Obama Has Turned His Back on the Moon
Barack Obama has unveiled a plan to restructure NASA. The plan includes massive program closures and the abandonment of non-independent manned missions beyond Earth's orbit. It also involves handing over to private "taxi services" the function of shuttling astronauts to the International Space Station. With Obama, America will change. As stated during his election campaign, it's a "Change we need." But it's not clear whether everyone will like these changes. Yesterday, during his announcement of the draft budget for 2011, Obama unveiled a new strategy for space exploration. The strategy proposed significant changes for NASA, an agency with a 52-year history.
For now, the plans remain rather vague. They've glossed over the most important issues: where and when will NASA be able to send astronauts and unmanned spacecraft. But even without those details, the planned changes are impressive. If Obama's initiative is adopted, then NASA's image will change beyond recognition in a few years. The main thing — the agency's typical power to develop and maintain its own spaceships — will disappear. NASA will only be buying tickets for its astronauts on commercial flights. Furthermore, to economize, the agency would have to abandon the program of returning to the moon, which, of course, will add fuel to the fire of the moon-landing skeptics. The U.S. will lose its "national identity" and will have to cooperate with other nations (financial participation of other countries in projects is implied in Obama's plans).
Such plans could not leave anyone indifferent. Some believe that this is the beginning of the end for the American manned space program and the loss of national pride. Others, however, are full of enthusiasm and optimism. They believe that transferring rocket production into private hands will make space a practical, instead of ephemeral, area. Either way, it's necessary to understand the project before drawing a conclusion. So, what's waiting for NASA?
First, as expected, Obama's project involves the closure of the rocket launcher Ares I program. Ares I was supposed to replace shuttles that were old and recognized as being ineffective and unsafe. Second (and more unexpected), is the closure of the Orion program. Orion is a spacecraft for astronauts, which was supposed to be delivered by Ares I. Orion was not only intended as a vehicle for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (which the U.S. agreed to continue using, after all) but also as a capsule for flights beyond low Earth orbit.
These measures will enable NASA's budget to decrease by $6 billion. The plan is to allocate a total of $100 billion to NASA for the period of 2011–2015. However, future savings are fraught by current spending. $9 billion has already been spent on the return to the moon program, and that money cannot be brought back. Termination of contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems, and other companies will cost another $2.5 billion.
The shuttling function to the International Space Station, that was supposed to be preformed by Ares I, will now be performed by private "taxis" developed by outside companies. The government is ready to allocate $6 billion for these services. However, this creates even more doubts for the opposition. First, there is no way to check whether private companies will fulfill their promises to build a manned aircraft as quickly and cheaply as promised. If delivery dates are not met, NASA will have nothing to fall back on. And after the closure of the shuttle program, NASA will become dependent for a long time on Russian Soyuz launches. This outcome would not delight Americans.
Second, by losing control over all stages of the process of creating rockets, the government jeopardizes the safety of future missions. It's well known that private companies tend to sacrifice additional testing and quality control to reduce production costs and make their proposals more profitable. But in the case of manned spacecraft, this aspect is of particular importance. In the absence of full control of production, it's not clear how NASA can license the safety of a flight before it takes place. The price of a mistake in this case is too large: It's not only human life but also the international prestige of the country, the prospects for future flights, and space exploration. In addition, letting go of the process of maintaining aircraft, NASA runs the risk of losing half a century of experience in this field. New private companies simply don't have it and must start everything from scratch.
Nevertheless, there are already contenders that are ready to develop a manned vehicle. For example, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), which offers the Falcon 9 rocket, and United Launch Alliance (PO Boeing and Lockheed Martin), with Delta IV and Atlas V rockets (that so far can only deliver cargo into space). Both of them have a long way to go before creating an operational manned spacecraft.
Any plans for manned missions beyond Earth's orbit have not really been articulated. Either way, they will only be possible through international cooperation. These projects will increasingly resemble the International Space Station at the start of the third millennium, more than the Apollo moon landings during the arms race and space exploration.
Obama's five-year budget plans to allocate $18 billion to the development of new technologies, particularly fuel stations in Earth's orbit, new types of engines (that can reach fundamentally greater speed), as well as automatic "factories" that could produce rocket fuel from the soil on the moon (and possibly even Mars).
Budget changes should have the smallest impact on NASA's scientific programs. For example, there are still plans to implement the next mission to Mars, Mars Science Laboratory, (which should have happened in 2009) in 2011. Originally, the James Webb Space Telescope was supposed to replace the Hubble Space Telescope in 2013. Then, a decision was made that this will happen a year later. Now, despite funding reductions, NASA still intends to launch it in 2014. The likelihood of that happening is 70 percent.
Only time will tell whether Congress agrees with Obama's plans to restructure NASA. But it is easy to see who will become the proposal's implacable opponents. First of all, it's going to be representatives from Alabama, Florida and Texas — states with the largest NASA presence. For them, instead of strategic ideas, changing the face of the agency will mean mass layoffs and unemployment problems. For those states, the party affiliation of the Congressmen will not play a role. Last week, Sen. Bill Nelson, a colleague of Obama on the Democratic Party, expressed deep misgivings about the proposal and denounced the experts who recommended it to Obama.
However, yesterday he was not as harsh, saying that he agrees that Ares I is a nonstarter, because it will not be ready by 2018. He added, "I hope the Obama bet is correct that the commercial boys will accelerate their development with this NASA money." Of course, the primary supporters of Obama's proposals are private businesses, which are willing to fight for billion-dollar contracts to service NASA. They make serious commitments to develop new rockets and consider the proposed budget to be reasonable. However, given their personal interest in restructuring the government agency, it's unrealistic to consider such "expert" statements to be objective. Either way, for now, very few people are willing to try to predict how Congress will vote. The whole world can only watch with interest the fate of the global space icon.
For now, the plans remain rather vague. They've glossed over the most important issues: where and when will NASA be able to send astronauts and unmanned spacecraft. But even without those details, the planned changes are impressive. If Obama's initiative is adopted, then NASA's image will change beyond recognition in a few years. The main thing — the agency's typical power to develop and maintain its own spaceships — will disappear. NASA will only be buying tickets for its astronauts on commercial flights. Furthermore, to economize, the agency would have to abandon the program of returning to the moon, which, of course, will add fuel to the fire of the moon-landing skeptics. The U.S. will lose its "national identity" and will have to cooperate with other nations (financial participation of other countries in projects is implied in Obama's plans).
Such plans could not leave anyone indifferent. Some believe that this is the beginning of the end for the American manned space program and the loss of national pride. Others, however, are full of enthusiasm and optimism. They believe that transferring rocket production into private hands will make space a practical, instead of ephemeral, area. Either way, it's necessary to understand the project before drawing a conclusion. So, what's waiting for NASA?
First, as expected, Obama's project involves the closure of the rocket launcher Ares I program. Ares I was supposed to replace shuttles that were old and recognized as being ineffective and unsafe. Second (and more unexpected), is the closure of the Orion program. Orion is a spacecraft for astronauts, which was supposed to be delivered by Ares I. Orion was not only intended as a vehicle for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (which the U.S. agreed to continue using, after all) but also as a capsule for flights beyond low Earth orbit.
These measures will enable NASA's budget to decrease by $6 billion. The plan is to allocate a total of $100 billion to NASA for the period of 2011–2015. However, future savings are fraught by current spending. $9 billion has already been spent on the return to the moon program, and that money cannot be brought back. Termination of contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems, and other companies will cost another $2.5 billion.
The shuttling function to the International Space Station, that was supposed to be preformed by Ares I, will now be performed by private "taxis" developed by outside companies. The government is ready to allocate $6 billion for these services. However, this creates even more doubts for the opposition. First, there is no way to check whether private companies will fulfill their promises to build a manned aircraft as quickly and cheaply as promised. If delivery dates are not met, NASA will have nothing to fall back on. And after the closure of the shuttle program, NASA will become dependent for a long time on Russian Soyuz launches. This outcome would not delight Americans.
Second, by losing control over all stages of the process of creating rockets, the government jeopardizes the safety of future missions. It's well known that private companies tend to sacrifice additional testing and quality control to reduce production costs and make their proposals more profitable. But in the case of manned spacecraft, this aspect is of particular importance. In the absence of full control of production, it's not clear how NASA can license the safety of a flight before it takes place. The price of a mistake in this case is too large: It's not only human life but also the international prestige of the country, the prospects for future flights, and space exploration. In addition, letting go of the process of maintaining aircraft, NASA runs the risk of losing half a century of experience in this field. New private companies simply don't have it and must start everything from scratch.
Nevertheless, there are already contenders that are ready to develop a manned vehicle. For example, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), which offers the Falcon 9 rocket, and United Launch Alliance (PO Boeing and Lockheed Martin), with Delta IV and Atlas V rockets (that so far can only deliver cargo into space). Both of them have a long way to go before creating an operational manned spacecraft.
Any plans for manned missions beyond Earth's orbit have not really been articulated. Either way, they will only be possible through international cooperation. These projects will increasingly resemble the International Space Station at the start of the third millennium, more than the Apollo moon landings during the arms race and space exploration.
Obama's five-year budget plans to allocate $18 billion to the development of new technologies, particularly fuel stations in Earth's orbit, new types of engines (that can reach fundamentally greater speed), as well as automatic "factories" that could produce rocket fuel from the soil on the moon (and possibly even Mars).
Budget changes should have the smallest impact on NASA's scientific programs. For example, there are still plans to implement the next mission to Mars, Mars Science Laboratory, (which should have happened in 2009) in 2011. Originally, the James Webb Space Telescope was supposed to replace the Hubble Space Telescope in 2013. Then, a decision was made that this will happen a year later. Now, despite funding reductions, NASA still intends to launch it in 2014. The likelihood of that happening is 70 percent.
Only time will tell whether Congress agrees with Obama's plans to restructure NASA. But it is easy to see who will become the proposal's implacable opponents. First of all, it's going to be representatives from Alabama, Florida and Texas — states with the largest NASA presence. For them, instead of strategic ideas, changing the face of the agency will mean mass layoffs and unemployment problems. For those states, the party affiliation of the Congressmen will not play a role. Last week, Sen. Bill Nelson, a colleague of Obama on the Democratic Party, expressed deep misgivings about the proposal and denounced the experts who recommended it to Obama.
However, yesterday he was not as harsh, saying that he agrees that Ares I is a nonstarter, because it will not be ready by 2018. He added, "I hope the Obama bet is correct that the commercial boys will accelerate their development with this NASA money." Of course, the primary supporters of Obama's proposals are private businesses, which are willing to fight for billion-dollar contracts to service NASA. They make serious commitments to develop new rockets and consider the proposed budget to be reasonable. However, given their personal interest in restructuring the government agency, it's unrealistic to consider such "expert" statements to be objective. Either way, for now, very few people are willing to try to predict how Congress will vote. The whole world can only watch with interest the fate of the global space icon.
I am a science fiction author. Those of us who write science fiction weave tales of the future. Sometimes they are wonderful dreams, other times they are the stuff of nightmares. This is especially true when fiction becomes fact. A good example of this is H.G, Wells, The War in the Air, written in 1908, it told of fleets of German bombers blasting British cities to rubble. This was penned just five years after the first powered flight, when aircraft were fragile creations of wood, wire and canvas, barely able to exceed fifty miles per hour or fly much further than a few dozen miles, yet Wells’s story was a look at the future of 1940 when fleets of German HE-111s filled the skies over London and rained down death upon the population. In 1941, author Robert Heinlein wrote a short story that predicted the development of the atomic bomb four years before the first test in New Mexico. In his story, the men who have unlocked the secret of a nuclear fission weapon, discuss the implications. One of the men thinks his country will have a monopoly on the weapon until the other points out it will just be a matter of time before many nations have it and then it will be like a room full of men, each pointing a loaded .45 at each other and each man depending upon the rationality of the other not to pull the trigger. This has become the literal truth. Remarkably, today, I find myself following in the footsteps of those writers of note who have seen their stories of fiction become reality.
In the fall of 2008, I completed my second novel, RED MOON. In the story, cutbacks in NASA’s budget by a new administration cause the Constellation Moon Program to be delayed and underfunded. This causes the United States to fall far behind in a return to the Moon. The story also includes the fact that water ice has been found in great abundance below the lunar south pole. This is a resource that turns a potential moon base from an expensive science experiment, to a strategic outpost to not only reap the mineral resources of the Moon, but to control the economics of our planet and enforce by military action, what nations have access to space and what nations are forbidden to engage in the use of space for commerce or military activities. In my novel, China takes the initiative and lands a military expedition at the lunar south pole in the year 2017. This places the United States in an unacceptable position with China able to interdict any space launch from Earth and to place weapons into low Earth orbit from the Moon, that would be undetectable. The United States must form a coalition with both the Russian and European space agencies to put together and emergency mission to stake a counter claim to these resources. In the process, China and the West face off and creep ever closer to nuclear war.
If you think this is just a good science fiction story, consider these facts. On November the 13th abundant water ice was confirmed to exist on the Moon. On November the 27th Associated Press journalist, Christopher Bodeen reported that China has plans to land a mission on the Moon by 2017. He also stated that their claimed civilian space program is in fact, an arm of the Chinese military. In 2003, the Chinese orbited their first pair of astronauts. There have been additional manned flights since then. In 2006, the Chinese successfully tested a devastating anti-satellite weapon, capable of destroying anything we have in orbit, including a Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. In addition, China has made it known that if they reach the Moon first, they, despite existing UN treaties, plan to claim resources for China. RED MOON is so close to the truth, that it will be cited at the upcoming budget hearings on the future of NASA in Washington. Last week, I met with Congressman Bill Posey of Florida. There is a coalition of democrats and republicans that are working very hard to save the Constellation Project and the manned space program in the face of Strong opposition of President Obama.
Obama’s plan to kill off NASA. One of the position papers of Barak Obama back in 2007, stated that his goal for NASA was to shut manned space flight down and transfer funds to education, yet, when he campaigned on the Space Coast of Florida, he promised to close the gap between the aging shuttle and the new Orion space transportation system and to continue funding a return to the Moon. Which position of Mr. Obama are we to believe? Cancellation of the Constellation Project would mean cancellation of both the Ares 1 and Ares 5 rockets. These are designed to take astronauts and cargo into space and to the International Space Station. These same two rockets are the backbone of the Constellation Moon Program. If this project is shelved, it will leave America without access to space. Already Russia, hearing of these potential cuts has raised the price of carrying US astronauts on their Soyuz rockets from $30 million dollars to $51 million dollars per crewman. This is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to permit China to reach the Moon, claim resources and be in a position to control our uses of space and take out our military and communications satellites at will from the ultimate high ground: the Moon. While some may dismiss the Chinese as an ineffective space power, let me remind you that the opinion of most Americans and the American military in 1940, was that Japan, while aggressive, did not pose a threat to American interests. That illusion was shattered on December 7th 1941 when our Pacific Fleet was devastated by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. In 2007, the Marshall Institute in Washington, speaking about the Chinese military space program said we could face a “Pearl Harbor in space.
I urge anyone who is reading this article, to contact their senators, their Congressional representatives and even the White House to demand that funding for Project Constellation not be cut. NASA’s budget is only 0.4 percent of the federal budget. By curtailing our access to space, we are literally placing America on the chopping block. Not only is our national security imperiled but our economic strength as well. This action would create a devastating unemployment situation for our most brilliant engineers and technicians working on the space program. It would be a disaster that we might never recover from. It would seem the present administration is marching us toward a new role as a second class nation, without the technological resources to thrive in the 21st century. It is time that all of us call a halt to this march and demand that NASA be fully funded. It is not just our economic security that is at stake, it is our very freedom.
Chris Berman