|
Author
|
Topic: Review of US Human Space Flight (Augustine)
|
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1121
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 01-23-2010 08:42 AM
   
Bad news for NASA from the Obama administration is leaking out in Washington, so much for those who looked to Obama to be a strong pro-space president. For an excellent discussion of NASA's budget woes, see this article:
No $1B Budget Increase for NASA; Fate of Ares 1 Rocket Still Unclear NASA will not be getting the $1 billion budget boost civil space advocates had hoped to see when President Barack Obama sends his 2011 spending proposal to Congress Feb. 1, requiring the U.S. space agency to make even tougher than expected choices about the future of its manned space program, according to sources with close ties to the administration. These sources declined to reveal the fate of NASA's planned Ares 1 crew launch vehicle, which many observers see as a likely cancellation target, but they did say the budget proposal would fund a multibillion-dollar effort to foster development of commercial systems for ferrying astronauts to the international space station. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-23-2010 08:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DChudwin:
...so much for those who looked to Obama to be a strong pro-space president.
...the budget proposal would fund a multibillion-dollar effort to foster development of commercial systems for ferrying astronauts to the international space station. There are those (including, apparently, Wayne Hale), who would say that these two statements are at odds with each other: that the President backing a commercial human spaceflight program is adopting a strong stance.I don't necessarily agree; I believe that both the Ares and COTS programs should be funded and developed concurrently, but I am also not blind to the political landscape (even before the Massachusetts vote) and realize that were I president, my course of action for NASA would not include drawing undue pressure from a public which is already highly suspect of any type of future spending. I would lay out a plan designed to keep the forward momentum going, fund it sufficiently (rather than seek funds from within the agency, as was previously the case) and then work over the next few years to increase the budget to be inline with the program's growing needs. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-23-2010 11:09 AM
The more I look at it, the more I think Ares 1/Orion/Ares V isn't so bad. That at least would give some purpose to Constellation.As much as I want the commercial sector to thrive, NASA is essential if humans are going beyond LEO. And it cannot happen if the infrastructure does not exist. To be fair to Obama, he inherited the economic mess. And his predecessor should have ensured Constellation was properly funded after that January 2004 announcement until leaving office. What's happened now is that Obama has the excuse of Augustine to curtail or end NASA human spaceflight. Space X is no panacea. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-23-2010 11:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
...to curtail or end NASA human spaceflight. Space X is no panacea. Space X is no panacea.
Space X is not going to be the only company to compete for the commercial manned spaceflight contract: besides Orbital, you can expect that Boeing, ATK and Lockheed (among others) will seek the same. In other words, it won't be incredibly different from the past 50 years of human spaceflight, with commercial companies building the vehicles that NASA astronauts use to reach space. |
kking
Member Posts: 106
From: Topmost, KY
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 01-23-2010 01:41 PM
I don't think Ares will get canned no matter what. Where there's a will there's a way. I believe this program will go forward no matter what. One thing I think every President since Nixon has failed to see what I consider the number one benefit from the space program. Thousand of jobs. Take a look at the jobs JFK and LBJ done in the 60s. If I was President I would look at American history. First thing I would do is to create jobs. Best place NASA. Frank Borman said it all in 1967, "Stop this witch hunt and let us go (back) to the Moon." |
Go4Launch
Member Posts: 562
From: Seminole, Fla.
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 01-23-2010 02:49 PM
I think this quote from the Space News report says it all:“The central question is not whether can NASA build the Ares 1 … the question is should NASA build the Ares 1,” Augustine panel member Edward Crawley said during last October’s unveiling of the final report. Remember how far along MOL got before it was axed. With federal dollars scarce, the US needs to (again) make what is seen as the "best" choices, not necessarily the most popular or far-along ones. It's also hard to not stress enough how changeable this has become absent a Cold War-type imperative and a resulting deadline. That said, I believe relying on "commercial development" would unfortunately probably mean an even longer delay in producing flight-ready hardware. The private sector generally demands a pretty predictable cost-benefit ratio to act with any speed. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-23-2010 04:50 PM
I am now just waiting for the official word. In my mind candidate Obama got at least some votes by laying out support for Constellation. I guess people can argue about exactly what he said and what wiggle room was left for him to get out of it but if my memory is correct the economy was already on the skids when those remarks were made, if anything, things have improved since then.I also remember my thought that Senator Mccain was more likely to axe NASA than Obama was, again that would be open for argument but those were my thoughts. Anyway, even though everyone knows that all politicians lie to get your vote I can only say that I will only be lied to once. They don't get my vote a second time. I am still holding out hope this is not the case but I know others are feeling deceived about other issues too. Just want to finish by saying this is not about the "Hope" thing. Obviously no man can live up to the expectations placed on the Obama administration however you better be able to at least deliver on hard promises you make or you will be voted out. 2012 is just around the corner. By the way, this is the relevant quote from Obamas space policy: Embracing Human Space Exploration
Human spaceflight is important to America’s political, economic, technological, and scientific leadership. Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars. That does not sound ambiguous to me, so what do you think, was I LIED to if he does not fund it? |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 01-23-2010 09:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
Just want to finish by saying this is not about the "Hope" thing. Obviously no man can live up to the expectations placed on the Obama administration...
Keep in mind ... President Obama and his advisors were the ones who created the inflated expectations. They wanted people to vote for them, and they created an inflated image of hope and change. Lots of politicians do it -- I'm not throwing darts here. But I do think there was a sense of unrealistic idealism in play. It all looks really easy when one is standing on the sidelines throwing stones. Once the realities of international geopolitics become your responsibility, the problems begin to look a bit more... complicated. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 12:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by kking:
Take a look at the jobs JFK and LBJ done in the 60s.
I don't think Keynesian economics has a lot of supporters from US politicians... And the argument that the space program creates jobs is not one that I've heard a lot - at least from this side of the Atlantic - when it comes to supporting the space program. But if and when politicians should use it, they should also stress that those jobs are crucial to maintain the country's technological & strategic competitiveness. There's a know-how that shouldn't be thrown out with the trash simply because Washington is obsessed with short-term policies aimed reducing the deficit (elections are just around the corner, and mentioning raising taxes would be political suicide; spending cuts are the easy way). Losing such know-how (by cutting NASA's budget) may make sense in the short-term, from a federal budget standpoint, but playing catch-up in a few years' time may be even costlier - or just simply impossible to do. Following a discussion on French TV about France's aerospace woes (A400M and Rafale fighter jet), a very interesting point was made: countries that had a long tradition of expertise in aeronautics (Britain, Germany, and Japan) who didn't invest in technology (or were barred from doing so) and hence lost their technological know-how, are no longer players in the jet fighter manufacturing domain (we're now with the 4th generation of fighters, if I recall correctly, you miss one and you're out). Will space (and access to) follow the same trend? There's much more at stake here than sending astronauts zigzagging in near space. Time for Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, to open their eyes. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 12:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Go4Launch:
Remember how far along MOL got before it was axed.
Or SLC-6 at Vandenberg, for another example.On the other hand, the ISS is up and running - even though critics will point out that it was poorly-run program, from a budgetary standpoint. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 12:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
That does not sound ambiguous to me, so what do you think, was I LIED to if he does not fund it?
Even if he were to fund (it would be fairer to say "ask the money for it"), would Congress agree? Even more so now since the Massachusetts vote. If you were lied to during the presidential campaign (and I'm not saying you weren't - politicians need your vote), there are chances you were lied to when voting for members of Congress. From this side of the Atlantic, the feeling is that the President has much less power than people think (or would want him to have). Congress seems to have the upper hand in everything (and the lobbyists behind it). |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 11:09 AM
Robert, are you getting any indication from your sources on whether the scale back is true? It seems like the White House came out pretty quickly last time after the meeting with Bolden. It seems like the usual pundits and senators and congressmen are all being pretty quiet. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-24-2010 03:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
It seems like the White House came out pretty quickly last time after the meeting with Bolden.
The White House came out last time to say that they wouldn't say anything until the budget rollout, so don't expect any further official comment until then. As for sources and rumors, I don't think we're in any position to label anything a "scale back" when there has been no official scale by which to judge. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 04:21 PM
Well the 1 billion number "rumored" seemed to represent what knowledgeable people in the industry though was the minimum increase needed to put Constellation back on track regardless of launch vehicle. It is being said that the much smaller number being branded about now amounts to the same kind of lip service to manned spaceflight put forward by the President's predecessors. So the flexible path is becoming the code word for the end of the vision put forth by President Bush. So I asked the question to determine if the new numbers have substantiated sources. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-24-2010 05:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
It is being said that the much smaller number being branded about now amounts to the same kind of lip service to manned spaceflight put forward by the President's predecessors.
That's not what I have read, nor what Space News reported. Rather, the funding levels appear to point to the "multi-billion dollar effort" to develop commercial human spaceflight systems, a move that cannot be described as "lip service." In any case, there will be plenty of time to dissect the details of the plan once it's announced. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-24-2010 08:00 PM
Wall Street Journal: White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter. The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multibillion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit--and eventually deeper into the solar system. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-25-2010 12:35 AM
It's hard to understand what is meant by "outsourcing"...It's not as if NASA was building anything on its own. NASA awards contracts to private firms (Rockwell International built the shuttle, not NASA). According to the article some people do not want money to be shifted from NASA to private firms, but isn't that what NASA already does by awarding contracts? The "outsourcing" then would be in the "launch and operations" sector? And I'd like to know where those private operators (or NASA for that matter) are going to go by the time their vehicle(s) actually fly (if they do)... This is confusing. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-25-2010 02:05 AM
I find this breaking news curious. Is NASA human spaceflight going to be under the auspices of something akin to the United Launch Alliance or Arianespace?It would be radical, but is it practical? |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 01-25-2010 08:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
It's hard to understand what is meant by "outsourcing"...
I work in IT. In IT outsourcing means moving jobs overseas. Let's see what this means to NASA. I hope the astronauts are not calling down to mission control in Mumbai. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2010 09:08 AM
Astronauts already call down to mission controls in Russia, Germany and Japan, in addition to Houston.Under the proposed commercial human spaceflight program, the companies that build the spacecraft retain ownership of the spacecraft, rather than build the vehicles for NASA. The space agency then buys seats from the company for its astronauts. Further, spacecraft servicing would be the company's responsibility and (mission) control of the spacecraft during launch and flight, until such time the vehicle arrives at its destination, e.g. the ISS or a moon base, would also be managed by the company. In other words, look toward the model currently employed for NASA's unmanned launches. United Launch Alliance (ULA) manages the preparation, launch and flight of NASA satellites and planetary probes until they reach their destination -- in this case, Earth orbit -- at which time they are handed off to NASA teams. The benefits of this approach are two-fold: (1) decreased costs (in theory), and (2) the establishment of a commercial human spaceflight capacity that can be used to support more than just NASA's interests and/or needs, bolstering the U.S. aerospace industry. Just as ULA launches military and commercial payloads, a commercial crewed spacecraft might take university and private sector man-tended experiments to orbit, or service commercial satellites already on-orbit, or support the burgeoning space tourism market. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-25-2010 09:40 AM
The United Launch Alliance model seems workable in theory.Constellation would of course have to be redrawn if commercial is Obama's preferred choice. May be it's the stimulus human spaceflight needs to get out of its present doldrums. NASA has suffered from too much bureaucracy since the Shuttle era. A game-changer is needed. I hope the floodgates open and more space entrepeneurs like Rutan and Bigelow join Musk. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2010 10:27 AM
A significant transferal of risk (from the Government to the Contractor). In order for this model to be successful, there needs to be a reasonable expectation of profitability which would have to be driven by commercial demand since Government outlays for manned space will be truncated throughout the next decade. Absent a national space strategy focusing on the transistion of HSF into a profitable enterprise dont see such demand. The launch rates for ISS wont do it; a lunar program may well if the end state objective is to harvest resources and establish a robust permanent presence. This approach will also further attrite NASA of R&D skillsets and resources (the talent will go with the money to the private sector). |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-25-2010 10:35 AM
New Huntsville Times article. Probably the most disturbing quote from this article is: "I think the handwriting is pretty much on the wall that we are not going back to the moon, let alone Mars, anytime soon." [said Loren Thompson, a military and space expert with the Lexington Institute, an independent think tank in Arlington, Va.] |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-25-2010 10:46 AM
We all thought NASA would make space travel as mundane as air travel. In fact, it's done the opposite and made it the exclusive preserve of government astronauts.It was the Russians who made orbital space tourism possible. Now Virgin Galactic is making it available to anyone (albeit with deep pockets). I think the commercial sector's time has come. But please don't disparage these fledgling industries too much. Remember, that NASA's favourite contractor ATK (formerly Morton Thiokol) was chiefly responsible for the loss of Challenger. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2010 10:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Absent a national space strategy focusing on the transition of HSF into a profitable enterprise don't see such demand.
It would appear though, that start-ups like Space X and Bigelow do see a demand, as they have already invested significant funds into developing such a platform absent of any promises from the federal government. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2010 10:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
It was the Russians who made orbital space tourism possible.
Correction: it was an American company that developed the business model, paid for the technical study and identified the clients that made orbital tourism possible. And a similar effort was nearly underway for the U.S. space shuttle when the loss of Columbia curtailed those plans. quote:
Remember, that NASA's favourite contractor ATK (formerly Morton Thiokol) was chiefly responsible for the loss of Challenger.
ATK is no more NASA's "favorite contractor" than are Boeing, Lockheed, Orbital and others that the space agency employs. And ATK was not primarily at fault for Challenger; NASA was. As Wayne Hale recently wrote, "With 20-20 hindsight, the root cause of the accident was obviously sheer stupidity," referring to NASA's own cultural problems. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-25-2010 02:30 PM
Space Adventures Ltd. of the USA was indeed formed with the express aim of offering seats on Soyuz taxi missions to the ISS.But let's remember the Russians still had to approve the scheme which NASA opposed tooth-and-nail prior to Dennis Tito's historic flight in 2001. I suspect the Thiokol managers in January 1986 were thinking more of their lucrative contract with NASA. They ignored the one-man task force of Roger Boisjoly. Whether that was an act "stupidity" or not is highly questionable. I'm sure that Space X will not throw caution to the wind. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2010 03:11 PM
A tad off-topic, but Space Adventures was not founded to offer seats on Soyuz flights. The company was primarily suborbital-focused at its start, and operated a full "Steps to Space" series of programs long before orbital tourism was even a consideration.Nor was NASA entirely opposed to Dennis Tito's flight: only divisions within NASA. In fact, there were parts of the U.S. space agency who were supportive of the idea. As far as the pressures involved with the Challenger launch decision, I would recommend Truth, Lies and O-Rings. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2010 05:40 PM
Back on topic...Space News: NASA Budget Rollout Plans Taking Shape NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will unveil the U.S.space agency’s spending priorities for 2011 during a Feb. 1 press conference at NASA headquarters [in Washington, DC], according to administration officials. ...in addition to the Monday rollout, Bolden is tentatively slated to host a second news conference Feb. 2 at the National Press Club here, administration officials said. Bolden will also talk part in a NASA TV-televised one-day presentation on the status of NASA's current and proposed programs on Feb. 12. The program will feature an overview by Bolden, followed by presentations from NASA Mission Directorates and staff offices. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-25-2010 11:28 PM
Two points, both of which I am sure to be slammed upon -- one, did any of us really think that whoever the President was or what the economic times were, that NASA would get sufficient funding? Two, I would rather see U.S. manned space flight ended with the shuttle than for the government to play the game of advocating a strong manned program, and then watching it die a slow death.To quote John Lennon, "The dream is over." |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-25-2010 11:43 PM
- I certainly wasn't expecting anything.
- I agree with you.
As for the dream being over, let's see what comes out on Feb. 1... and then after the November elections. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-26-2010 05:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Remember, that NASA's favourite contractor ATK (formerly Morton Thiokol) was chiefly responsible for the loss of Challenger.
Uhhh, whatever gave you THAT idea? I would suggest you read "Truth, Lies and O-Rings" to get an idea of what the root cause of the Challenger disaster was and you'll see that Wayne Hale is right, it was sheer stupidity related to NASA's culture at the time. As for comparisons of the cancellation of MOL to Ares, they are very different. MOL was cancelled for many public and at the time classified reasons. Publicly, it was perceived to be a duplication of effort to the planned Apollo Applications Program flight of what became Skylab and as such it seemed a bit awkward to continue with it. In reality though it was intended to be a manned recon platform for gathering intelligence on the Soviet Union. It was getting harder to justify the cover story though of the Air Force being in space for pure research as that was NASA's charter. Plus, the NRO had come up with designs for the next generation of unmanned spy satellites by that point and in the classified realm I believe the MOL was considered a wasted effort as unmanned systems were getting a bit more sophisticated in their capabilities. So publicly it was cancelled for certain reasons why privately it was cancelled for others. After flying Almaz (Salyuts 3 and 5), the Soviets seemed to also come to a similar conclusion in terms of effort expended for intelligence gained versus other systems for intelligence gathering. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-26-2010 06:30 AM
Having read "Challenger: A Major Malfunction" by Malcolm McConnell from cover-to-cover, one gets a pretty good idea of the workings of NASA and its contractors, especially Morton Thiokol, in the 1980s. |
Ross
Member Posts: 531
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 01-26-2010 06:31 AM
I've read a number of books on the Challenger disaster (although not 'Truth, Lies and O-Rings') plus the final report and I can't agree that NASA was completely responsible. Morton Thiokol also must share the blame. Like NASA, they knew there was a problem and they knew that the temperature was below previous experience. They could have stood up to NASA and said 'no launch' but didn't. After all, they were the contractors with the experience and test results (I might also question why they didn't carry out more extensive testing after the first cases of burn through were detected). So, both NASA and Morton Thiokol deserve the blame. I for one, don't intend to try and decide how much blame each side should shoulder. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2010 07:22 AM
Back to the future... Washington Post: Obama to propose freeze on government spending Under mounting pressure to rein in mammoth budget deficits, President Obama will propose in his State of the Union address a three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security, a concession to public concern about government spending that could dramatically curtail Obama's legislative ambitions... The key point here for NASA: Administration officials said Obama would not freeze spending across the board but would increase investments in some agencies while slashing others. Administration officials are saying that the freeze would not be aimed at programs that create jobs, which might hint at an exception for NASA. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2010 07:38 AM
Another data point from POLITICO via Space Politics: One-time costs, like the 2010 Census, will also be coming down, and this could help pay for more money for NASA, for example... |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-26-2010 09:41 AM
You know it is serious when people start making pictures. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-26-2010 01:51 PM
On a similar note, I have an idea for the final space shuttle patch -- the President pushing down on a plunger blowing up both empty shuttle launch pads (cartoon form) and saying "Mission Accomplished" -- perhaps with Congress cheering in the background. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2010 02:10 PM
Russia Today reported Tuesday that the International Space Station partners have agreed to extend the life of the outpost to 2020, as was expected. They add a note about the U.S. intentions with the ISS: [Vitaly Lopota, president and chief designer of Energia] added that NASA has suggested an even greater extension of the station's lifetime till 2028. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-26-2010 03:23 PM
So I am curious as to how the members here and space advocates everywhere will react to losing the moon. It is obvious that in the past we sat by contently and watched year after year, decade after decade as NASA money was spent on LEO adventures.But now after years of being excited about being promised the moon once more, how will we react now that it is taken away from us. Will we use our voices and reputations to disparage the politicians and policies that took it away from us or do we sit back once more and watch the world go about its business. I am interested in what you will do. It seems to me that to be true to myself I would have to become an activist of some sort to not let them forget what a huge mistake this is. I notice already that the articles are debating more the pros and cons of commercial spaceflight and not losing the moon. The media is convinced that the public does not care, They may be right, but I care and my children care. What should I do for them? As an educator what do I do and say to all the children I have been promising the moon to for the last several years. |
Topic Closed
advertisement