly need?
*chokes*
You get an idea of how much pull Bolden and Garver have with Obama. And/or an idea of what their “vision” is for the United States space program. Namely, NASA and the rest of the American space program is to monitor the Earth… along with NOAA. Garver was a hack when she ran NSS in the 90s, and she’s a hack now. Had high hopes for Bolden, and “presto”… he’s little more than a yes man for Obama.
Gee… another 6 years of wasting time. Just add it to the last 40 years of doing nothing.
The first new flags on the moon might be China’s and India’s.
At least the food on the first moonbase won’t be too bad.
Why go back? Why not… we’ll figure out a raison d’etre once we get there. Did the Spanish or English explorers know what they would find once they got to the new world? You can’t always assume to know EVERYTHING before you do something, despite what many would want you to believe now. Think of all the many advances made since Kennady made the decision to go to the Moon. The initial thinking was to get there before the russkies, maybe learn how to lift heavier weights into orbit, maybe long-term survival in space.
Russ wrote:
>Did the Spanish or English explorers know what they would find once
>they got to the new world?
Actually the answer(s) are in order: 1) Yes, gold and slaves as well as new lands to be given away as political favors since the Spanish King owned all of it. Otherwise they wouldn’t have went. Now what they had HOPED they were finanicing was a shorter route to China and a major economic boost in trade. What they GOT was “better” in the short run as they found more durable goods in easy to move loads with no local opposition to speak of.
2) They expected to find the Spanish… Or at least a good place to raid the Spanish towns, ports, and ships from.
In the case of the Spanish had Central America not been there, Chris Columbus probably WOULD have found a more direct route to China, but Spain would never have had the huge economic influx of hard currency and colonizing presteige with what they found. They WOULDN’T have colonized Central and South America without the incentive of huge profits made easily and for low cost.
In the English case they would have trailed the Spanish trade ships till they too found the “short-cut” and then used it themselves and tried undercutting the Spanish spice trade. Probably successfully. As it is they FIRST tried setting up settlments/ports along the southern coast of North America with the intention of living off trading with the Natives and Raiding Spanish ships and ports. When that failed miserably they reluctantly let private financing into expeditions and to found settlments with the hopes of the privately funded exploration and settlment groups would find something profitable to sell back to Europe.
The Second Option actually turned out to be more profitable in the long run but NONE of this applies to space. Sorry but there really IS nothing out there worth going up there to get or use. Not at the current costs.
I’d like to think putting more NASA money towards the commercial industry would mean an expansion of COTS and more prizes and challanges to stimulate commercial progress.
But I’m pretty sure that Congress won’t allow that. Not in any real sense. Congress will probably put up a general “stink” about the loss of jobs, failed business, and economic issues but I think they will actually let this go through. By killing Aries and putting money into “commercial” space flight Congress can give a green-light to flying cargo and crew to the ISS on the Atlas-V with the Bigelow/LM “Orion-lite” capsule. Meanwhile they can dangle the “promise” of an HLLV in front of MSFC and NASA HQ to keep them in line while they continually put off any suggestions of improvements, upgrades, or expansion of the manned space program.
(And before we get off to bemoaning that this is all the “democratic” Congress’ fault there has been NO difference in which party is in ‘control’ at any time. NO Congress has had an actual ‘interest’ in manned space flight. None.)
Reduce or eleminate COTS (fairly easy to do because nothing has been “proven” so far except LM or Boeing LVs) to keep the “commercial” competition down and Congress is set for the next couple of decades while the rest of the world gears up to move out into space.
We haven’t done enough commercial experimentation, industrial experimentation, or fully explored the commercial possibilties of the Moon and the rest of the Solar System, but if one is looking for an excuse to let manned space travel die on the vine there is plenty of data that can be used to fool yourself into the smug line of thinking that there is nothing out there WORTH spending money on and we are just going to sit back and watch the rest of the world squander their money on boondogle space programs…
Randy