E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Senate Commerce Committee has cleared an authorization bill for NASA that would add one more space shuttle mission a year from now, speed up development of a heavy-lift rocket and slow down the move toward private-sector resupply of the International Space Station.
Amendments have reportedly been accepted to boost funding for robotic missions (from Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.) and suborbital research (from Tom Udall, D-N.M.). But an amendment from Mark Warner, D-Va., that would have kept space commercial funding on the track sought by President Barack Obama's original proposal was not incorporated into the bill.
The White House is on board with the changes to its space policy, according to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. Further revisions in NASA's spending plan could come in the months ahead as legislation moves through Congress' sausage-making machine. Check out this fleshed-out report from Space.com, with a little extra spice added in by yours truly. You can also revisit this preview that anticipated Thursday's committee action:
The Senate Commerce Committee is due to vote Thursday on a measure that would shift the direction of NASA's revised space vision - not necessarily to return to the moon, but to extend the space shuttle program, speed up the development of a heavy-lift rocket and slow down spending on space commercialization.
The prospect of reduced spending for private-sector spaceflight has sparked an 11th-hour campaign to get the legislation amended.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said in a DemRadio sound bite that he expected his version of the bill to win the committee's approval, and that "the White House will announce their support for our bill" on Thursday. The Orlando Sentinel quoted an aide to President Barack Obama as saying the measure "appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the president's vision for NASA."
Obama's original proposal fell flat in Congress, and Nelson has portrayed his compromise version of the reauthorization bill as the best way to safeguard thousands of aerospace jobs as the space shuttle program winds down.
The bill calls for NASA to add one more shuttle flight in mid-2011 to resupply the International Space Station, and start work on a heavy-lift launch vehicle and crew vehicle that could eventually send astronauts beyond Earth orbit. The White House's proposal said only that work on the heavy-lifter should begin by 2015.
Backers of commercial spaceflight are concerned about provisions that would spread out the $6 billion set aside for private-sector spacecraft over six years rather than five years, with most of that money being paid out in the latter years. During the first three years, $1.2 billion would be budgeted for commercial launches, rather than the $3.3 billion that Obama was asking for.
This has led groups such as the Space Frontier Foundation to urge support for an amendment offered by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., which would restore spending on commercial spaceflight to the levels sought by Obama - and would ease back on spending for NASA's in-house launch system. Another amendment, offered by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., would explicitly authorize $15 million a year for a suborbital research program known as CRuSR. Yet another amendment from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would boost funding for robotic space missions that set the stage for human exploration.
Two dozen astronauts, including Apollo astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Rusty Schweickart. sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., strongly supporting space commercialization. "By allowing the private sector to take on the transportation of crew to low Earth orbit, NASA will finally be able to direct its resources and focus on human exploration beyond, and we strongly feel this direction for the agency is the right one," they wrote in the letter, which was posted on the SpaceRef website.
The letter served as something of a balancer to the opposition expressed by Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan during their Senate committee testimony earlier this year.
Since Cernan and Armstrong sounded their warning about commercial space companies, one of the better-known entrepreneurial rocket companies, California-based SpaceX, notched a significant success with the first test flight of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle. SpaceX has served as a lightning rod for criticism of Obama's space commercialization policy, but the fact is that many of the same companies involved in the shuttle-station program are also aiming to get a piece of the commercial spaceflight pie.
In his sound bite, for example, Nelson said his bill would support the use of commercial rockets "such as the Boeing Co.'s Delta that can take astronauts to and from the International Space Station much cheaper than the much more expensive heavy-lift rockets." Boeing is the prime contractor for the space station and a partner in the United Space Alliance, which manages many aspects of the shuttle program on NASA's behalf.
Nelson said White House support will "enable us to keep moving the ball forward and being able to have NASA continue a vigorous path of human exploration of the cosmos." The only question is, will America's space effort move forward, beyond Earth orbit, or will it keep going around in circles?
Jeff Foust goes into the details (or links to other articles that do) on the Space Politics blog. Parabolic Arc gets granular as well. Mark Whittington points out on Associated Content that the legislation could put the moon back on NASA's list of potential destinations. The NASA Engineer blog links to a host of resources. Clark Lindsey has plenty to say (and point to) on RLV and Space Transport News. So does Keith Cowing at NASA Watch. Legislative action alerts have been issued by the Planetary Society and the Space Access Society.
The bottom line is that if you care about the cosmos, now is the time to let your senator know how you feel - particularly if your senator sits on the Commerce Committee.
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:
another good article, I hate to comment to much, as I am still playing out the links...I hope you can recylce the last sentance in your article several more times!!....sadly, no pennsylvania types on the commitee...I see a few I would follow to the ends of the earth and a few I would PUSH off the ends of the earth...hehe...the line is not political, rather philosphical. This is a good time for philosophy BUT a poor time for inaction. We have a very intelligent president but I feel his knowledge is lacking in the physical sciences,but at least I believe he knows how much a bucket of yellow cake SHOULD weigh and that no one prances into a room with one!...I am certain he comprehends the conservation of energy, which is why I am puzzled that everyone in the room thinks heavy lifters are the answer, the saturn 5 was meant to go from launch to saturn, sure sounds good, but if they launched that very same rocket (yes, with major mods) from the moon..hey,hey,hey!...not that I want them to launch a sat5 from the moon but concept of conserving the fuel required to break earths G is more than noteworty, it is downright a showstopper!!!..I wonder if all those paiges and aides and advisers that surrond these political people wake up with three different answers in their book, and hand in the "correct" one depending on a consensus of least impact and intoned by the other events of the day. Comercial Space activity WILL happen, when?...when the market really can bear it!!...I hope that day is yesterday but with mcmansions selling for fractions of cost, it really is hard to figure the markets worth of commercial space activity...what if people wise up and quit coughing up 20million for a trip to the space station and back?...or at .25 mill say naw to a jaunt to LEO? and that is all about the big guys...the small guys may need financial incentive, but if it is subsidized to start but later cut by the budget then only the market will support continued activity, for instance, space based manufacturing aboard whatever vessel is adequate...and that assumes a market edge for space bourne product...what if there is no edge? (I am certain that there is but few products fit the cost/benifit ratio)...on the other hand, pure science beyond terra firmas bounds will benefit FOR SURE. So if the moons gravity is 1/6e and mars is 1/3e then a round trip equals 1E????!!!!!!! where earth to mars and back would equal 2.6E????!!!!....just the kind of logic that is needed to make the right choice.
The government programs need to stop getting in the way and let free enterprise build the next generation of rockets, then can buy from them at a fraction of the price.
All that aerospace "experience" they want to keep employed is fast becoming out dated anachronistic "old school" know how that brought us the space shuttle and the even more expensive Constellation program. Let the old go, bring on the new! This is the great danger of big government, they can never down size!
They need to let NASA explore space more and give up on the space station idea. Lets go to the moon again at least. Its frickin 2010, we should have been to Mars by now. Lets get past our orbit and actually explore something. They've been stuck doing space shuttles and working on this space station for too long already. If they went back to the moon, at least that would be something exciting for a change.
If by "the Air Force reusable orbiting platform." you mean X-37, its technologies may lend themselves to a new RLV later (nothing in this bill about that, that I see), but you can't just 'man-rate' what is essentially an orbit-capable UAV...
ChiDem, 'Rockets are old technology.' but that's al we know that works in vacuum. Space elevators are the better part of a century away, and are only good for reaching geostationary orbit. Not lower orbits, or other orbital planes, after a very slow ride up through the VanAllen Belts.
Stick with the near term.
the point is... GIVE NASA THE KIND OF FUNDS THE MILITARY GETS. and for my part I say develop National Defense in a strict sense of the words. stop these wars. my opinion.
We should be looking at all options, including man rating the Air Force reusable orbiting platform. Constellation is a step backwards when we could use the Soyuz TM system for a throwaway capsule. Would it be a matter of pride to not ask the Russians for help? We have already used the Soyuz TM to ferry our astronauts to ISS. There should also be consideration for further funding of the Vasimr rocket, for her design offers the future for any travel in the solar system as well as keeping ISS in orbit as long as possible.
Rockets are old technology. Those who say use rockets to get men / material into orbit have it wrong. All those who are looking to chemical lift vehicles are still stuck in the 50's. No matter how you look at it, using rocket technology, there will always be a huge amount of manpower used. Thus, extravagant costs. A material revolution must take place first. A light thin, conductive polymer or alloy must be developed for a cheap space elevator. Only in this way will the cost of space exploration will become economical. It now take thousands of people to create a rocket and prepare it for launch, that adds costs, to the tune, of thousands of dollars per pound to lift into LEO (lower earth orbit). Thereby making it too expensive even to go back to the moon, much less Mars or beyond. Only a space elevator in a geostationary orbit, using a form of maglev (magnetic levitation) to raise thousands of pounds into orbit, for pennies on the pound, will work to lower cost, increase availability, reliability and sustainability. The country that develops this technology first will have a competitive edge in space launch marketplace. Moreover, it will have a technological advantage over many countries for decades to come. Since, it would have a monopoly on the material that could improve transportation and dominate the commercial launch sector for many decades to come. A country could create "2001" type space stations lifting hundreds of tons into orbit, assembling space ships, fuel depots, maintenance missions, replenishing large space stations, etc. Imagine taking a space elevator to a LEO point alighting at a transfer point and getting on a space terminal that would take you to a space station for vacation, or to the moon, a ship yard for work on the Mars excursion ship, or to work on a communication satellite. Further, getting home would be just an elevator ride away, and a land transport away. Other than this breakthrough it will be too expensive for chemical rockets to compete and space, for the common unsubsidized government/commercial worker, will be unaccessible as it is today.
While I agree that we need to be finding a better way into orbit, space elevators are sadly still a long way off (and in my opinion move way too slow). I'm more partial to the launch loop idea, though as I'm not an expert on the field, I'd imagine there are some significant issues that need to be addressed before that can become feasible. More on the launch loop here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
Sorry but we need to learn how to walk before we can learn to run, right now we are just getting out of the crawl stage and traversing into the walk stage. Putting a base on the moon would be a big step toward moving to a running state.
Very true - Having a base on the moon would require a LOT of resources going back and forth, which means we first need to develop an efficient (and cost effective) means of getting them there and back.
In my opinion space elevators are Science Fantasy until I see a feasible plan for repairing the cable from constant bombardment of micro meteors, hard radiation, and hyper accelerated atomic ions (cosmic rays).
It is a depressing time here in New Orleans as Michoud just rolled out the last ET for the shuttle program. The Michoud workforce will be cut from @ 1000 down to @ 100 causing another economic blow to our region. As you can read in the Times-Picayune article, (http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/michoud_assembly_facility_deli.html) the funding of NASA programs is highly politicized. Those politicians who happen to have a NASA or NASA-related facility in their district or state tend to get on their soap-box to proclaim loudly how important these NASA jobs are for their constituents and naturally for our country. This crosses party lines as Republicans and Democrats both defend having NASA contracts for their constituents but I find the hypocrisy of Republicans like our own Senator David Vitter to be insulting and galling. Vitter has been a vicious critic of the Federal Government and constantly opposes Federal programs unless of course such Federal spending happens to be in Louisiana. Like his hypocrisy regarding the Federal response to the BP Oil Disaster, the GOP has worked for the past three decades to undermine, sabotage and outright cripple the Federal Government's ability to be effective in providing services to the American people. Then when the Federal Government doesn't have the resources, personnel, or leadership in a crisis or in strategic planning the GOP loudly decries just how ineffective to government is which further damages our government's ability to respond to such situations. So while Vitter is busy dropping cheap partisan bon mots it is a pity that he and his fellow GOP buddies don't step up to the plate and admit they created this crisis whether it is within the manned space program or in safely drilling for oil offshore.
When we look for the reasons why we left the moon in 1972 and haven't returned we need to start with a look in the mirror. As a Historian, I wrote an article for a website on the reasons why we have been stuck in LEO.
Almost all of us who love the manned exploration of space still get chills when we listen to President John F. Kennedy's famous speech, “Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort.” JFK had called for a manned mission to the Moon in an address to Congress the previous year but it was his speech at Rice University that crystallized for Americans the sense of destiny for the United States to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. The assassination of JFK added a deeply emotional emphasis for those working on Project Apollo to get the mission completed on time. This was the genesis of the “clarity of a specific goal and time-frame” that has haunted the post-Apollo landscape. What we didn't realize is just how unique the circumstances were in the 1960's that opened the floodgates of federal spending that made the Apollo Program a reality.
Rather than building the infrastructure incrementally over time for the manned exploration of space, the ideological rivalry with the Soviet Union drove our “by the end of the decade space race” policy. The Kennedy Administration saw how the Soviets had been making great strides in positive propaganda with their many successes in space while the U.S. seemed to struggle to keep up. JFK wanted bold action and the American people responded to this initiative. Project Apollo proved that if we focus enough resources on a clearly defined goal that has the support of Congress and the American people, we can literally achieve just about anything. Therein lies the problem we found with such an approach. The American people, Congress and the Presidency all abandoned Project Apollo and the proposed follow-up programs that were meant to build on the Apollo infrastructure as soon as Neil Armstrong made his “one giant leap for mankind” at Tranquility Base. The space race was over and the American people felt that we had won the race against the Soviets and with the Vietnam War raging and demonstrations in the streets, divisive civil rights issues, environmental concerns, budgetary constraints, etc., NASA found itself in a struggle just to hold on to the Shuttle Program.
The political deals and engineering compromises that NASA made to get enough support for the Shuttle Program illustrates the danger of such compromise which directly led to the Challenger incident and indirectly the loss of Columbia. The inability of NASA to garner support for the next generation of space vehicles and boosters to succeed the STS Program is well documented. The Augustine Committee recognized the fact that the Constellation Program was over-promised, underfunded and unlikely to get back to LEO until 2017 at the earliest while ditching the ISS mid-decade. Star Trek has contributed to our angst over the glacial pace of the space program. Those of us old enough to remember the exciting energy of the Apollo Program believed that we would have had a permanent base on the Moon by now as well as a manned expedition to Mars. Gene Roddenberry's Positive Humanist vision of the future where humanity had united and taken to the stars greatly influenced our dreams of building the foundation of that future in our lifetime. I know I desire a Kennedyesque bold initiative for our return to the Moon to establish a permanent base as well a serious date-specific expedition to Mars. What I do realize is that we do not have the unique set of circumstances that gave JFK the opportunity to realize Project Apollo. I have to be realistic about the funding available to NASA as well as the lack political support that exists in Congress. Tragically the greatest impediment for a new bold initiative to get us out of LEO rests with the American public. Unless this political calculus changes, we should be glad that NASA still gets funded.
So where does this leave us as advocates for an aggressive manned space effort? I believe we must continue to press our case to educate the public on why we need a vigorous manned space program. If we are to succeed in reinvigorating the space program we must have the support and advocacy of a good segment of the American public. We are competing for attention and funding in the midst of a financial crisis, two foreign wars, high unemployment, a weak housing market, all magnified by intense political partisanship that divides our government as well as the body politic.
President Obama made the controversial decision to shake up this hoary status quo and I hope it provokes some serious soul searching amongst the American people about how much we value having Americans participate in the exploration of space. I think Congress will change some of the Obama Administration's recommendations including keeping parts of Project Orion as well as funding an extension of the Shuttle Program to fly more missions to the ISS until SpaceX can get their capsule and booster man rated and flying. The main thing to realize is that the status quo wasn't working and a shock to the system was desperately needed and now we have it. Let's see where our government and the American people want us to go as a space faring nation. Change is painful but I believe in this case it is necessary for the long-term survival of our manned space efforts. I look at this situation not as a dream denied but as a dream deferred.
Robert,
An excellent observation. Well said. A dream deferred, rather than a dream denied. Exactly.
PEACE
OMG, Im so done with this worthless congress, when were our congressmen suddenly replaced by profiteers?! THis is BS, we should oust them all. Worthless pathetic people who still live in the cold war. KICK EM ALL OUT IN NOVEMBER!!
Im voting for the underdog freshmen for the Senate, goodby Feinstein, Goodby Boxer!
...well that had nothing to do with this article.
(sigh) You should've patented the wheel,while you were at it...
Let's see, knowledge of the 50s tells us that the vast majority of earths atmosphere is below 20 miles. High altitude balloons reach that high with significant payloads. What if that payload was a small rocket that could then be launched nearly horizontally (say 5 degree climb) then two stage ascent should put a small ammount of material into low earth earth orbit. Just a thought, but with nanotech and robotics cheap space supply should be posible.
Would take a very large balloon - the high altitude balloons don't have much payload weight. But never-the-less, it is a very interesting concept, somewhat akin to Virgin Galactic's approach, only launching from a balloon set up would save on fuel costs and such (depending on how expensive the balloon is I guess). Also would have to worry about high altitude winds and such I think (I'm no expert on that stuff, just guestimating here).
No balloon is capable of getting 70 and 110 tonnes payload off of the ground... those are the expected lifting capabilities of the Jupiter-130 and Jupiter-246 respectively, to low-earth orbit. The Jupiter-246 would give us the ability to return to BEYOND-earth orbit manned missions, from mostly shuttle-derived or otherwise existing man-rated technology.
Hope they figure something out, I would love my future Kids to be able to see and be inspired by the USA space program, Just as i have!!!! Come On Guys
We just need China to start showing us up in the space race and for them to begin rubbing our noses in it. That is the only way for the USA to get its WoW factor (AKA reaching for the seemingly impossible) back in the space race.
PC, if history is any guide you are absolutely right. Sputnik kicked us in the pants in the 50's. I still remember that from my childhood. But our current economic status is in no way comparable to that of the 1950's and early 1960's.
I'm just not sure we can afford a ramped up space program at this time.
Aside from being unlikely (China can't yet average one mission per year to LEO), and assuming there would be a Sputnik-like response (we perceived the Soviets as 'backwards' in the late 50's...no one thinks China is, today), it would be too much like Apollo in that there might be a 'crash' program to get a few Americans somewhere farther away than China has been, as quickly as possible.
And do it a few times. Flags and footprints, again.
That's not the same as an orderly development process, where money and cost-effectiveness is more important than time, and might take a little longer...but gives you technology and infrastructure allowing you to affordably keep going there (wherever 'there' may be) and maintain a continuous useful presence there.
Actually, China is likely to do whatever it plans to do, regardless of what the US / Russia/ Europe / India does, on its own time, on its own schedule. Being perceived as an equal player in the game, is more important to them, than necessarily being first. 'Losing' isn't being second, but not doing it at all...
Don't count on WOW factors. The public got jaded on the Moon, as early as Apollo 13 (before the O2 tank exploded, anyway...but you don want attention via a continuing disaster story. Ask BP about that.), and attention spans are, if anythong, even shorter than n 1970.
What is it about NASA that makes it an exception to the populist call to shrink big government in favor of the private sector? Nostalgia over the Apollo program and space shuttle days? Perhaps a way NASA could encourage more public support is if it offered a more coherent, modern and relevant vision.
Probably that the survival of humanity man one day depend upon our ability to travel into deep space. That and the fact that you would be hard pressed to find another government program that has had a higher return-on-investment, in terms of the techonologies it has produced.
Space research has given us satellite communications systems that can span the globe and incredibly accurate weather observations when it comes to large storms such as hurricanes. Being able to observe the path of a hurricane minute by minute alone has repaid the cost of space research by every country on the globe 100 times over. Space research has led to the development of innovative medical technology, electronics technology and computer technology.
NASA's budget for 2010 was a bit under $19 billion. In fiscal year 2000 (the last year for which combined information on social welfare expenditures from all sources is available) federal, state, and local governments spent about $1.01 trillion on social welfare programs. Thus the welfare system spends the entire NASA budget in less than a week. How much return does the US get from welfare expenditure.
"Space will be colonized - although probably not by us. If we lose our nerve, there are plenty of other people on this planet. The construction crews may speak Chinese or Russian - Swahili or Portuguese. It does not take good old American know-how' to build a city in space. The laws of physics work just as well for other as they do for us." - Robert A. Heinlein
How about Dept. of Defense spending? $722 billion just for 2011. That's not all military either, just DOD. Have you ever seen a bigger waste of tax payer spending than the Iraq and Afghan wars?
Compare that to 4-8 billion a year on NASA... which is the better return on investment? NASA, a thousand times over!
I never fail to be amazed at how a country as great as this one is (or was) can end up proving every single time that engineers and scientists are just kidding themselves if they think that anything they do will not be first filtered through the mindless anal sphincter of some less than bright politicians. You know, those who's only real role in life is to return to Washington every cycle-- and thus, can not be EVER expected to vote objectively. Oh how they must have thought the Presidents word's about pushing the mediocre tasks of LEO to private industry must have sounded like blasphemy to them. Especially when they heard from all the people who would have been temporally displaced. I think i get it now? I think we already know that living in a representative democracy means that things take longer-- cost more-- and work less well. But come on... I also know that like small children-- people today-- Live for the "here and now"-- only. They could not care less about the future--only the NOW. I guess the only hope for us-- it to be faced with a new adversary. A nation that is not weighted down with having to get everyone's opinion before heading into space.. Then---just like in the late 50s.. this nation might suddenly WAKE up and say-- "how did they get ahead of us?" Back then we were only behind in rocket design... today,technically we are still the most advanced country in the world.. but "EMOTIONALLY" we are sunk... as our national willl is so rooted in our national love affair with the here and now..and i might add--ourselves. Obama either arrived to late for this last cycle of national determination.. or arrived too early for the next. But GOD HELP US-IN ANY CASE.
I remember back in 1958.. when the Soviets orbited their first satellite. Everyone was questioning the national intelligence. In so far as -- why our engineers could not build as capable launch vehicles as the Soviets. Back then, as it turned out, it was not a matter of ability-- it was only a matter of will. Ironically, one proposed benefit of the space program was to encourage kids to study math and science. Back then there was a perception that it was only in these areas we that we lacked. Today--- however-- as evidenced by recent public demonstrations of national stupidly--- math and science might be the last of our concerns. After all, how are we going to get people to become engineers, if they first can not read beyond the 7th grade level. i.e. understand a speech given by a President at the 10th grade reading level. So this is one major reason why the debate about which HLV technology to use is pretty far afield. Heck--- when about 1/2 the population thinks that the planet closest to the sun is named KRYPTON.. I think we need a HLV large enough for some of us to escape to a place where people are not so GD stupid.
@ jrc903
I fear it is worse than you portray it, and it is not just USA but globally, that our populations under the age of 45 are so ill educated that it is now seen as a mark of esteem to be "Homer Simpson's" and to denigrate those that would be educated, as trying to be better than the rest of the herd. When School Books can be required to include assumptions that the Earth is 6-9,000 years old, and that the reason that there are fossils on top of the Himalayas is because of a world wide flood, amongst other non scientific theorizing, then indeed the future is indeed grim. We need a vehicle like the SD HLV, that will bring awe back into the minds of the general public, with it's potential to create infrastructure in Space to inspire a new generation to dream of a future that could lead off planet. The ISS is one small step for mankind onto the porch of this planet, to look OUTWARD, not inward. Let Commercial Space service this inner space realm, while NASA and the other Space Faring Countries venture beyond the porch. To discover and plant infrastructure that will be enablers of further exploration and bring new Technological benefits to mankind.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the 40's to the 60's, those were times of Technological Innovation that have propelled our Western Society into this new era, without which we would be still stuck in a Post Industrial Era, not advancing into a Information and Scientific Age of Discovery; I look forward to the day, and hope that I am alive to see it, when the first human is conceived and born off planet; whether on a Space Station or Lunar Colony. It cannot come too soon, to truly wake up the world to the REALITY of Space as the NEXT FRONTIER!!
Sigh. So many people just don't seem to get it. While Constellation was running over budget, it was indeed moving forward to the next logical step for NASA: Return to the Moon, and stay. The last part is the most important part. A permanent Lunar Base was on the board after Apollo, but NASA chose the space shuttle. If you want to go to Mars, and the Asteroids (both logical choices for human involvement), we can do so much better from a base on the Moon. There are other reasons for a Lunar Base as well, most of them strategic and build-for-the-future-commercialization types. Yes, the private space industry is nearly ready for suborbital and orbital activities; but it cannot muster the resources for deep-space exploration. That is indeed what governments are for: to discover the commercial possibilities beyond areas private corporations can afford to invest. Obama's 'vision' is blindness; his 'road' to nowhere. Are there technologies that are superior to rockets at this point? No. Aerospike engines look promising, but aren't quite there yet; with them fuel costs can come way, way down. So we go with rockets for now; if you have a technology that works better right now, show me; you can make billions in satellite placement alone. If the Moon is so unimportant, why are Russia, China, India, and Japan planning missions?
This is the best news I heard all day, thank goodness some people in Washington still have some common sense. NASA has truly done some brilliant things and I'm very much looking forward to seeing what they are going to do in the future. They inspired me to go into a technical field and with this announcement I hope other children and young adults will be inspired as I've been.
Either Russia or India will beat the USA and Europe in space travel.
Unlike Nasa "Experts", they know that rockets are not the way to go to deep space anymore.
They will go for the technology of the Flying Saucer, something the incompetents at the John Glenn Research Site in Cleveland, Ohio messed up, as they did not know anything about electronics. After they caused the big black-out in 2003 Nasa decided to stick to rockets forever and refused to pay me for the invention.
Nasa could have had the license for the free energy system that is used by the Flying Saucer. I did not describe the technology for that in my Patent as it may be worth more than the mere $600 Billion the invention was evaluated at by the Hudson Institute..
It can be used for cars (I suspect that Teslas used it for his Pierce Arrow Car in 1931), homes or aircraft.
If Russia goes for it, the cost for the reconditioning of the Buran (The Russian Shuttle) and my fee will be paid by Nasa when the Astronauts are lifted up to the ISS at $50 million apiece..
.
This compromise was the next best thing to getting the 3 to 5 billion extra that NASA really needs. That's just not going to happen. Nobody can save every job. Nobody could grow Constellation funding enough to get us to the moon for decades. It would get cancelled down the road. No exploration for 20+ years won't hold public support. The Super-Heavy lifter will become our Swiss army knife workhorse for the next 30 years. It's a critical missing link in our exploration capability. You can't go out of orbit without it. You can't launch or test deep space vehicles, landers, habitats, refueling modules or advanced propulsion systems without it. It's the foundation for everything that comes later. Ares 1 can be replaced by (hopefully) commercial launch services (SpaceX, upgraded Delta....). There is nothing else on the boards that can do what Super Heavy lifters can. Developing this capability also serves as a solid backup if commercial services stumble. It's the right move all around. Wish that commercial didn't get cut quite so much, but it's true that they have to prove more capability before they get total commitment. Lets see that cargo Dragon work properly first. Let's also not forget that bringing manned versions back down will be just as hard as launching was. Nobody has done it yet outside of NASA, China and Russia. I alway felt that human rated heavy lift deveopment being constantly dropped kicked down the road was a huge mistake. How exactly do you do anything outside of earth orbit without deveoping a way to get vehicles and people there? Truly the cart before the horse thinking. I envisioned the latest ION propulsion systems declared ready to take humans to deep space a few years down the road. The country then suddenly realized it forgot to fund build a vehicle to get the engines, crew transport and landers off the ground, let alone beyond orbit.