Goodnight, Moon Landing

[sdelmonte]

The Obama Administration confirmed today that it wants to see the Constellation project, meant in part to land a man on the Moon again by 2020, canceled. In its place, money will be pumped in creating new technologies and NASA would rely on private industry to send astronauts to the space station. Any long term plans for manned spaceflight are on hold for now. And any future plans would be on an international basis.

At some level, I am very disappointed. It's hard not to feel that a manned landing on the Moon is beyond reach, and that canceling a project that's been going on for six years without any clear replacement is a bit wasteful. I can't even say that I think there is much dedication from the White House to maintaining an American presence in space.

But I was ready to be a lot angrier before I read this story from the NY Times. I am still concerned that there is no vision for where manned spaceflight is going. And I remain a skeptic about the ability of private enterprise to build safe spacecraft even just for getting to and from orbit. But NASA will actually be getting more money at a time when federal budgets are otherwise being frozen. And let's be honest: the Constellation project didn't seem to be working out that well. If the money is really used to do more than just "Apollo on steroids," it might be worth taking several steps back to rethink things. It's time for new ways of thinking.

In addition, the comments from various congressmen and senators have the ring of people whose chief objective is making sure that no jobs are lost from NASA cutbacks. That is, the space program is pork. I suppose that some of NASA's supporters really do support exploration. I just don't feel it from anything I've been reading.

So right now, I am just a tiny bit optimistic. But also uncertain. I don't think most Americans care about space, about man walking on the Moon again, about rovers on Mars, about even weather satellites. I worry that only something like China landing a man on the Moon will ignite any interest. If there is to be a thriving space program, it will take more than money. But even with Internet billionaires investing in rockets, I don't see leadership or inspiration. Without that, I can't say I see the sort of space program so many of us dream of.

Comments

[ladymondegreen.livejournal.com]

I'd be most interested to see what our friends who work for the space program think. The idea of going forward with tech from the 50's and 60's doesn't appeal to me, and I'm a groundsider. What must it be like for the astronauts?

I personally don't feel a strong commitment to having a purely American space program. The idea of an international one, subject to the scrutiny of experts worldwide, and answerable to a governing body for the organization instead of a single government sounds like something of an improvement. If nothing else, it takes the entire weight of finding a new habitable planet off of just the US.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a Canadian, I've never had any problem with throwing our tax dollars at this sort of endeavour. It's for the good of our entire species over the long haul, and maybe more than a few other species' preservation as well. I just wish we were moving faster on this stuff than we've been.

If it takes Constellation to get the infrastructure done, fine. If something else, also fine. Let's just get it built and running.

[ladymondegreen.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, you're speaking to a fellow Canadian, albeit a displaced one.

It sounds like we're in the same frame of mind. Let's get something good up and running so that we can expand what we know.

[gramarye1971]

*nods thoughtfully* I've been a bit skeptical of the post-Columbia Bush plan, since it seemed a little too much like it was capitalising on the emotion of the moment to launch another round of spending, rather than setting out a plan or even a vision for what NASA is out there to do. And I do like the thought of taking a step back to work out newer technologies before developing more extensive systems. But I'm with you in the concern that private enterprise is not likely to be as far-sighted as a space program needs to be right now -- there are too many shareholders to please and too many stock markets to watch, and there's more immediate money to be made out of fighter jets than moon rockets.

Then again, I just watched an excellent documentary about the short-lived British space programme, and how in spite of its innovative approaches it ended up cancelled for lack of funds -- about five to ten years before new satellite launches might have made it profitable. So I'm finding it difficult to be all that optimistic.

[dotfic.livejournal.com]

Weren't the advances that led to the first moon landing, the 60's space race, pretty much an offshoot of the cold war, a rivalry with the Russians? If China does it first, that could light a fire under the US program. Also I think international efforts would be neat and space could be a diplomatic frontier. (I'm a fan of the space station).

[sdelmonte]

It's one of those ironies about mankind that sometimes we make more progress in the name of war (or cold war) than we ever do in the name of peace.

In my ideal world, we work with China to get to the Moon. But in my ideal world, the Chinese government isn't a dictatorship.

[dimloep-suum.livejournal.com]

And here I am, one of those of the (massively unpopular, I'm sure) opinion that NASA is a huge waste of money and honestly, to hell with the moon. It's there. It's a big rock that orbits our planet. The End.

[the_croupier]

I don't think a majority of Americans have ever given a damn about the space program, and I attribute that to a combination of poor education, intellectual laziness, and cultural small-mindedness. If Sputnik had blown up on the launchpad, Apollo would never have happened. And I think you're absolutely correct that the US won't do anything else of substance in terms of manned spaceflight until China, Europe, or some other government 'humiliates' the country again.

It's pathetic.

At least unmanned missions--which actually have contributed far more science--are so 'cheap' by the usual budgetary standards, most of them can fly under the radar.