What's on your mind during this long weekend, cosmically speaking? Are you jazzed up about NASA's next spaceship? Musing over the tension between science and religion? Or do you just want to throw in your 40th anniversary suggestions for favorite "Star Trek" characters? Consider this posting your "Open Mike Night" to throw in comments on cosmic subjects you've run across over the past week.
Today I've been interested in the day-after reports about the awarding of the contract for NASA's Orion spaceship. Why was Lockheed Martin picked over Northrop Grumman and Boeing? That's the focus for much of The New York Times' article on the multibillion-dollar deal, which called the outcome a "major victory" for Lockmart and a "stunning setback" for Northboe.
Because Lockheed and Boeing have been involved in space projects for decades, they both have made missteps: Lockheed has gotten bad press over the X-33 space plane, the Mars Climate Orbiter and the Genesis solar-wind probe. Boeing's black marks include cost overruns on the international space station, problems with its management of spy-satellite launches and bad advice from engineers during Columbia's doomed flight.
So no matter which way the decision went, there would be issues to deal with. MarsBlog's T.L. James, who has a Lockheed Martin connection, takes the Lockmart naysayers to task in paragraph-by-paragraph detail.
Some of the signals being sent after the selection have indicated that Lockheed Martin had a more straightforward proposal, based on well-established technology rather than the need for further out-of-the-blue innovation.
Other observers, like Time magazine's Jeffrey Kluger, says Lockheed Martin is the "right builder" primarily because NASA wants to spread the wealth in its manned space program (even though Lockheed is already getting the lion's share of NASA's robotic spacecraft funding).
Jeff Hanley, program manager for NASA's Project Constellation, said there wasn't any one decisive factor between Lockheed Martin's selection:
"I wish it was that simple. It's not that easy. The process we go through to decompose these proposals and probe them and identify strengths and weaknesses is really an elaborate, rigorous process. To try to encapsulate it in one or two bites wouldn't do it justice."
Of course, there are plenty of people who don't care a whit about trying to read the tea leaves. Over at RLV and Space Transport News, Clark Lindsey says he'll be watching the Davids of the space industry rather than the Goliaths:
"Frankly, it all seems a bit boring. Maybe this program will successfully return the U.S. to the moon by 2020. There are lots of great engineers working in it and they are quite capable of making it a success. However, the price tag is far too high for far too little. I want spaceflight to become practical, useful and broadly available. That's when it gets exciting. NASA will achieve none of these with the Constellation program. They are not even goals the agency recognizes. ..."
A couple of correspondents have wondered whether the trip is worth all this trouble and treasure to begin with. Here's a representative message from J.G.:
"Does anyone have an answer for why we want to go to the moon again? What can this possibly accomplish, besides sending $ into the sky?
"As a 30-year old, it appears that this stuff is just a way to appeal to the baby boomers' memories of the '50s and '60s, and their apparent inability to move from science fiction nostalgia to the real world where priorities must be set. Also, it is precious that anyone who considers themselves conservative can support this kind of bureaucracy. Baby boomers who I truly respect seem to be able to justify the continued waste by saying that NASA discovers important things (as a side effect) while focusing on shuttling tax dollars into the abyss. Yet no one (not on the NASA payroll) who has looked at that argument seriously believes it. If we needed non-stick kitchen pans and 'space' mattresses, they would have emerged with private $, and much more efficiently.
"What could be accomplished if the 'Star Trek' geeks at NASA had to beg like-minded boomers like Paul Allen for the next Millennium Falcon XJ54, and all those public billions went to the study of alternative energy sources? American supremacy is partly derived from our ability to create (and apply) the newest technologies and lead the world (especially in the 20th century) - are we really going to focus our scientific community on going to the moon again? If you want to set up welfare for scientists, they might as well be working on something that might help my children's generation. Maybe the energy problem doesn't sound too important - how about shoring up levees and schools?
"The Cold War is over. Nobody under 50 cares about NASA. I've got a winning theme for a presidential candidate: Priorities. Between earmarks (thanks again, boomers, for turning that into a snowballing debacle), tricky accounting and lack of public interest (and reporting), we waste so much $ that it truly is unethical. For a tiny fraction of the NASA $, you could save thousands of children from malaria each year. You could build goodwill in the Middle East. You could offer more college assistance to low-income families (a better way to approach poverty than complaining that unskilled workers are being exploited by Wal-Mart)."
So feel free to weigh in on Orion, the "why" (or "why not") of space exploration, the search for the "God spot" or anything else that strikes your fancy. By the way, I can't resist linking to this article in The Onion when J.G. talks about launching dollars into the sky.
As always, I'll be the arbiter of which comments get approved, so play nice - and be sure to watch the skies during this long Labor Day weekend.