nibor, I think the Voyager spacecraft, New Horizons, Dawn, etc spacecraft currently traveling around or out of our Solar System would beg to differ with you.

Now, if you mean human spacecraft, then yes the US is in a bit of a "space gap". That's what happens when Congress punts on choosing a new spacecraft design, mission target AND funding. Both President Bush and Obama have given NASA a direction, but both times Congress has underfunded the effort. As the saying goes, garbage in - garbage out.

The good news is that both NASA and private industry are charging forward where Congress failed. The Orion MPCV is being constructed by Lockheed Martin for NASA, for missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), as the only surviving portion of the underfunded and doomed to fail Constellation program. SpaceX just flew its unmanned Dragon capsule to the ISS, and is working on a human-rated version possibly as early as 2015 (doubtful but you never know). Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada and Boeing are also in the mix for human spacecraft.

So yes, as Mr. Boyle pointed out, issuing guidelines now is a very good idea. Better to start out with properly designed spacecraft than having to completely redesign later on.

finally positive steps...lets get moving now :)...can't wait for commerical ready space flights :)....most likely be out of my reach in terms of $$$ but maybe in the future (my lifetime hopefully) the costs will be within reach of the average guy ...

Kamanda Fluery,

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Harcourt,

Yes congress is mostly to blame, but as is NASA. They lack any vision beyond low earth orbit. There's talk about missions and exploration, but it's just talk. I also still am at a loss to understand how commercial companies developing technologies that already existed is seen as 'charging forward'. The Orion, as you may not know, has been demoted to merely an escape capsule for the ISS. It will never see any space beyond LEO. Despite what they may claim.

NASA and congress seem more content to merely send rovers and probes. It's cheaper, and you don't have nagging safety concerns.

Human spaceflight is dead in the water.

So, yes, best to get started with the bureaucracy early, if they truly want to muddle everything up by 2017. NASA needs new directors, to drop the bureaucracy and failed management and actually set some goals. Congress needs to fund them proportionally. I wouldn't hold my breath for either of those to happen as well.

nibor,

The FAA has never been in the business of making planes, yet they regulate how planes are built an operated. It is a neutral party that issues those guidelines for other to follow in the US, which by the way, is part of the requirement of the Outer Space Treaty, that the nation state take responsibility and guide its nationals in their space activities.

This is a good thing, because the regulations themselves don't matter as much as knowing what regulations you have to follow.

William,

NASA does not set its mission targets, Congress and the President do. So, again, if you find a lack of leadership to blame, look to our elected officials who care more about keeping their carcasses in office.

Orion is not being designed for ISS crew transfer; that is being left to the CCDev teams. It is a backup for ISS operations, but the point of CCDev is to transfer LEO operations away from NASA.

And I beg to differ, human spaceflight has never had a brighter future. Between upcoming sub-orbital "thrill ride" flights to spacecraft designed and operated by private companies, how can you NOT see the bright future ahead for human spaceflight?

I wonder if the "new guidelines" includes procedures for the "SPY hover craft" used by law enforcement officials.

Nah, the "SPY hover craft" are really small and will not do any damage to commerical/private aircraft.

ldo,

The new guidelines have nothing to do with the drones, which the FAA was already creating guidelines for. This has only to do with Space activities, as noted by the use of the word 'Spaceship'. NASA has its guidelines built over the years, and the FAA has been getting involved as the laws enabling commercial activity have created those opportunities. This is just an agreement that the two agencies will work together, just like they do for safety in the aerospace sector, on coming up with common guidelines for space activities.

So, "commercial" capsules will ferry astronauts to ISS starting in 2017. Then what happens in 2020 when ISS is decommissioned and the "commercial" capsules have nowhere to go?

The station won't be retired in 2020.

I agree, the ISS won't be retired assuming that any of the partners want to keep it. Which while ESA is looking a bit shakey and while Russia plays a bit of financial chicken... it is pretty much a certainty even if only the US, Canada & Japan were to remain. Then there's always the possibilty of China, India, South Korea or Brazil "buying in".

As it is, the station's lifespan is probably another 20 years without major maintainence... and that means it's likely viable until 2030 or even beyond (though in a possibly diminished capacity, ala MIR, which lost systems for over the years when it went way past it's "due date").

Harcourt Fenton Mudd
NASA does have leaders, those leaders are also reasonable for bringing in new projects, managing programs, fielding and requesting research, ect. Congress doesn't decide on technical projects that would just be silly. Congress just seems to enjoy setting impossible goals then undercutting them with funding before they even get started.

Suborbital is not the same as human space flight. Hell you aren't even out of the atmosphere let alone earth's gravity well. I wish I could be as hopeful as you are though, I'd like to see a bright future. I'm just finding it hard to do so; we aren't making any new ground with human spaceflight.

No Orion is not for crew transfers, and it was the module they planned to send to the Moon then Mars. That was canned, with the program. Orion is still being devolved, it is one of the last remnants of that program. They were trying to decide what to do with it, and it's been suggested to use it as an escape pod for the ISS in case of emergency. This was the last I had heard from my buddy who works over at Los Alamos. He isn't on the program himself, but it sounds like something they'd do. I could be wrong about that this last part, I'm taking him on his word.

I'd myself liked to think he's full of @!$%#, but it's hard to be rosy about anything from the constellation program.

William,

No they aren't responsible for new projects. Congress is. They can only manage what they are given funding for, and congress specifies what each dollar given to NASA is allocated to.

Congress doesn't decide on technical projects that would just be silly.

You actually hit it right there. Congress DOES decide on technical projects. They may not manage them, but they definitely decide them.

@ Jonathan-1917156

If most people were better informed, they would be even more angry at Congress and less angry with NASA.

Well it isn't just this congress, it is congress going back 30 years or more.

But as it is with NASA, it seems that peoples opinion is either all in or all out. They either think NASA should just go away or NASA is akin to godhood. In reality, it is a mixture of both. NASA definitely needs to change, but Congress is stopping that, but NASA still does a lot of good, far more than can be accounted for in its budget.

In consideration of the article topic, this is something that people have been clamouring for ages (the privatizing of space access), and yet when it happens, they seem to have either unrealistic elation or utter contempt that NASA is lost. Again, somewhere in the middle, but a lot of blame should also go to congress for that.

Jonathan,

From my understanding of NASA structure it's very similar to other federally agencies.

Congress dictates goals and expectations, and NASA does the technical ground work, writes the contracts with manufactures..ect. NASA also has discretionary funding to fund random research projects and what not that codes within NASA want to pursue or bring up to the table.

So by Congress telling NASA to get to mars by 2037, it's left to NASA to find a project capable of meeting those goals. It's a two way street. Congress creates a budget (Which dooms any project from the start) and then NASA works with manufactures and researchers to come up with a solution (Which is usually un-imaginative and destined to fail due to budget shortfalls and cost overruns.)

So they're both at fault, it isn't just Congress; it's also NASA's directors. It needs to be reworked completely. We need to take chances and try new things. We also need the money to do it.

I could be wrong about this, but I'm just going off my experience with the federal engineering and services. I couldn't find an exact structure online. I suppose I could call them.

Anyway, there's a lot of good people at NASA, and some not half bad ones at Congress. I'm guessing there are more leeches then good people though milking it.

yes, NASA manages, but NASA can't do squat until congress gives them the budget to do so. End of story.

As for Congress telling NASA to get to mars by 2037, Congress also needs to fund it, so far they haven't. So that is like me emptying your bank account, and telling you that you can't make any money, but you also need to buy yourself a new Mercedes in 2 years. Yeah like that is going to happen.

Well they did fund it, but lets just say they grossly underfunded it.

Then NASA spread it even thinner by actually trying to devolp all the systems required. Questions were raised, and it got shut down. We ended up with nothing, but the Orion.

This is why I fear that beyond LEO travel is dead and I see no ressurection in the NASA funded commerical ventures, or purely commerical space tourism, which can only contribute further to the Kessler Syndrome.

I would agree that both Congress and NASA have issues in dealing with planning space exploration. A lot of those issues are due to mission targets (Moon, Mars, wherever) being subject to the political whim of people who could be voted out of office long before a long duration program needing years of testing and design changes comes close to fruition. And I'm blaming ALL sides of the political aisle, since its a group failure.

Does anyone think Apollo would receive the adequate funding necessary to reach the Moon today? Little chance, given the "what have you done for me lately" climate (both political and non-political) that means progress now or you're out. That's what makes LEO operations, like the Shuttle and ISS, so politically attractive. You can brag about what "you" did while still serving inside your original term.

Congress and the President need to agree on a destination, adequately fund the program, and keep that mission set even if/when those original decision makers are voted out/term out. That is the challenge, and the reason we have a space gap and, at times, a seemingly rudderless NASA administration.

william.

The last estimate that I saw was that a mission to mars and back would cost about 300 TRILLION dollars over 30 years. So you are still willing to say that Congress funded it? (and that study was several years ago, so that price will have gone up).

300 trillion, Jonathan? Do you mean 300 billion?

I think we're both talking about the same thing the whole time, I just didn't articulate it very well. Haha.

Unfortunately, there's no way to separate space from the government. The government is the only business in the united states with that kind of buying power to fund a "for science" space program.

Apollo, as few people know, was loathed by the United States government and many of it's citizens during the build up to the first launch, in fact it was only kept alive because of tensions with the Russians. So we actually have the Russians to thank for that one. If they had abandoned space, or gave up on their own program we would have surly done the same.
This is why I see it as good news that China has space exploration desires and the money to back it up. Maybe this will encourage the US to revitalize our program or at least reconsider partnering with other countries again.

Honestly, they should put the majority of their funding into new lift techniques, heavy lifters and chemical propellants just aren't cutting it money wise.

That would be the 'holy grail' of space travel.

It would cost 400-500 billion over 30 years.

And yes they funded it, for a year or so in earnest.

500/30 = 16 billion a year. Roughly.

This was also for a moon base, and mars mission.

(sorry michael, dealing with T's in a paper that I am writing at the moment, lol)

No they never did fund it in earnest. What Congress said was that they would wait for the Space Shuttle to be retired before they funded in earnest, as they were going to use those funds, as well as the retirement of the space station in 2015 to fund Constellation. Bush also completely lost interest in it once the fanfare was over.

At least with Obama, I have no issues with his disinterest, he has no real interest in it, and he is being honest about that.

The only president that has ever had any real interest was Johnson, though at times, behind the scenes, Carter did show a real interest (he very privately saved the Space Shuttle and without that effort, the space shuttle would have been cut down to essentially just Columbia.

Just so were clear, your figures also represent NASA projections, not congress. And this happened in 1989, during bush seniors' presidency. That was never funded in earnest.

Bush juniors estimated costs were much lower, and congress gave NASA an extra billion dollars for 5 years.

I would be elated if NASA would just get the same treatment and independence as DARPA

So many resources are wasted and projects left half-finished because NASA has to kowtow to the whim of every administration dujour

DARPA doesn't have the same kinds of projects, though it has a lot more of them. DARPA is generally tasked with only making it to the proof of concept stage, and the majority of your costs are in moving from PoC to Deployment.

William,

NO, the costs would have been MUCH MUCH Higher under the Bush II administration, but they were never completed (the only thing that ever got funded was the Ares I/Orion part, the rest of it was waiting for estimates). Not sure why anyone would think that a trip to mars would be cheaper now than it was estimated 20 years ago. What revolutionary development occurred that would have lowered the cost?

"So, "commercial" capsules will ferry astronauts to ISS starting in 2017. Then what happens in 2020 when ISS is decommissioned and the "commercial" capsules have nowhere to go?"

A: That date is not etched in stone, it's subject to change.

B: There will be other, non-ISS stations (mostly, if not all commercial), by then.

Frank: I agree with A), but B) is highly questionable. Let's look at who would put up such a thing in the next 5-25 years.

A) China: This is likely, especially if US objections to China buying into the ISS remain. However, any Chinese station is going to be a LOT smaller and more like Salyut than even MIR, nevermind the ISS. As their economy cools (and they have to deal with a lot of pressures because of it), costs rise. Tack onto that the problem that they're only have just become a spacefaring nation.

B) India: Pretty much the same as China, only less likely as they are not independently spacefaring and the cost/benefit for them is even smaller as they're not looking to become the World's Next Superpower.

C) Any other nation on the Earth: zero chance. Anyone that's even in the ballpark already has ISS access barring South Korean and Brazil, and they're a few decades away from being independent spacefaring nations on their current course.

D) Corporations: nope. At least, not anytime soon.
Fortune's 2011 Global 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/full_list/)
1. Wal-Mart
2. Royale Dutch Shell
3. Exxon Mobil
4. BP
5. Sinopec Group
6. China National Petroleum
7. State Grid
8. Toyota
9. Japan Post Holdings
10. Chevron

...so, barring Wal-Mart & Toyota, 7 are oil companies. They're not going into space. Wal-Mart is in retail, they're not going into space. The Japanese Post office (#9) is not going into space. That leaves Toyota, and that's not happening either.
If one takes a quick look at the top 100, most of them have no reason to go into space: food, insurance, banks, etc.
Technology firms? Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, HP et al have no reason to go into space either.
Maybe, MAYBE GE or Siemens or AT&T might put up a station for R&D... someday. But certainly not in the next decade or two.

which leaves...

E) Tourism. Possibly.
Seriously, we're much more likely to see Virgin Atlantic and Hilton team up (as an example) for a station than anybody else. There is demand from people that are wealthy that want to go into space, and as the industry grows, the ticket prices go lower and the number of people that go rises. This has been the paradigm of travel to any location (think Los Vegas 1944 vs today or Prague, Bangkok, etc.). But those "early adopters" are going to make it happen.

F) Biotech. Remotely possible.
I suppose a firm that wanted to research particularly dangerous strains of virii or do zero G for medical research might do it in 20 years or so, but they'd have to already have identified something that would make the return on investment worthwhile.

William,

NO, the costs would have been MUCH MUCH Higher under the Bush II administration, but they were never completed (the only thing that ever got funded was the Ares I/Orion part, the rest of it was waiting for estimates). Not sure why anyone would think that a trip to mars would be cheaper now than it was estimated 20 years ago. What revolutionary development occurred that would have lowered the cost?

The bushes administrations estimates were created, and they were lower; thus congress giving NASA 1 billion extra and shuffling 11 billion from other NASA projects. NASA budget is only 15 billion annually. The first stage was of course a functioning moon base to use to launch the Mars trip.

Bush seniors estimates were for a functioning moon base and mars station. Not simply just going there. 400-500 billion can buy you a lot of rockets, sadly it's less then what we spend on defense per year.

I wonder what kind of amazing advances we would have in space and space technology if we even just forgone the F22 program and directed those funds into NASA

William.

NO, the bush administration did NOT complete an estimate, but you don't seem to want to pay attention to reality, what the @!$%# ever.

(You can't do an estimate when you don't even know how you are going to facilitate the mission, the only estimate that was done was for the return to the moon, that is it).

Jonathan,



That's all Bush juniors planned involved. It stated a "possible" mars mission in the future, but would be for the next administration to fund. Bush juniors plans were as you say for a moon mission. Sorry, we keep jumping around from 1989 to the 2000's so much maybe you misconstrued what I was trying to type out.

So let's recap a bit.

Bush senior works with NASA and congress to vet out a plan for a human colony on the moon to use a launching point for a manned mars mission and possible station/colony. Congress creates an estimate, which NASA takes and refines. The cost was estimated to be 400-500 billion in unadjusted dollars. Congress grants nasa extra funding, but never fully funds or endorse the program due to cost.

Now comes in Bush junior, who I believe it was 2006 or 2007 began to work with congress and NASA to discuss plans for a mission back to the moon and to develop semi-permanent, or permanent human colonies to gain insight and research into how to get man to the mars and be able to live there. The cost estimate for the constellation program was $97 billion dollars over 25 years. Congress gives NASA an extra billion or so, and shuffles 11 billion from other projects.

Now comes president Obama, Obama feared cost overruns and delays as well as a lack of innovation would kill the program so he elected that we skip constellation and the moon altogether and head for Mars. He, in effect, killed it himself rather then let it run over budget.

The majority of bush juniors estimate for the constellation program was for the Orion and Aeries lifter. There were more than just those two items that came out of it though.

Jonathon, so in effect, the estimate was created for all the initiatives. If you don't believe, feel free to look it up. Perhaps I'm wrong, if so feel free to clear the air.

Seriously, no really

I often wonder if they took the entire defense budget and spent it on science what could happen. You throw 700 billion + at anything over a few years and you're bound to discover something.

Well except when you throw 700 billion at defense, then we get the joint strike fighter. Ha.

Wheres the ROI on that one.

@ William Bentley

Well, technically we do get quite a bit out of the discoveries made in defense spending. My big gripe with a lot of it is how it tends to stay under lock-and-key for far too long rather than disseminating into the civilian sector to be made use of.

Things like GPS were being used in the early 1980's (if not late 1970's) in military circles, but civilians didn't get access until much much later. And even then, the initial civilian GPS chips were purposely hobbled in order to reduce the tracker's accuracy (for national security reasons), so initial private applications were limited.

There are a number of other advances which defense spending has no doubt made serious breakthroughs on...but again, they are going to undergo a protracted timeline before reaching the civilian domain.

SNR - You mean like how with all of Hubble's problems, the DoD suddenly just happened to have a couple of "spare" KH-11 Crystals that it could hand down?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-military-spy-telescopes-for-astronomy/2012/06/04/gJQAsT6UDV_story.html

...I mean, okay, they're not off-the-shelf-ready-to-go, but you've got the body and transmission. A little funding for an engine and a new stereo system we're street legal. Nevermind that building & launching just one of these cost the same as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier!

Mark from Bridgeport

Nevermind that building & launching just one of these cost the same as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier!

Ok, I need a link to that, THAT sounds way too high! Oh god I hope you're exaggerating!

I wish I were, but the KH-11 is anything but cheap.

CVN-77 (the George H.W. Bush), last of the Nimitz-class carriers was $4.975 Billion.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navycvn21.htm

The last two KH-11s bought (in 2005) cost $10.0 Billion combined, or $5.0 Billion each.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/A-Tragedy-In-Low-Earth-Orbit-2-10-2011.asp
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20090602/C4ISR02/906020302/Spy-sat-rescue

Even prior KH-11s cost $2.22 to 3.11 Billion in 2012 dollars (see page 15/85, note all prices are in 1990 dollars).
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7775/90-cbo-043.pdf

@ Mark from Bridgeport

...I has a sad

@ SNR: Here's something to consider tho: if times were different (say, the USSR was still around), we'd no doubt have KH-12s or even KH-13s by now. And those would be even MORE! :-\

Careful! Or the GOP will start trying to argue that Starwars was actually Reagan making a long-term investment towards permanent cost-savings measures LOL

It wasn't? ;->

This is paving a path for entire new industries...would you have felt the same way about ARPANET?

Perhaps you need to be the one to wake up

Maybe being Mr Obama's wake-up guy could be a job

Shifting LEO operations, including ISS cargo supply and crew transport, from NASA to private companies will save the US taxpayers money in the long run. By not maintaining the spacecraft, (over)paying US aerospace firms to build them and creating competition for launch costs (sounds like capitalism to me), I would argue the average US taxpayer will come out ahead. Not to mention, multiple companies engaged in LEO support operations means more companies hiring and more people working, putting food on their tables. And additional launches mean more employees for the launch sites. I sense a snowball effect.

Even if the funding discussed in the article were distributed directed to the US taxpayer, that would amount to approximately $2.65 per person ($830 million divided by 313 million people). That is funding budget for the entire year, and all each person would get is about $2.65. How much food will that buy?

Shifting LEO operations, including ISS cargo supply and crew transport, from NASA to private companies ...

Easier said than done... After 60 years of effort spending billions of dollars and using thousands of good seasoned engineers and scientists, NASA has failed to establish a benchmark reliable manned space program, similar to the aviation industry. It is just not feasible, too many unknowns, especially on launch and re-entry for it be routine. So all they are doing is transferring the nightmares and headaches from NASA to private industry. All along the taxpayers will still be left holding the bills for this fantasy ride by a few.

I can envisage a military LEO manned space program to support SDI but that is where it should be limited to, and under firm control of NORAD.

Lighten up Frances!

SpaceX is doing it right now. The first of twelve Dragon ISS cargo runs is set for 9/24/12. I am not sure what "benchmark" you are looking for NASA to set, but considering the capsule and rocket design has been a pretty solid launch system for both the US and Russia since the 1960's I'd say it is as reliable as we get with our current technology.

I am firmly against any weapons in space. Aside from the danger of sabotage or takeover, if we put weapons in space the other space-faring nations will do the same. I grew up at the end of the Cold War; I don't want to see a repeat of that non-sense. Not to mention, while SDI sounds cool and got a cool nickname "star wars " when President Reagan was promoting it, our primary threat is not ICBM's. An SDI system will not stop short range missiles, a "dirty" conventional bomb, a suitcase bomb or a hijacked airliner. Earth-based ABM technology (interceptor missiles plus ship- and aircraft-based lasers) is more mobile and getting better all the time. There is no logical need to have a military space station as satellites do everything cheaper and safer (they don't eat, sleep or breathe), and can be moved much quicker and easier to locations of interest.

Sorry, I cannot buy your argument, a functional SDI program is critical to establish a solid world geopolitical stability, (alignment of all major powers to a common gold of world peace), so that all nations can benefit. And LEO manned orbital maneuverable platform(s) like the X37C will be required to minimize response times and make SDI feasible.

The terrorist activities you describe are not the primary threat in establishing world stability. Terrorism is a manageable nuisance which we can live with and in fact helps align the major powers in many ways.

The number one threat remains geopolitical and ideological differences between the major powers, US (western alliance) and Russia, and now the surging new powers like China and India.

I too do not want to weaponize space but what choice do we have? Look at the alignment in Syria, Pakistan, and Sudan. Thousands of people are dying due to the games the major powers are playing. These genocides must stop and I believe a fool proof defensive system that will protect all nations that buy into it will force the rogue nation's hand.

Ad'm, I beg to differ with your rather dismal viewpoint. Military superiority does not necessarily have to rely on space based systems. the radical mid-east has absolutely no abilities there, and our Air force is the predominant "big stick" on the planet.(followed closely by our navy) As for Russia, and China, mutual destruction issues will forever keep we, and them, from doing anything foolish as NO-ONE leading those countries are stupid.

Ad'm, your points do not support your hypothesis. You claim that a "functional SDI program" is critical to geopolitical stability. But, as we currently see with nuclear weapons, a nation (say Iran or Pakistan) that does not possess such weapons appear to greatly desire the acquisition of such weapons, to the extent they draw the ire of a majority of nations in such pursuit. Who will manage the SDI program? Russia and several Middle Eastern nations will never accept the US, and will seek to have their own AND design a counter.

It's the Cold War, version 2.0. No thanks.

Terrorism is, by its nature and design, NOT manageable. We have been very, very lucky and have some great people and technology working to keep us safe. But something will slip through again, and, as you see in the Middle East daily, a lot of local damage can be done with 1 dedicated bomber.

A major nation, like Russia or China, has significantly more to lose by launching nuclear weapons than a small, rogue nation like North Korea. Even at the darkest hour, rational heads in Soviet Russia and the US prevailed and avoided pushing "the button". Why do you think the US Navy is putting more resources into the Pacific? A point defense system, in addition to solid political pressure, is far more effective than wasting money on SDI.

I completely agree the senseless massacres in Africa, the Middle East and Asia need to stop, but SDI will do nothing to stop those atrocities. Syria, Pakistan and Sudan battles are fought on the ground with conventional weapons. Spy satellites can provide intelligence, no need for humans in orbit. And, again, humans need food, sleep and air. Satellites only need power (and the Sun has a large supply), and are always operating. I really don't see how "eyes in the sky" will end those conflicts.

The US putting weapons in space will only lead to other nations doing the same. It is a horrible idea.

Like Jonathan, I would argue that the point-defense missile shield is also a Cold War 2.0 instigator

But that's for a whole different discussion

I would grudgingly like to correct you. that is 'pointless-defense missile shield'. Mathematically it is almost impossible for it to work reliably (basically its a crap shoot as to whether it would do its job).

But think of all the money Raytheon will get on the contracts! Isn't that the actual mission?

I agree that even a point defense system, either ship-based or airborne, is still a threat to some nations and could absolutely instigate another Cold War. The Russians are still pissed off about the interceptors the US government wanted to put in Europe, even though their reliability is extremely doubtful.

Everyone knows several nations have "spy satellites" in orbit, but unless someone has hidden a weapon very, very well the worst they can do is take a picture of you. Add a weapon to that, and suddenly it's not so harmless.

Honestly, we are already in Cold War 2.0 lite; several small nations with questionable governments possess nuclear weapons, several more are probably seeking them, and at least one nation known to support terrorism is actively skirting the edges of weapons research (that we know of). Add to that numerous and apparently government backed or funded cyber attacks and you have the makings of Cold War 2.0 lite. A new arms race is definitely not what we need right now.

harcourt,

The US was never going to put interceptors in eastern europe, the US was going to put Radar Installations in Eastern Europe.

A BMD system isn't just the missiles, the missile is actually a small part of it. The most important part of a system like that is the Tracking and Control system. And this is where the problem with the entire concept lies.

The only thing that a BMD system that is based on missiles would ever do is give the operators of such a system a false sense of security. Now a short range missile, that is slightly different, but even there you have issues because more than likely you are targeting an object that will be over your own territory by the time of intercept, and it is unclear whether you want say bio chemical waste falling down from the missile being destroyed or those same chemical compounds hitting its target.

You are correct Jonathan; that's what happens when I go from memory and don't check my facts.

"NASA has failed to establish a benchmark reliable manned space program, similar to the aviation industry."

Ad'm. where was that ever NASA's stated goal..?

Um, actually from 2007-2008 the US *was* going to put 10-20 interceptors in northern Poland until Russia objected. Now there are going to be SM-3 missiles in Romania around 2015, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Still, a short/medium defense system is prudent. After all, it's not like any NATO countries aside from the US (and to a lesser degree Canada) are going to maintain their defense spending over the next decade. And this is after 20 years of us pleading them to maintain even 2% GDP spending! Even the UK is making some hard cuts.

Amen to that! LOL

@Seriously - very punny!

Actually lol'd on that one!!

NASA is not an outright regulatory agency (and should never be...as the article notes, it has a 'dog in the fight' that the FAA doesn't).

And though they have the right to specify what carries their people, or docks with their station, the idea that non-NASA vehicles will meet their specs merely as the default 800lb gorilla, does not comfort me...

Fred - that has been the argument and justification against every program for space exploration since the beginning. It's not about the destination, it's the technology, knowledge and experiences learned along the way.

Fred, while NASA is providing some funding, each company is matching those funds. To receive NASA funds for COTS or CCDEV, each company must pass specific requirements. At least one company has had its funding canceled due to failure to complete said requirements. And these are not contracts handed out for "joy rides", but to resupply ISS and/or transport Astronauts to ISS (something we pay the Russians about $60 million per seat right now).

By shifting to US companies, you are employing US workers and keeping the money in the US economy. Nothing against the Russians, but I'd rather pay US workers from SpaceX to transport cargo or humans to ISS.

I completely agree that our infrastructure needs significant improvement. Roads and power grids designed in the 1950's are substandard now. But since NASA is only 0.53% of the whole Federal budget (and thanks to Congress falling to an estimated 0.48% for fiscal 2012), I'd say there is roughly another 99.47% we can look through for wasted funding.

On point as usual Harcourt!! :) --S--

God forbid it might create some new industries...that will pay corporate taxes, and take people to run them.

Perhaps Jobs (Steve) and Wozniak (the other Steve) should have used their energies to become social workers, instead...

funny, NASA still has an astronaut program. Not sure why you think they are out of the manned space business.

Randy, please visit NASA's website, you clearly need the correct information about US human spaceflight and I don't have the time or energy to show you how wrong you are.

NASA may have astronauts, but they don't have any spaceships (not counting the ones now in museums). If those astronauts go to space, they will be going as passengers.

Unless the US astronauts hijack the Russian Soyuz! Then they will be pilots!

I imagine that the size of bandana necessary to cover the lower hemisphere of their space helmets will have to be quite large...Hopefully the Ruskies won't question the strange added cargo tucked in every astronaut's back pocket and they can successfully pull off their stick'em up!

If I've learned anything from Hunt for Red October, the cosmonauts won't bother to question the 6-shooters holstered on each of our astronaut's hips

The 6-shooter may be a giveaway, but did you know that the Russian cosmonauts are armed?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23131359/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/russia-has-corner-guns-space/#.T-DC9XDOq0Q

Wow! But they still only have 3 shots

We've got six pard'ner, better come out with yer hands up!

"This is so funny. NASA is OUT of the manned space business."

The US crew on board ISS as I write (who also moved cargo out of Dragon last month) might disagree with that.

Oh, that's right. Only 'The Space Shuttle' = 'Manned Space Program.' I'm betting you grew up with that, know nothing else, and expect nothing else.

"They have no say over what flies out into space."

Did they ever? What does that even mean? NASA launches its own stuff. That's all it ever had control over.

"...since NASA already had the best scientists in the world working there."

You don't even know that for sure, either.

"...since NASA already had the best scientists in the world working there."

Actually, Frank, I'm OK with that part of the post.... ;-)

(shrug) Not every first class engineer or scientist is dying to work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Sometimes 'the best' simply go elsewhere....

Very true Frank, but of the false statements you corrected that was my favorite.

So how may departments are okay with you? How big must it be? You know the Department of Transportation, right? And every state has a Department of Motor Vehicles...

*lax

"How will they investigate if something goes wrong in these fly or float zones?"

You've heart of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), right? That's 'who ya' gonna call.'

They already investigate more than air accidents...