E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
For the second time this month, NASA's chief faced tough talk on Capitol Hill from lawmakers - as well as from Apollo moonwalkers Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, plus longtime aerospace executive Tom Young.
Both astronauts told members of Congress that returning humans to the moon was not only desirable, but necessary for future exploration - even though NASA says it's no longer a priority.
To some extent, today's House Science and Technology Committee's hearing was a reprise of the Senate hearing earlier this month, where Armstrong and Cernan played the starring roles. If anything, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and the White House's revised exploration vision came in for even harsher scrutiny.
"By now you probably have figured out that this committee is not with you," Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told Bolden. The administrator said he was getting that message.
NASA vs. Congress
The main themes of the criticism are that NASA should keep going with the Constellation program and not rely on buying launch services from commercial providers. Constellation calls for the development of new NASA rockets, starting with the solid-fueled Ares 1, to service the International Space Station and eventually return to the moon.
The White House's budget proposal calls for the cancellation of Constellation, while going ahead with the development of some of the hardware, such as a scaled-down Orion crew capsule for emergency rescue and a heavy-lift rocket for trips beyond Earthorbit. The Obama administration sided with an independent panel's report concluding that the original Constellation budget and timeline were wildly unrealistic.
When the space shuttle fleet is retired, late this year or perhaps sometime next year, NASA would buy rides to the space station through at least 2020 - first from the Russians, then from private companies potentially ranging from Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Orbital Sciences to new entrants such as SpaceX.
Bolden told lawmakers that the Orion Lite capsule, currently known as the Crew Rescue Vehicle, could be ready for flight in the 2013-2015 time frame, at a cost of $4.5 billion. He said a revised development plan would be ready for review next week. The NASA chief acknowledged that it would be cheaper to pay the Russians for Soyuz rides, but "cheap is not what we're looking for ... we're looking for domestic capability."
Few in Congress are happy about the shift away from Constellation, and in fact current law forces NASA to keep going ahead with the program until Congress says otherwise. Bolden repeatedly acknowledged that point during the hearing. But under questioning, he also acknowledged that the program's manager, Jeff Hanley, was being reassigned to another position as deputy director for strategic plans at NASA's Johnson Space Center. Hanley took a high profile in planning continued testing for Constellation hardware. (NASA Watch has Hanley's brief farewell e-mail.)
Lawmakers worried that canceling Constellation would leave the United States in a "Third World category in spaceflight" (said Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.) ... would represent a "U-turn" from the vision laid out five decades ago by President John Kennedy (said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.) ... and would leave the country's aerospace workforce "completely demoralized."
"Heck, I'm demoralized just looking at it," said Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md.
Astronauts vs. NASA
Armstrong, Cernan and Young were similarly downbeat. Their written statements, along with Bolden's, are all available through the House committee's website. Here are some highlights:
Neil Armstrong, who became the first man to walk on the moon during Apollo 11 in 1969, took particular aim at President Barack Obama's statement that NASA should pass up human flights to the moon because "we've been there before":
"Some question why America should return to the moon. 'After all,' they say, 'we have already been there.' I find that mystifying. It would be as if 16th-century monarchs proclaimed that 'we need not go to the New World, we have already been there.' Or as if President Thomas Jefferson announced in 1808 that Americans 'need not go west of the Mississippi, the Lewis and Clark expedition has already been there.'
Armstrong touted the moon as a test bed for longer trips, a scientific destination in its own right, and a potential resource for exotic materials such as helium-3 fusion fuel and palladium-group metals. When Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, asked whether returning to the moon was "a nice-to-have or a need-to-have," Armstrong answered, "It's both, sir."
Gene Cernan, who was the last man to walk on the moon during Apollo 17 in 1972, largely reprised his "Mission to Nowhere" testimony from the earlier hearing. He surmised that the originators of the revised policy were promoting their own agenda rather than that of NASA or Congress:
"With the submission of the FY2011 budget, the administration and the originators of this proposal were either misinformed or showing extreme naivete, or I can only conclude are willing to take accountability for a calculated plan to dismantle America's leadership in the world of human space exploration, resulting in NASA becoming nothing more than a research facility. In either case, I believe this proposal is a travesty which flows against the grain of over 200 years of our history and, today, against the will of the majority of Americans."
Tom Young, a retired Lockheed Martin executive, recapped NASA's legacy in human spaceflight and said the proposed move to a more commercial way of exploring space "will be devastating" for that legacy:
"A fundamental flaw in the proposed human spaceflight program is a commercial crew initiative which abandons the proven methodology I have described. NASA's role is reduced to defining safety requirements and general oversight. An argument for pursuing this new human spaceflight approach is that the proven methodology is too expensive. This same rationale caused the Air Force and NASA to try similar approaches in the 1990s. ... The results were devastating, and the adverse impact is still with us today. ... On average, programs implemented using this approach resulted in half the intended program for twice the cost, and they were six years late on average."
Young pointed to examples ranging from cost overruns on the NPOESS weather satellite program (managed by Northrop Grumman) to the failures of NASA's Mars missions in 1999 (managed in part by Young's own Lockheed Martin). Back in 2000, Young defended NASA's "faster, cheaper, better" approach, but he apparently has since changed his mind.
The other side of the issue
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., noted that the list of witnesses wasn't exactly balanced. "We have not received both sides of this issue at all ... I'm just saying, there is another side," he told panel chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.
Gordon noted that Bolden had spent a long time defending the new policy, that White House science adviser John Holdren had been asked to attend but couldn't show up ... and that several individuals and groups had sent letters to the committee in support of the policy. Chief among those are Buzz Aldrin, Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmate on the moon; and Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart. For years, Schweickart has been trying to draw attention to the threat posed by near-Earth asteroids, and he particularly likes NASA's new emphasis on asteroid exploration.
He's not the only one: One of the few bright spots in the testimony came when Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., said she was excited about the idea of going to an asteroid. Bolden said that NASA was making plans for a robotic landing on an asteroid by 2016, using an experimental Hall thruster system - leading up to a crewed mission by 2025.
"When a kid sees something rendezvous with an asteroid in 2016, let me tell you, they're going to be excited," Bolden said.
But it was clear from the tenor of the hearing that NASA's space vision will likely go through another revision before NASA approves $19 billion in funding. When Rohrabacher worried that Congress was rushing to judgment, Gordon told him, "You can be well assured that we are not one hearing away from an authorization." And even Bolden seemed to hint that NASA still has plans for the moon.
"We're going to take incremental steps to leave low Earth orbit. ... The steps are International Space Station, the moon and asteroids, and eventually Mars," Bolden said.
So what's the best way to boldly go? Or is the trip beyond Earth orbit worth all the money, risk and aggravation? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below - and if I come across the letters from Aldrin, Schweickart or others who corresponded with Congress, I'll make sure to link to them here.
Bonus round: Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told Obama today in a letter that he intended to include money for an extra shuttle flight in the NASA reauthorization bill. The mission would kick in if the shuttle Atlantis, which landed just today, is not needed as a rescue vehicle for the current "last shuttle flight," scheduled for launch in November or later. The scenario would be what NASA planners (and Nelson) have been discussing for weeks: a space station resupply flight in the summer of 2011 with a pared-down crew of four astronauts aboard. "I look forward to working with you to make this important mission a reality," Nelson wrote.
Correction for 4:25 p.m. ET May 26: For a while there I had the wrong party affiliation for California Republican Dana Rohrabacher.
Update for 5:50 p.m. ET May 26: Buzz Aldrin's letter to the committee says NASA's revised space plan is "a rich vision that I would hope that we could all embrace." He said he shared the concern voiced by Armstrong and Cernan about a gap in America's access to space, and he called for Obama to issue an executive order requiring NASA and the Air Force to work together to modify existing expendable rockets for human-rated flights. He also called for the development of a new space glider that could be launched atop such rockets.
Rusty Schweickart's letter says NASA was "on a dead-end road ... a path to nowhere." Going back to the moon wouldn't be ambitious enough, in Schweickart's view, while going straight to Mars would be too ambitious. Schweickart touted sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid as "an intermediate Mars trajectory which, in my opinion, makes much more sense." He also supported shifting more responsibility to the private sector to support "the development of an independent, private, commercial capability with a huge upside potential for jobs and, indeed, world industrial leadership."
Correction for 9 p.m. ET May 27: I originally wrote "$4.5 million" for the cost of building the Orion Lite vehicle, but of course the cost estimate is actually $4.5 billion. Thanks to Cosmic Log correspondents for setting me straight. I think I'll blame this one on the new publishing system. ;-) I've also received and posted PDF copies of the letters sent to the committee by the Planetary Society and a group of science and space organizations in support of Obama's space policy.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
My hope is that there can be a win-win solution between the moon-first and flexible-path groups. The main objection that the Administration has with Constellation is that it was unaffordable. I would like to see someone come out with a plan for the development of the moon which is far less expensive than "Apollo on steroids" and leave enough money on the table for glorious things like visiting an asteroid or a martian moon. Given the following, I think that it might be doable: commercial space, xPrizes, NASA-supported prizes, smaller lunar landers that wouldn't need a new heavy lift vehicle, multiple launches with docking, telerobotic development, ISRU, and partnering with other countries who have yet to see one of their own on the moon.
Couldn't agree more. The question is could American Exceptionalism accept say, riding down to the lunar surface on a Russian Lunar lander? Or a Chinese one! Hearing the sabre rattling by some of the Cold War Warriors at the Hearing; this space cadet is not sure. Let's not take Nationalism or, worse still, the Corporate State out into Infinity and Beyond! Hubble teaches a magnificent lesson: leave the exploring to Robots. And when the 'Bots fail or the environment gets too complex for their poor little 'Bot brains... send in the experts, who have been problem solving in a complex environment ever since they walked out of Olduvai Gorge.
We're still getting used to it. I know I am...
(see? that was meant for Darrah's comment, but though I can edit, I can't delete)
Secret military run missions, altered or adobe moon and mars images of landing strips and towers (if not ours then whose or what), astronauts silenced and even threatened, lunar rocket explosions to explore for water we already know was there (what are we shooting at), Spheres as large as planets orbiting the sun, Neil Armstrong's cryptic speech (YouTube:Neil Armstrong - Nasa Lies) now he seems to be part of the galactic cover-up. Buzz Aldrin Reveals Existence of Monolith on Mars Moon (see it on YouTube). WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Stop laughing and start praying. DISCLOSURE IS COMING!
"the main objection that the Administration has with Constellation is that it was unaffordable" is what has been said since the Administration reviewed the Augustine Report but prior to the committee even being created Greg Zsidisin, on April 7, 2008, reported that Obama told a campaign rally audience in March 2007, “NASA is no longer associated with inspiration,” and in his education platform document (you'll have to use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to see it as is was from December 15, 2007 through at at least June 25, 2008 [could not access later dates) in the last section IX. A Commitment to Fiscal Resposibillity, states,"Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,…". For some reason this did not come out in the major news media.
Greg Zsidisin continues to report, that at a town hall meeting in Wyoming, recounted by John McCormik of the Chicago Tribune, “During the question-and-answer portion of an event at a recreational center here, Obama was asked about the nation's space program. “I grew up on Star Trek,” Obama said. “I believe in the final frontier.”
But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.
“NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration,” he said. “I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore.”
Obama seemed to resent my question. A little later, he addressed another on energy, and spoke of the need for an alternative energy effort. He concluded by turning to my direction and saying pointedly, “And that, sir, is what our next Apollo Program should be.”” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1100/1
Essentially Obama was elected to, at least, delay NASA's Constellation Program even before there ever was an Augustine Committee. It had nothing then to do with it being unaffordable.
Where are the "regulars" from the old format of Cosmic Log? I only see one. It's downright scary not to see a comment from Steve. S.
I want my mommy!!! :)
Darrah, that's a feature, not a bug :)
The Augustine Commission stated that the program of record, including Constellation, is viable if an additional $3 billion in funding per year is provided. The Congress that seems so set of keeping Constellation going is responsible for NASA's budget. The president asked for an additional $1 billion in FY 2011. Is Congress willing to pony up the other $2 billion to make Constellation happen. If not, it will be the same old situation of a space initiative dying on the vine for lack of funding.
But that was predicated on splashing the ISS I believe the figure is more like $6 billion if you keep the ISS and more like $9 Billion/annum if you want a landing before 2035! The funding requirements are ... astronomical. There are smarter, cheaper ways:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
Thanks for the link, Brobof. It appears that the folks at United Launch Alliance have a viable plan that has some significant advantages over both the Constellation program and the current work in progress from the Adminstration.
great redesign ... nice job!
If we really want protection from asteroids, plagues, whirl winds, earth quakes, 60 pound hail stones etc. All we need to do is to keep the commandments of God. Repent of our sins, and we will prosper and be happy.
Wow. Really Richard-52? Really?! This is science brother not a fantasy world.
What part of "way overbudget and far behind schedule" doesn't congress understand about Constellation? It won't get us back to the moon before 2028, says the Augustine commission. The new plan has a shot of getting US astronauts to a NEW destination, an asteroid (since one of these suckers killed off the dinosaurs, we should give them a look) perhaps as early as 2025.
With companies like Bigalow currently making inflatable space stations for earth orbit and planning for inflatable lunar habitats in the future, moon fans will still get what they want in the future: by purchasing a multi-million dollar ticket. NASA should be pushing the frontiers and getting us to new places. Commercial companies can go where NASA has already been
Brian:
The idea of getting to an asteroid by 2025 is just as pie-in-the-sky as any other domestic human spaceflight endeavour under this plan. The best analogy is that I've decided to take my ladder and burn it and hope my friends will rent me a new ladder they've promised to build someday.
"Someday" is the targeted delivery date from all of these commercial launch vehicle proposals. So until that date when one of these firms can say "we will show you on day x that we can put person y into a sustained orbit using vehicle z" and actually deliver, I won;t hold my breath.
We have, as a nation, become people who cannot accomplish anything anymore. We spend too much time looking down at our screens instead of up at the stars. Maybe it's because we have so many of us living in cities, where light pollution makes it so you can;t see the sky - if you can only see 5-10 stars, why bother getting excited about it?
No you had a ladder and had some really nasty accidents with it but kept putting off replacing it until it killed your best friend. Someone put out a tender to replace the ladder with any number of practical high tech replacements. But then a bright spark came along and showed you this neat little ladder and a REALLY BIG ladder that would do everything ladderish. Unfortunately the little ladder was too short to reach where you wanted to go and the REALLY BIG LADDER to heavy to lift. And they cost way too much. If a rented ladder can do the job use it. But more to the point if a neighbour offers to rent his ladder (in a nice shiny red colour) for LESS that the cost of renting one from a local DIY. You would be a fool to turn him down?
We've landed on the Moon. We know what is there, (for the most part). Way to go!! We have rovers on Mars. We know what is there, (for the most part). Way to go!! I believe we are getting to the point where we must ask ourselves what next in terms of space flight?
The next huge step would be spacecraft capable of manned landings AND liftoffs from the most likely candidate, Mars, or as previously mentioned small bases on the moon. All missions decided upon should utilize improved technology.
Oh Yeah... and take care of planet Earth and all of the inhabitants... can't forget that!!
The Solar System seems so small thanks to NASA and everyone involved in space exploration. :-)
Why not finish the Aries-1 capsules for LEO and go from there? it seems that we have spend alot of money on them not to finish them and then cancel the Aries-5 program.
I think that the Obama administration has the right strategy. Low earth orbit capable vehicles are proliferating. Instead put your effort on the heavy lifters that will enable the launch of beyond-moon vehicles. Ion-drive powered space vehicles are right on the cusp now and are the future of space exploration. Mars is a snap with this new technology and the asteroid belt is the new frontier.
JCF426 - You throw comments like "Obama is dead wrong...completely blind." out there without explaining yourself. Did you read the article? "The Obama administration sided with an independent panel's report concluding that the original Constellation budget and timeline were wildly unrealistic." Why waste the money? The Constellation program was a political one in the first place and the only reason that congressman are against the canceling of it is because like the shuttle and the useless space station it was going to be a pork project. The scientists never wanted the space station and they weren't for a return to the moon. They want probes that gather more bang for the buck in terms or real science and not money wasted planting a flag on the moon because we are afraid some other country will do it.
Oy. Again with LEO capable vehicle... you make it sound like you can easily go to the local Home Depot and pick one up.
Again - what commercial firm has actually flown a viable vehicle that can carry human beings into LEO? Nobody.
Until one of these companies firmly states that " On calendar day X, we will use vehicle Y to put preson Z into a sustainable LEO and bring them back safely," and then actually backs up that statement, all the hype about commercial space ventures is just that. Hype.
Hyperbole.
Bald-faced lying.
In my opinion, the revised White House plan for NASA is uninspired and flawed. Since the mid twentieth century, the United States has blazed a path to the stars with all of the combined creativity, passion, and innovation of the best and brightest NASA personnel. There have been difficult moments, for sure, huge expenses, and loss of life, but NASA has always forged ahead. Constellation embodies the tenets of NASA, and most importantly, the spirit and capabilities of the United States of America. If we let it die, then we will throw away so much of what was accomplished, and the foundation NASA has built will begin to erode and decay. Would Constellation be expensive? Yep. Then again, what of some other expenses our government so readily accepts? In the hope of masking any partisan political views, I digress, but really, just think about it. I think we should invest in greatness.
And Mat J that is what they are trying to do again by killing a program that they didn't want in the first place. It means nothing to the scientists in charge to return to the Moon. They want to spend their finite budget on true exploration, such as probes to places more interesting from a science point of view like Europa.
These ex-astronauts are just spouting nationalistic jingoism and rhetoric. These choices need to be left up to scientists and those that budget with those scientists.
One of the things that's struck me the most about these hearings is how ignorant Cernan and Armstrong appear to be about Constellation, the NASA budget, the Augustine Commission's findings, why Constellation is broken, and most importantly, WHEN it was broken (2005, when the Bush admin cut the NASA budget). From their comments, they also seem to be ignorant of what's actually IN the new NASA budget. Aldrin's the only one of the three who seems to be keeping up.
Under the proposed plan of renting a ride from Russia, how does the US get military payloads into space? Do we really think Russia will go ahead and lease us a rocket to so we can put a military satellite or the like into space? And if they did, don't you think the mission might be compromised if we have to send the "secret payload" to Minsk few weeks before launch to get it ready?Â
Almost all military payloads are carried by unmanned rockets, and nothing changes in that arena.
One issue that came up during the hearing is that the Pentagon was planning on splitting the costs of solid-rocket development with NASA (which was going with solids for Ares 1). ATK's Charlie Precourt (a former astronaut) was quoted as saying that canceling Ares 1 could add tens of billions of dollars (if I heard that right) in extra costs for the Pentagon rocket development effort. That's one thing members of Congress are concerned about ... that not as much money will be saved as you would think just by looking at NASA's budget alone.
Let me get this straight. Charlie Precourt is saying that we should continue to use SRBs for manned space because if we don't, costs will rise for Pentagon rockets. That kind of logic makes me wonder whether I need to go back and take a look at the reasons given for canceling NASA's plans (more than once) for reusable liquid flyback boosters for Shuttle - was there job-driven politics that forced Shuttle to keep using SRBs? It would be so nice to have those liquid flyback boosters in NASA's tool belt right now.
Should we not be spending our money on discovering how we can perserve and protect Mother Earth instead of spending millions on places far far away where man cannot live on for a long period of time? Call me crazy but lets take care of where we live first, then once we have that figured out, then by all means lets take a look at the stars.
Why should it be either or. Why can't we do both. I say we should do both and they may not be mutually exclusive - research into one may help the other.
"Should we not be spending our money on discovering how we can perserve and protect Mother Earth..."
And...who says we aren't? Have you checked to see how much (and how well) money is already being spent on those things you consider more important?
And trust me, the mythical day 'when all our problems are solved on Earth' will never come, no matter what you do...
Not to metion that this option for travel to low earth orbit disappears the next time we have a significant disagreement with Russia. To place our capabilities to get to the space station in Russian hands is foolish and naive, not to mention a threat to our national security..Â
Even with Constellation, there would be no Ares-1/Orion before about 2017. The day (back in 2005, now mind you) it was decided to terminate the Shuttle program, was the day it was guaranteed that there would be *some* kind of gap.
And this is not new. Mercury did not overlap with Gemini, did not overlap with Apollo, did not overlap with the Shuttle. It's an issue now, only because of the need to continue to reach ISS, before the next manned launch system, whatever it is, comes on line. (And continuing Constellation without a serious and unlikely budget increase, would've left no money for ISS after 2015. We would then have possibly had Ares/Orion to LEO, but not much to do there...you tell me.)
Sure looks like the President is trying to reduce us to a "nothing" - Whatever happened to the visions that John Kennedy had that enable NASA to flourish - what do our youngsters have to look forward to? What would encourage them to become astronauts and space explorers, if they have to ride on someone else's vehicle. Be prepared folks, we are fast becoming a nothing on the slide rule of strong nations.
There's a real misconception here that needs to be understood. Constellation has been reducing us to a "nothing".
1) It's years behind, way over budget
2) It requires us to scrap the Space Station.
3) It started out using pieces of Shuttle but now uses none.
4) Ares I and V now have nothing in common.
5) Most of NASA's R&D was cancelled to free up money for Constellation.
6) Ten years from now when we're still years from having Ares V or going anywhere, it would still be there, making NASA look incompetent, and the odds are that some time before it's done in 2025-2030 Congress would defund it.
In short, it was supposed to be the cheapest way forward but has now, through bad engineering, low budgets and bad management, become a nightmare. It really, truly, truly, truly is sucking NASA dry without providing anything in return. You couldn't design a worse space program if you sat down and tried.
Neil Armstrong is correct that we need to go back to the moon and test out the equipment needed to stay on Mars. Going to an asteroid is a real waste of manned spaceflight capability, we can explore them with robots much easier and cheaper. President Obama listened to the wrong people who say we should do asteroids and Mars by ourselves just to thumb our nose at the rest of the world that we can do something they can't. It's Idiot Bush's stupid go-it-alone plan on steroids.
We need to explore the solar system the same way we made the International Space Station, in cooperation with our international space partners. Only the immature need to brag about the USA being number 1 in space, we need a more mature responsible method and that means international cooperation. Besides it's smarter to spread the costs and work around and further establish a more global approach to exploring space. We'll always be number 1 as long as we invest enough to keep our space program on the cutting edge.
It's cheaper to send robots everywhere, not just asteroids. The environments of the Moon and Mars are so different that different equipment will be necessary, so testing things on the Moon makes little sense.
"Besides it's smarter to spread the costs and work around and further establish a more global approach to exploring space..."
Yet another layer of bureaucracy, constituents to please, and programs being held hostage to the continued good will of all involved? No, thank you.
To the contrary. Because the Moon is so close we can use Robots or, more properly, remotely operated vehicles. Neil said it himself: "2 seconds!" Also because the Moon has gravity and a somewhat characterised geology we can design and plan in an ordered environment.
Asteroids on the other hand may be cosmic dustbunnies that shatter on impact or solid lumps of NiFe. Or both! There will be no gravity to speak of and every motion will send up a cloud of regolith. This is a classic example of a chaotic environment. Add to the mixture that the asteroid in question may be light minutes away and that is a recipe for disaster. So what works well in a chaotic environment with the advantage of zero comms latency? Yep a human being!
And I think the people Obama is listening to say that we should be going to the Asteroids as a Species! Unilaterallism was so last POTUS. Indeed at one of the STS 132 Press briefings Alexey Krasnov, chief of Piloted Programs Directorate, Russian Federal Space Agency was most enthusiastic on the topic of a mobile International Space Ship!
I made a mistake voting for Do-Nothing Obama. Had I known he hated the Space Program, I would had voted against him. I will be voting for his primary Democratic Challenger in 2012.
St. Miller is wrong. Our Valued Astronauts know what they are speaking about. Its time for Congress to just say no to Do-Nothing Obama and vote in enough funding to continue the Constellation Program. And Congress should tell the Amateur Private Space Venturist to take a hike!!!!!
Please see above list of common misconceptions. The list of stuff we're finally gonna get, for which we've been waiting since Nixon cancelled most of the space program in 69 and 70, is huge. Orbital propellant depots, long-duration independent space habitats, a new heavy lifter, high-performance thrusters, nuclear thermal rockets, space-based power generators - all these things were defunded either under Nixon or to free up funds for Constellation.
From what I understand, the moon is well within Earth's primary gravitational field. And the new Obama plan is about building space ships that can carry a person ten times further than the moon, somewhere where the sun's gravity and the earth's gravity are about equal in both directions seems absolutely astounding to me. While I agree that there's more to be done on the moon, I can't help but look at the list of countries shooting for goals past the moon, and I think one step beyond is a little cooler than another space race to the moon, forty years after the fact.
NASA and its mission became victim of party politics after the last Appolo mission, if you dig for some facts you'll find that leading the charge to cripple NASA and give the money to social programs (wellfare) was none other than Senator Edward Kennedy; Nixon was out and Ford was a band-aid and Carter was impressed only by himself. NASA had lost its way even with the development of the Shuttle program, this was a dead end program that had no future purpose. The Shuttle program should have been just one of NASA's major manned space efforts and not the only one. NASA is still victim of politics, Obama is gutting the program even though he looks like he is supporting the program. You have a cabal running the Democrat Party and nothing but a bunch of spineless corrupt idiots going in every kind of direction but the right one with the Republican Party, with a man in the White House bent on cutting the US down to size in anything and everything.
It is time for Congress to show some leadership. Fund the Shuttles until the SpaceX types succeed.
Fund the Constellation program also and get us back to a world class space power, to the moon, to the asteroids, to Mars. There is no reasons that we can not partner up with other countries to do this.
This article addresses hardly any of the benefits of the proposed space plan. No mention of the NASA budget increase. Some how people think Obama is canceling NASA, but he's actually increasing funding.
This article also spends NO TIME discussing how terrible things were going for the Constellation Program. No mention that the Lunar Landing vehicle had been canceled LONG AGO and that any ideas that the Constellation was going to be landing US Astronauts on the moon is an illusion. The rockets and capsules were all being worked on, but the lunar lander was done- finished and canceled....during the Bush administration.
The whole program was a knee jerk, publicity reaction to the Columbia disaster.
It is not Obama's fault that the previous space shuttle replacement: VentureStar from Lockheed Martin was canceled. It too was supposed to help support the retiring space shuttle- its failure didn't happen on his watch either.
Good point, I made a nod to the Augustine panel's determination that the program was unsustainable, and it's true that NASA is in for an overall budget increase. Sorry I didn't stress that more, maybe I was overwhelmed by the downbeat vibes from Congress.
Do-Nothing Obama might as well cancel NASA. Unfortunatly I don't see a plan in his hasteful re-planning of Nasa. Looks like we are only spinning our wheels to possiably reach goals that might work one day...
Constellation is do-able.
But don't worry. Mankind will get to the Moon by 2025. China, India and Russia will be on the moon while the United States sinks to the status of a Third World Space Nation.
Do Nothing Obama will make it possiable for the United States to remain in low Earth Orbit while Amateur Private Space Companies try to make toy space ships that might reach the Space Station one day.
"But don't worry. Mankind will get to the Moon by 2025. China, India and Russia will be on the moon while the United States sinks to the status of a Third World Space Nation"
Who cares if they get there Magnum? Time and again the people that know...the scientists...say that our money is better spent on robotic probes that can do more science than a man in a space suit could ever possibly do in an unpredictable environment like Mars, or a mostly science useless one like the Moon.
Constellation may be 'do-able' in your opinion if literally billions of more dollars are thrown at it, but to what end? The lunar astronauts fail to drive home the point that Apollo was ended when it was expensive, dangerous, and provided a low science return on investment. I for one would not give up what the rovers have done on Mars, the Hubble has done for astronomy, or what Galileo and Casini have given science just to plop a flag-planting nationalist on the moon for 'Who's the Bigger Country Syndrome"
Everyone talks about " Do Nothing Obama"- howdoes he figure in the equation? How many presidents and congresses and nasa officials had the opportunity to keep our space program running, and DID NOTHING. In comes Obama at the the end of any meaningful hope of keeping the dream alive, and suddenly it's all his fault. Grow up people- we've allowed congress, presidents, ceos do whatever they damn well please with no meaningful imput from the citizens of this country for decades. Blame yourselves, each and every one of us could have gotten congress and nasa to do their jobs- we chose not to. What's happening today is too little too late. We've blown it, and we know it. Now everyone has an opinion. Either walk the walk, or shut up. Do something constructive we have a do nothing congress inflating everything with their personal pork, we have nasa that is too afraid to take chances and actually create anything- but god forbid anyone else take the lead. Time for nasa to be a gov't regulatory agency, and let commercial enterprises take over. Then something will get done, when the gov't is divorced from the business end of things- they always shown their uselessness when comes to actually working for a living.
Who cares what these dead-beat 'Right-Wing Stuffed Shirts' demand?! The he|| with them! America is in
its greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, with serious and perhaps fatal structural deficit
economic failures from a bloated Corporate-State! NA$A disappeared $535,000,000,000 of our precious
last life savings AFTER Mission Accomplished, AFTER Moon missions ended! For what? To incinerate
two crews of Space Shuttle astronauts, then decide to terminate Hubble but be overridden, and get some
pictures of the surface of a distant, cold, dead, lifeless planet that we have absolutely no reason to visit?!
Oh, yeah, and build up their pension funds! Who the he|| do they think they are, demanding $10 TRILLION
of our precious last life savings to shoot into the void for Mission Mars? NA$A is the LEAST PRODUCTIVE
entity in Corporate-State in terms of accessible jobs per tax dollar!! Almost all of our taxes are recycled in
a cadre of white US citizens with TS/SCI clearances and previous aerospace career. NA$A IS CLUB FED!
Time to push back the welfare tax dole gantry, and if they want to 'go for launch', do it with private money!!
Hey look. NASA is not losing any leadership roles! It is gaining more, you just dont see it. these OLD GREY MEN of the OLD generation of spaceflight do not understand what can be accomplished with a liberalization of the space industry.
space tourism is a reality, Virgin Galactic is the obvious example. That industry will only expand and become more capable as time goes on. space travel, by which we could move across the globe in 4 hours or less, will become something of a normalcy in 20-30 years.
Allowing current NASA engineers to move to privet firms to pursue projects they wish to work on without government sticking their fingers in the punch bowl will lead to greater and faster innovation, greater variety of instruments, faster research, and, more importantly, more powerful space infrastructure.
we should begin to develop plans for a space station capable of constructing intrabody travel vessels in orbit. we need to begin developing sustainable space craft where people can live, work, and breath, as comfortably as possible, for at least a year at a time. The ISS was a good START.
Dont stop now!!! We need more international support and funding for these science projects that will lead to more diverse industry and inspire our people to succeed and imagine.
'They' are saying that Constellation is too slow to develop and build the hardware/too expensive and that the mission is flawed. 'They' said the same thing in the '90's when studies were conducted to design a replacement for the space shuttle. 'They' said the same thing in the early '70's when the space shuttle was given an external tank and SRB's instead of a flying mother ship booster. (The 'cheap' SRB's and External Tank are what killed Challenger and Columbia, the shuttle itself never failed). The only space program that our country has ever undertaken where 'cheapness' did not creep in and hurt the program was the Apollo program. The real problem here is not the mission or the hardware. It is our government's lack of appropriate funding levels to the NASA programs. We should be able to build the Constellation equipment, go to the moon, go to the asteroids, buy rides on the private rockets being developed, and work towards our first visit to Mars. Why are we being so cheap with the leading edge of human exploration?
I voted for Barack Obama. This is the first issue that has made me truly regret doing so, despite the fact that I (and all Americans) are stuck with such poor choices in a 2-party dominant system.
To abandon the Constellation Program and to even CONSIDER, let alone adopt, the position/s this administration has on NASA and returning our exploration of the Moon is DISGUSTING to me.
I was born within one week of Armstrong stepping foot on the Moon for the very first time. I fear I will die with clear sight of our nation's unparalleled spiral into decline. If the United States is bent on failure, greed, corruption, political stagnation, and raising the most undereducated generation in all the civilized world, we deserve exactly what we get.
You don't get it. NASA's budget was cut in 2005. Please see above list of common misconceptions.
The "Lunar Bypass" strategy recently adopted is due for a turn around, say 4 or 5 years down the line, after the current NASA decision makers spend huge sums of money and produce little or nothing. Landing or rendezvousing w. an asteroid as a trade-off to returning to The Moon is a stunt unworthy of scientific endeavor. It is clear that the OBama group, non of them space effort veterans, will not prevail in abandoning the nearest rock at hand for ever and a day. Other opnions are coming to the fore and must be considered. The Moon is a treasure trove of mineral riches and a cost effective training/proving ground for all manner of essential tech, materials, and personel necessary for the successful contstruction of ExTer habitations and a clearheaded approach to Mars. Incidently, in current terms, Mars is very far away, the logistics maybe beyond affordability in the current economic climate, which is in a world wide slump. The stronghearted oposition by astronaut icons Armstrong and Cernan, et al, and a a host of former NASA execs must continue and be heard so long as there are ears to listen. The decision to abandon Constellation completely is also wrongheaded. The new Ares rocket is worthy of continued development but the landing vehicle itself and the concept of "mission" appeared to me to be old wine in a new bottle: same trick, old circus. Millions were spent developing a window for the lander! What ever does a lunar lander need with a window? What does it provide for the crew that digitalvideo, radar, sonar, etc cannot provide? Constellation has been scrapped. That is fact. Now it is necessary to re-think the next approach to a Lunar expedition, and not one that will be an engineering stunt to hang around on the regolith for a few hours and pick up rocks. That was 1969 etc, the Apollo mission, and all those involved completed it. The new approach must be for the establishment of a permanent Lunar outpost, one that can be inhabited much like we humans inhabit certain areas of Antarctica. All space exploration efforts appear more than just costly in times of economic setback and yes, there ar huge Earthbound problems to solve in the meantime. But Mars is not going away. The Moon continues to ride through its phases. As an old man in Kashmir once told me, when I was in a hurry, "Slowly, slowly, sahib. All things are accomplished."
Okay, *which* new Ares rocket is worthy of continued development? Ares I, which is currently delaying Ares V and goes only to LEO, or Ares V, which has no parts in common and hasn't been started yet? Why do you say that the people on the Aldridge Commission and the Augustine Panel, whose recommendations the Obama plan follows pretty closely, are not "space effort veterans"? Is Buzz Aldrin, who *has* remained actively involved in space, less knowledgeable than Armstrong and Cernan because he advocates dropping Constellation?
The Human Spaceflight Plans Committee review (frequently called the Augustine Report), made the following statements:
FINDING: THE MOON AS A FIRST DESTINATION (“MOON FIRST”)
The Moon is a viable first destination for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. It initially focuses next steps on entering and departing deep gravity wells, and developing human operations on the surface of a celestial body, which should be developed in a manner that leads to the eventual exploration of Mars. The Moon is nearby, allowing relatively rapid return to Earth in the event of emergencies, and communication transit times are minimal. It also has interesting scientific and resource issues that can be pursued through human exploration.” p.39
Further more, “The Committee found that, although Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration in the inner solar system, it is not a viable first destination. We do not now have the technology or experience to explore Mars safely and sustainably. Both the Moon First and Flexible Path are viable strategies. Exploring the Moon would prepare us for exploration of Mars by allowing us to learn to live and work on a remote surface, yet one that is only three days from Earth.” 3.6 SUMMARY OF STRATEGIES FOR EXPLORATION BEYOND LOW-EARTH ORBIT, p.43
These have been ignored.