Hardly anyone who paid attention to the loss of Columbia wants to see the Shuttle program extended. It is an overly complicated, expensive vehicle, and cannot be made safe from the foam shedding or other debris during launch. The beauty of Constellation was man-rating a simple, uncomplicated vessel and using other launch vehicles to fly cargo without having to man-rate the heavy lift vehicles. Many critics of Constellation see any step away from a fully reusable orbiter as a step backwards; but in my opinion they set their sights too low. The Constellation/Apollo capsule design is not the only possible way to return from low earth orbit - but it is the only way our current materials will permit return from lunar or more distant missions. The other feature of Constellation was to 'road test' technology in locations where you could return safely if it didn't work right. The Obama plan has the flaw that the first time you try some of the new gear; you will be a very long way from home. I do applaud his decision to extend the life of the ISS, the world needs much more research into how to live and work in space for extended periods. But his rejection of returning to the moon as the next step outward misses all the research that can be done on the moon - technologies, lunar science, and especially the potential to put radio telescopes the size of Arecibo on the far side. I fear his decision was based more on a belief that any decision GW Bush made was wrong and had to be reversed than on science or costs. I also am suspicious that his Blue Ribbon Panel had so many members with ties to the alternatives to Constellation, and was not as independent as they were portrayed.

There was a time when America chose "to do the hard things".

Now we sit around hoping for change.

1985.

1997.

2000.

2010.

2015.

2020.

2025.

What do these dates have in common? They're all years we've been promised a manned landing on Mars. The date keeps moving out, and nothing ever really happens. Our country and especially our politicians no longer have the will to actually fly hardware and put footprints on soil.

Now we're told that "by 2045", we "may" land people on a martian moon. Maybe.

More empty promises, and even now the commercial space resupply to the ISS and the supposed "exploration technologies" budgets are being raided to support the last-minute keep-Florida's-senators-quiet conversion of Orion into an ISS lifeboat that, if all goes well, will never contain an astronaut in flight.

I was born in 1964. I remember watching Apollo 14-17 on the moon. At one time, I held out hope that I would see a man standing on the surface of Mars. Right now, it's looking like I witnessed the high point of American space achievement when I was about seven.

That's a shame.

There's only ONE response to all of this: A Space X Falcon 9 to LEO (Low Earth Orbit) will cost you $49.9 Million - to GTO (Geostationary Transfer Orbit - where booster will take over and lift rest of way to GSO) for $56 Million.

The blood suckers down the road at the Military Industrial Complex want $300-500 Million - for a Delta or Titan Rocket, to do the same thing.

This is because they've been sucking at the taxpayer teet for too long - so long that, with the seemingly unending flow of cash they were given to help us 'win the cold war' (Psst! It's over! And we ALL lost!), they've forgotten how to be Capitalists!

Capitalisms only saving grace, you see, is that competition drives down the prices of things (or, it's supposed to), by forcing multiple companies to make the lowest bids on jobs, while providing the Highest Quality for they money they do charge.

From that POV, all of America has forgotten how to be Capitalists; we've allowe it to 'mutate' until it's gottent o teh point where American Businesses try to deliver the Lowest Quality Product, for the Highest Price. It's Capitalism run amok, you might say.

Besides; the taxpayer-funded part of 'The Space Race' was never supposed to go on as long as it did; it was supposed to 'seed' the kind of Industry that Space X Represents.

To Elon Musk, Space X, and all the many other Private Space Enterprises that are (finally) cropping up and doing some REAL Private Corporation Style Space Systems Business - SALUTE!!!

I applaud the private enterprise work in space vehicles and the large amount of investment being put into it. But they are all using the work of those who went before and spent TAXPAYER money to discover how to do it. Was it a good investment? YES!!

Now they hope to make money from it.

The scientific discoveries enormous, in electronics, materials, medice, fluids, and even arcane knowledge and gadgets.

Now the current government in DC wants to tank it? So they can pay for their socialisation programs?

Thousands of jobs out the door because they are not all union? The administration doesn't run it?

The next thing from Obama is his promise of reparations.

ps.

What saddens me is that few will even read this article and even fewer wil have anything to say.

This is not an article that brings out the folk who read to understand anything beyond the headlines or buzz words.

I believe we as a people should "invest" our taxes in the future, not the past or the people with their hand out. Look at all the civilzations that have fallen because of hedonism. Rome, 700+/- years, Egypt 3,000+, China 5,000+, but then they didn't have automobiles then. The U.S.A. 240+ and on the decline to fall?

Jimbo is an example of how we "The American people" have lost the basic principles of freedom and the American work ethic, "you reap what you sow!" You get out what you put in, is now 'I' want more and "I want it now" as the commercial yells.

The best hope for the future lies in the ion drive that is being tested. Once we have this, the asteroid belt is the next frontier (vast mineral wealth). All efforts should be made to pursue this goal. The moon is much less attractive from most perspectives, but is safer.

LEO is rapidly becoming crowded with new national entrants and if NASA really wants to stay a leader it needs to concentrate on deep space (Ares-10). Even an impoverished nation like N Korea can nearly get to LEO there already.

Give it up, if it aint about social programs the current administration is not interested. They are raiding our future in space to fund the socialization of America. No vision, no leadership just a smooth, polished delivery of platitudes. 

Calm down folks. Let's try to look at the big picture in the short term for just a moment. We have an environmental crisis in the gulf of unheard of proportions. Our economy is still on life support and I read on MSNBC this morning that America could be the next Greece, economically speaking and we're still locked in a war in Afghanistan. In the current scheme of things the place where we can economize and do the least short-term harm looks like the space program.

We cannot, for safety reasons, continue to operate the current space shuttle and we cannot afford to go forward aggressively with the space program with the economy close to free fall.

I think the President's plan is prudent and reality-based given our current priorities.

Please do not misunderstand me. I was born in 1950. I remember the very real humliation of Sputnik and the great pride of the moon landings. I have waited my whole life to see a human being standing on Mars, to find out what's beneath the ice on Jupiter's moons and beneath the cloud cover on Venus.

I still have hope that we will find evidence of extra-terrestrial life in my life-time.

But we've got a very full plate right now and a conservative approach to space exploration and it's enormous expenditures is our only rational option.

Lower the tone, discuss the issues and look to the future. In Cosmic terms another 35 years is nothing.

Peace

President Obama opened the door for some big thinking, but nobody is thinking big at all. The biggest thought is a "heavy lift" vehicle. Sure, we need that heavy lift vehicle to go bigger, like we used the lift capabilities of the shuttle to build the space station. One of the things that we have learned already on the space station is that our bones can't take long durations of weightlessness without a LOT of exercise. So, why not THINK BIG and make a space ship that rotates and has centrifugal forces to create artificial gravity. We need to build a large ship that would take many heavy lift payloads to build in space. Build a ship that can take us anywhere in the solar system without the worry of what "Space Dangers" might do to us. We can overcome all these things that we already know are dangerous. We just need to DO IT!!!

Well I'm not going to go for platitudes here.......Just Common sense.......If you can't afford a new car, keep the used one.......Rebuild the engine, put on new breaks etc, keep her safe and give her a new paint job.

It's better than relying on your neighbor to give you a ride to work and keeps you independent.

Thats my point of view and I'm sticking to it.

Apparently John Glenn agrees with me. I'm in good company.

I keep hearing a lot of absolute hogwash about "the US abandoning space" and lies about the capabilities of commercial providers like SpaceX' Dragon capsule.

a) Obama's plan isn't abandoning space, it is merely changing how we pay for it. Rather than guaranteeing profits on cost-plus contracts and "too big to fail" agreements (ULA EELV for ex.), the Obama plan forces NASA to buy seats like any other government agency needing a ride somewhere, with competitive cost bidding. That, for one, is revolutionary for space transportation.

b) Gaetano, Dragon carries 7 astronauts, and Musk has stated the price per seat will drop to about $20 million each, far below the price of a Soyuz ride at $52 million.

c) While shuttle costs a half billion per flight when it is flying a full schedule (12-16 flights per year), at present it is far below that rate, so the cost per flight is higher. Furthermore, shuttle has NEVER flown with a full cargo capacity, so the rate per kg is far far higher than you are claiming. And finally, shuttle has no launch escape system, even tho NASA is requiring one for CCDev crew providers vehicles. Nice double standard.

d) the price per seat on the Shuttle, for anybody other than a government astronaut, is effectively infinite, since NASA doesn't believe in flying for-hire.

e) Shuttle doesn't actually FLY 7 passengers, since a minimum of three are working crew (pilot, mission commander, mission specialist/cargo handler), so it has four passenger seats. Dragon, on the other hand, needs nobody to run it, so all 7 seats are sellable.

f) Ozzie: We already spent tens of billions on "the new car" and haven't received any thing yet, primarily because we've been underpaying the loan company, and we chose a bloated gas guzzling vehicle from a old industry maker that is overburdened by unions and government regulations. The old car is a clunker that only drives 25% as frequently as we were originally told it would, and is at risk of blowing up every 50 trips or so. Meanwhile, the family is broke and can't afford even one car, never mind two, so carpooling with the self-made son is the most affordable and feasible option until we get our finances in order and actually know what we want in a car and can make a commitment to see the payment plan through.

Let's stick with buying rides to orbit, let the commercial sector turn that market into a profitable one, and focus NASA spending on building true interplanetary ships in orbit so we can explore the solar system and expand permanent human infrastructure outside the gravity well.

Part of the reason that we have been promised a manned Mars landing by dates that are increasingly farther into the future is that we now know a lot more about Mars than we once did. The 1985 proposal was basically just a longer range version of Apollo. If we had tried that, none of those astronauts would have come back. We realize now that going to a planet with an atmosphere and higher gravity is a whole different ball game. It will require the development of new technologies--space suits, spacecraft, propulsion, fabrication and on-board life support systems--the list goes on. But when we do finally go to Mars it will be a much more productive and successful mission than the earlier concepts would have achieved. The Obama Administration is dead wrong about a "light" version of manned exploration on Mars. One thing that we have learned about our solar system is that our planet is struck by dangerous meteoroids and asteroids much more often than was previously thought. An asteroid/meteroid/comet fragment large enough to end human civilization strikes the Earth's atmosphere on average about once every seven years. A potential planet killer strikes the atmosphere about once every thousand years. In cosmic terms, this is NOT a rare event. Most of these bodies glance off the atmosphere or burn up or blow up high in our atmosphere, but one of these days we won't be so lucky. A body that may strike us in 2034 has been cause for concern and another potential planet killer will come dangerously close to the Earth in 2880. We MUST learn how to live on other worlds and how to defend ourselves against these events if we are going to survive as a species. Also, recent studies on our sun indicate that the Sun is farther along in its lifecycle than previously thought. Although it still has billions of years to go before it burns out, the Earth will be uninhabitable LONG before that happens. In addition, what if researchers discover that the Sun is about to discharge a massive solar prominence and plasma storm that could destroy the Earth? In that case, the Sun wouldn't even have to burn out in order to destroy all life on Earth. If we can't learn how to reach and live on other star systems, then the human race is sitting on a single point of failure. The future survival of the human race is the most compelling reason for continued exploration of space. In the end, it's really the only reason.

I was born after Apollo 17. I'm part of the space shuttle generation who grew up thinking the coolest job in the world would be to live and work in space. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy in 2003, it is disheartening to see the industry locked in a divisive debate on how to move forward these many years later. And it is shortsighted of critics to say we just can't afford a space program. Our space and defense programs have brought us DirectTV, GPS, cell phones, cordless power tools, advanced medical imaging equipment and many other meaningful technologies that are the foundation of our quality of life. The economic return on investment in the space program is reported at between $7 to $11 for every $1 invested. I guess the critics would have us scrap all that and just stand still. The trouble is, there is no standing still. China has demonstrated technology to destroy satellites. If we diminish our capability to lead development efforts in space, we're setting our nation up for failures of much larger proportions. We need to put politics aside and build a compromise--and move forward, very soon.

-

A single modestly sized asteroid contains roughly twenty trillion dollars worth of precious metals, and that is the material wealth alone - that estimate does not include the money it would cost to launch that much material into Earth orbit - if you counted the launch costs, the net value of a single asteroid could easily approach the hundreds of trillions. Now, considering the fact that there are literally millions of asteroids out there waiting to be mined, you cannot possibly justify that statement that dumping fifty billion or so dollars into NASA in order to develop the technology necessary to access these riches is a waste of money. This same technology would also enable us to deflect any asteroids on a collision course with the Earth, thereby saving our planet from the devastating cycle of mass extinctions triggered by impact events. Space industry is also the only plausible source of clean energy that I can think of - orbital solar power stations taking advantage of the lack of an atmosphere in outer space ought to provide our entire planet with hundreds of times the amount of energy we could possibly consume. Ignoring all the other incentives and justifications of the space program - and I do think that there are strong arguments in favor of it outside of the economic benefits - the fortunes waiting to be made can and will easily pay back the up-front costs.

What frustrates me the most is that these penny-pinchers at the White House seem to forget that the GDP of the United States rose by five percent during the Apollo missions, and that weather satellites alone have saved billions in both lives and property by giving people sufficient warning when hurricanes threaten. Not to even mention the multi-billion dollar cellular phone and satellite television industries, the military benefits of GPS and orbital cameras, and all the spin-off technologies that came out of the Apollo and other manned spaceflight programs.

Humanity needs a worthy goal, one that brings us together rather than divide us. The military-industrial complex got their sticky fingers on the dream of space travel from the beginning and it's largely been nationalist and capitalist forces that have created and maintained the momentum and chosen it's direction.

It's time for this potentially uniting dream to enter a new era where it can be justified by real progress like truly advancing the spirit of International co-operation and liberating free enterprise from the illusory restraints imposed by our capitalist masters. Open society is the road to Star Trek and it's going to be a very long journey.

J-1870896

I admire your idealism and wish that there were more people like you, particularly the ones that would be governing in space.

Seriously: So you think we just shouldn't even bother trying to play a different game, there's no hope, all is lost?

Peace cannot be brought at the tip of a sword, granted, but it will not exist without the presence of justice.

We can all pretend that everyone is going to play nice, but time and time again, when one is removed from accountability (even if it's just perceived accountability), things can take a very destructive path. In a similar understanding to the saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" which also describes human-nature without checks and balances.

Don't underestimate the strength of pacifism. History is full of repeated mistakes save for people like Gandhi who believed that " An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind" which is original and inspirational.

And don't misinterpret history simply to serve your own argument ^_^ I'm sure the presence of the Japanese expeditionary forces barrelling down on the English during WWII was more than enough force that Gandhi needed when he led his countrymen to politely and passively resist serving the interests of the British Crown.

Pacifism indeed has a strength. An internal strength. The problem is that pacifism alone can be easily overcome by an active and aggressive force.

Change takes time and effort. We really haven't started yet because so many don't believe it can occur and are way too comfortable with the status quo. The old" I'm ok $%&# you" spiel.

You are trying to defuse the argument with straw-men. I'm not pro-status quo one bit, very few are except only those most adament with maintaining their existing amount of power.

Anyway, it would be nice if people would stop killing each other in the name of God(s), conquest or political ideology. However, it's not me you have to convince to end war. The ones most interested in maintaining the status quo are also the ones most likely to start a war, be it an idiot cowboy-president or a North Korean dictator launching torpedoes @_@

What needs to be done as space begins to be colonized by humans is to immediately setup an independent governing body that has checks and balances, its own sovereignty (think of the political equivalent of a private joint-venture) and means of enforcement. Unlike the UN, there is no dropping in or out, they would be their own nation for the benefit of the terrestrial ones.

well, here we go again! Ill spell it out for you all once more, since you just cant listen the first time:

1. Retire the Space Shuttles by the end of 2010. why? simply because America needs a swift kick in the a** to get moving, we always have. If we continue the space shuttle, what incentive do these companies and NASA have to devlop the commercial infrastructure and technology? what a waste of money. 3B to continue flying the space shuttle or 3B towards speeding up the delivery of a rocket system from Space X or a competitor? HMM?? REALLY??

2. The Heavy lift is a good idea. BUT NASA SHOULD NOT BUILD IT! Commercial systems should design it and compete for the contract. we could have it built and testing by 2015, easy.

3. Begin design and planning of intraplanetary vessels which are sustainable enclosed systems. this will take probably close to 20-50 years to complete, depending on funding and getting the will make it happen. We need a true intraplanetary vessel which will sit in orbit but send landing craft to the surface. this will be the beginning of sustainable operations on the martian surface which will allow colonization. These will have to be built in orbit. this is why we need commercialization with cargo and crew capacity!

4. Design a mission to Mars, now with planning completed by 2015. This mission should take no more than 10 years to complete, meaning we will land on mars with humans by 2025.

This Stern guy cracks me up. He is totally beholden and part of the commercial space industry. So why would he not hope that Obama sends billions his way?

I believe there is a solution. And its the one that Glenn and Hutchinson have suggested. Yes do what Obama wants, get the commercial space industry growing. But do it slowly and wind down the space shuttle program. Don't just hack it to death before its time.

NASA and its entranched fat contractors have no one to blame but themselves for the cancellation of Project Constellation.

Bush's plan to replace the shuttle failed misrebly, with the Ares I years behind schedule and carrying a $40 Billion projected price tag. Meanwhile, SpaceX's Falcon 9 is flying and its developement costs were one hundredth that amount. Yes, that's right, ONE HUNDREDTH.

The rest of Bush's plan (Ares 5, the moon, mars) is vaporware with no way to pay for it.

Cancelling Constellation was the right thing to do, perhaps it will motivate NASA and its contractors to work a little harder and a little smarter.

I support all private spaceflight ventures and wish them the best of luck. I hope they succeed. But until they prove themselves, we should see to it that NASA has its own launch capabilities. Also, the Moon should not be overlooked as there are numerous reasons to return there. The "been there, done that" mentality does not hold up to close scrutiny. We're not going into space to plant flags, we're going there to expand humanity's presence in the universe. We should be looking to colonize the Moon in the near-term and also use the spacecraft architecture that we establish for that purpose as a proving ground for more long-range missions. I don't care what the launch vehicles are--Ares, Jupiter, or an updated Saturn V, but the goals and timetables of Constellation must remain intact! Encourage private enterprise, yes, but it makes no sense to abandon a system that has served us well for 50 years!

We don't have the will to go back to the moon. You honestly think we're going to find the will to solve world hunger?