Armstrong: Obama NASA plan 'devastating'

[Jeremiah]

Astronauts warn plan would put U.S. on path to "mediocrity"

Editor's note: In an open letter obtained by NBC's Jay Barbree, former astronauts Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan urge President Obama to reconsider what they warn would be "devastating" new policies for the future of NASA.

The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The program was named "Constellation." In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/

[SpeedyHedgehog]

I saw this on the Nightly News, and I couldn't agree with them more. I have the utmost respect for Neil Armstrong. "First Man On The Moon" He could have been cashing in on that ever since 1969. Instead he's led a quiet, respectful life, ignoring the "celebrity" this country has become so enamored of. Great man.

[deagle]

are those ppl oblivious to concerns on planet earth ?

[realityexists]

are those ppl oblivious to concerns on planet earth ?
With the relatively small budget that NASA gets, they sure do make every dollar count, NASA research and technologies have benefited the U.S. and to a certain extent the world as well.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

[vinny_121_ND]

Under these trying times, with unemployment, economic recovery, health care, the war in afghanistan, is the space program really a high priority for immediate funding?

[budgie]

While I agree with Armstrong et al that the US should do what it can to stay ahead, this does not all rest on Obama's shoulders. It was not he that slated the shuttles for retirement and it's not Obama's fault that economic times are tough and the money may be needed elsewhere. America's space program has been in decline for a decade or more years now. while the Russians have gone commercial and the Chinese and Indians have only taken baby steps. I think if NASA got together some new and affordable proposals the manned program could be jump-started when the time is right. The time however, may not be right at the moment.

[Rudolph]

Space speaks to the human race on a very high level. I think our interest in space is justified, and that such reseach leads to the fulfillment of greater ideals. The USA can choose whether it wants to be 1st or 2nd best in this area.

[Panchito12]

Change we can believe in, eh Obama?

[Alex G]

I cannot understand either why do you cancel a program in that you already have invested so much money and that was going pretty well.

[JJHH]

Under these trying times, with unemployment, economic recovery, health care, the war in afghanistan, is the space program really a high priority for immediate funding?

X2.... money isn't unlimited.

[Kilgor]

Emotions aside, lugging meat carcasses up to the moon and maybe mars is grossly time and resource wasting.

Robotics and computers have come along away since the 1960's and dont have to be fed or breathe.

[Russian_dude]

Agreed. There is nothing that humans on Mars will do better then robots. FOR NOW, we have reached the limit of what we can learn from sending humans into space.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I cannot understand either why do you cancel a program in that you already have invested so much money and that was going pretty well.

The Orion program isn't going well from what I've heard, rather the new rocket vibrates so much that a manned launch would not be survivable by humans.

[IconOfEvi]

Well the whole Orion thing is because they want to cut costs.

Shame, Dubya actually massively increased the NASA budget and operating scope - seemed like we mighta been sending more stuff out. Too bad.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I'm just becoming more and more convinced that there's not a single part of the US government that Obama will not manage to screw up in the next four years.

[Alex G]

Megaraptor;4885673']I'm just becoming more and more convinced that there's not a single part of the US government that Obama will not manage to screw up in the next four years.

Question: would McCain/Palin team really be any better?

[JKD]

Buzz Aldrin

Astronaut, Apollo 11 mission, Best Selling Author
Posted: February 3, 2010 08:49 PM

President Obama's JFK Moment

Thank you, Mr. President.

That's what we should say to President Barack Obama in light of his Fiscal Year 2011 space budget for NASA. The President courageously decided to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015. And he directed NASA to spend a billion per year on buying rides for American astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles-that's American space vehicles. Other NASA funds will go into developing and testing new revolutionary technologies that we can use in living and working on Mars and its moons.

The Aldrin cycler (which I proposed two decades ago), your time has finally come! Those technologies will sustain long term, deep space exploration in the years ahead-just like my concept for a cycling spaceship moving between Earth and Mars. For that, we don't need the Moon!

But this change in direction will not be easy -- like turning a big ship around in a small space. For those who will think about opposing this new plan, let me explain why I think it's a necessary step forward, not back. Having walked on the Moon, I know something about what we need to explore, really explore, in space.

For the past six years America's civil space program has been aimed at returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020. That's the plan announced by President George W. Bush in January of 2004. That plan also called for developing the technologies that would support human expeditions to Mars, our ultimate destination in space. But two things happened along the way since that announcement, which became known as the Vision for Space Exploration.

First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.

To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.

Enter the new Obama administration. Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official. Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me). In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine. The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station. And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path." Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons. Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one.

But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon, no funds were available for this development effort -- until now. Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what I'm calling Flexible plus, containing much of the steps called for in the Augustine report. If Congress agrees, we'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station -- extended to at least 2020 in Obama's plan -- and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships. When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers, it will be the commercial industry that steps up, not another government-owned, government managed enterprise. And if we want to use the Moon as a stepping stone in the future, we'll have to join with our international partners for the effort. No more "go it alone" space projects. If you or your children or grandkids ever hope to fly into orbit, these new vehicles are their only hope for a ride to space.

There is little reason to believe that Congress would add this kind of budget boost to the Bush lunar program, since it hasn't done that for the past six years. But if we really wanted to establish new companies and create new jobs in the space business, then Obama's idea is clearly the way to go. America's space entrepreneurs have all the talent and tools they need to take advantage of the proposed Obama plan. Even our rocket pads at the Kennedy Space Center, where the same pads from which Apollo 11 was launched more than 40 years ago are still used, will get a user-friendly makeover. And NASA will do what it does best -- preparing the capability to explore.

I know that change can be a scary thing. And I know the forces of the existing Constellation program are already preparing to fight the Obama plan. But I hope when the emotion subsides, my friends in Congress will see as I see the wisdom and strength that this new approach will give our nation's space program.

I'll be speaking out about the plan more in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, I ask my friends and readers to get behind Obama's new policy. Join with me and help usher in a new age of space. A space program that truly goes somewhere! With his deeds, not only words, President Obama has revitalized our struggling space program. His has been a "Profile in Courage" when it comes to space and science. And that's why I call it his JFK moment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html



Peter Diamandis

Chairman & CEO, X PRIZE Foundation
Posted: February 1, 2010 01:47 PM

NASA Embraces American Capitalism and Entrepreneurship

After 30 years of doing business the same way, NASA is finally entering the 21st century by embracing competition, capitalism and entrepreneurship. In NASA's new budget, President Obama and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden have proposed spending billions of dollars to purchase commercial human launch services and invest in game changing technologies.

Many of the traditional players have translated this to mean that NASA's "Moon Mission" has been canceled, that NASA is out of the exploration business and is making a risky move turning over the 'right stuff' from Government hands to entrepreneurs and commercial industry. In reality, NASA is making a brilliant move.

During the past 30 years the cost of getting humans into space has gone up, while reliability has gone down. Rather than have two or three commercial suppliers of human spaceflight, we have been solely dependent on the Space Shuttle. When the Shuttle stands down from service in a year's time, NASA will need to send American Astronauts to Kazakhstan to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of over $50 million per person... Until, at least, new commercial U.S. vehicles are made operational.

The U.S. Government doesn't build your computers, nor do you fly aboard a U.S. Government owned and operated airline. Private industry routinely takes technologies pioneered by the government and turns them into cheap, reliable and robust industries. This has happened in aviation, air mail, computers, and the Internet. It's about time that it happen in space.

The President's plan for commercial competition will ultimately take us much farther and much faster, not only to the Moon, but to Mars, the asteroids and beyond. Private companies will drive a very high level of safety because they will cease to exist if they do not. America's capitalist engine drives reliability in our aircraft, our cars, our computers and will do so in space, as well. Private companies will also inject innovation and breakthrough technology into our space program because that is their ethos.

So, I applaud the President's bold decision for NASA to focus not on their past glories, but on building a sustainable space exploration program that can inspire all of us. Today's decision has laid the ground for the future Apple, Cisco and Google of space to be born, drive job creation and open the cosmos for the rest of us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-diamandis/nasa-embraces-american-ca_b_444673.html

I'm a huge supporter of manned space exploration and hopefully someday colonization. And personally I think this proposed budget sounds like a move in the right direction.

[Blaec]

Thx for those sources JKD, very informative

Obama's policy sounds like it does make sense.

[danielc]

Space exploration is so vital to humanity's progress that it should not be left to a couple nations to invest the resources needed to bring it to reality; And its also good that there is a push for private interests to get in the business of coming up with solutions for the challenges of traveling to space, however perhaps there should be some international joint effort done by all nations on earth to this endevour, although I don't know if its possible to coordinate such a thing, too many narrow-minded petty people everywhere.

[Wimbly]

Colbert had an awesome interview with Neil Tyson, one of my favorite physicists. He basically lays out why this is going to set humanity back.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270038/april-08-2010/neil-degrasse-tyson

I completely agree with him. I beleive space travel is a crucial part of human development and that it will bring about the next step in our evolution as a planet. Like Tyson said, its in our DNA.

[Yeti2424]

Space exploration is so vital to humanity's progress that it should not be left to a couple nations to invest the resources needed to bring it to reality; And its also good that there is a push for private interests to get in the business of coming up with solutions for the challenges of traveling to space, however perhaps there should be some international joint effort done by all nations on earth to this endevour, although I don't know if its possible to coordinate such a thing, too many narrow-minded petty people everywhere.

Our current examples of internation joint efforts doing anything have been shown to be stagnate and stale. The biggest advancements in space exploration came when the United States was in direct competition with the Soviet Union. Things have slowed down because there is no competition to advance any further.

[I can't think of a name]

Armstrong is Legendary for how he has stayed out of the public eye and above the fray. THIS IS HUGE that he has come out publicly to say this. He needs to understand that with Obama's policies we will have to expect mediocrity from Health Care to Space

Maybe Robert Gibbs and the Obama White House will label him as a racist tea bagger now.

[JJHH]

Maybe Robert Gibbs and the Obama White House will label him as a racist tea bagger now.

Jesus, you are one drama queen..

[Wimbly]

Jesus, you are one drama queen..

For pointing out what Gibbs and the white house do on a regular basis?

[okiebugg]

Question: would McCain/Palin team really be any better?

You must be a Lawyer. Nothing equates with McCain/Palin having lost the election re-read the question that Megaraptor asked. Can Oblabla find anything under the sun that he won't be able to screw up in the next four years? Answer this time with no smoke or mirrors.

[artjomh]

Russia has an unbroken active manned space programme since 1961. I'm not saying that to gloat, but rather to make several points.

1) The manned programme was maintained even in the darkest hours of early 90's when sending people to space seemed like an incredible folly compared to how the same resources could be spent on the ground. But the funds were there and there were plenty of manned launches. So the argument that US is in dire straits and can't afford to fund NASA is a load of crock. If Russia at its bleakest could afford it, so can America.

2) At the same time, another lesson is no less imprtant. Even though the Russian manned programme was mainted, it didn't exactly produce that upsurge in scientific potential or exploratory vision that Neil DeGrasse Tyson (whom I both respect and find immensely entertaining) is claiming it should have produced. Yes, astronauts/cosmonauts are public heroes and it's always nice to have someone you can proud of. No, having people going to space does not immediately lead to advances or breakthroughs in science and technology.

Astronauts can be breacons/public faces of the exploratory drive, but they can't substitute for the actual RATIONALE to go somewhere. Unless you know why you are going to Mars or landing on a comet, having an astronaut inspire you to do it is pointless. And no, "because the geeks among us would love it" is not a viable rationale for going to Mars.

[pacifist]

Colbert had an awesome interview with Neil Tyson, one of my favorite physicists. He basically lays out why this is going to set humanity back.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270038/april-08-2010/neil-degrasse-tyson

I completely agree with him. I beleive space travel is a crucial part of human development and that it will bring about the next step in our evolution as a planet. Like Tyson said, its in our DNA.

I like that Tyson guy. He's always interesting to listen to.

[HellToupee]

Russias economic crisis also ended their future projects however, eg the promising Energia program. They were able to continue launches since they had already a proven and cost effective system inplace(compared with the shuttle) they could offset the costs with commerical launches and were needed to supply the ISS which i beleive they received co funding for.

At the moment theres just no motivation to spend big on new space projects current probes are more practical than manned missions, not untill another country trys to one up the moon landing will the US be motivated IMO.

[BlackFlag]

Colbert had an awesome interview with Neil Tyson, one of my favorite physicists. He basically lays out why this is going to set humanity back.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270038/april-08-2010/neil-degrasse-tyson

I completely agree with him. I beleive space travel is a crucial part of human development and that it will bring about the next step in our evolution as a planet. Like Tyson said, its in our DNA.

Beat me to it!

[amick_lindsey]

Russia has an unbroken active manned space programme since 1961. I'm not saying that to gloat, but rather to make several points.

1) The manned programme was maintained even in the darkest hours of early 90's when sending people to space seemed like an incredible folly compared to how the same resources could be spent on the ground. But the funds were there and there were plenty of manned launches. So the argument that US is in dire straits and can't afford to fund NASA is a load of crock. If Russia at its bleakest could afford it, so can America.

2) At the same time, another lesson is no less imprtant. Even though the Russian manned programme was mainted, it didn't exactly produce that upsurge in scientific potential or exploratory vision that Neil DeGrasse Tyson (whom I both respect and find immensely entertaining) is claiming it should have produced. Yes, astronauts/cosmonauts are public heroes and it's always nice to have someone you can proud of. No, having people going to space does not immediately lead to advances or breakthroughs in science and technology.

Astronauts can be breacons/public faces of the exploratory drive, but they can't substitute for the actual RATIONALE to go somewhere. Unless you know why you are going to Mars or landing on a comet, having an astronaut inspire you to do it is pointless. And no, "because the geeks among us would love it" is not a viable rationale for going to Mars.

I couldn't agree more with you. To me it all comes down to: Will NASA be able keep the space exploration program alive? What happens after Sept 2010? Sure, the space shuttle will be retired and the Constelation program was cancelled, so in the end, how would NASA be able keep an active presence in the ISS without paying US 60 mil to the Russians per astrounaut?!? It's funny how Obama talked about stimulating the private sector to develop commercial space programs, so that men can eventually aim for Mars. The only problem is that most of the private sector is not interested in going anywhere above 120.000 ft.

[Russianlynxy]

Astronauts can be breacons/public faces of the exploratory drive, but they can't substitute for the actual RATIONALE to go somewhere. Unless you know why you are going to Mars or landing on a comet, having an astronaut inspire you to do it is pointless. And no, "because the geeks among us would love it" is not a viable rationale for going to Mars.

I think it has to do with the "f*ck yeah!" attitude of many politicians. In other words he makes parallels between space exploration and America's world leadership which is at "stake" because there is not enough funding for currently unrealistic NASA projects. A provocation and a lobby.

Also looks like more people with an agenda looking for reasons to bash Obama (not that I'm a fan), but something makes me doubt McInsane would fulfill these space aspirations, especially during economic downfall.

[Jobu]

It's a huge setback for American manned spaceflight. If you think Richard Branson is going to replace NASA and get us to the moon and Mars on the cheap, you're an idiot.

It will take many years to catch up once a new president takes over and decides to restart our manned program.

[vinny_121_ND]

It's a huge setback for American manned spaceflight. If you think Richard Branson is going to replace NASA and get us to the moon and Mars on the cheap, you're an idiot.

It will take many years to catch up once a new president takes over and decides to restart our manned program.

Here's the US debt clock.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

How much money do you want invested into the NASA program? The US military defense budget as of 2010 is 664 billion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010

Money doesn't grow on trees, so, I think either borrow money from other countries like China again, or cut funding like education and health for the NASA budget.

[Winger]

Astronauts can be breacons/public faces of the exploratory drive, but they can't substitute for the actual RATIONALE to go somewhere. Unless you know why you are going to Mars or landing on a comet, having an astronaut inspire you to do it is pointless. And no, "because the geeks among us would love it" is not a viable rationale for going to Mars.

Even when the just rationale is given, and I see it given all the time, it seems to fall on deaf ears. Only when the rational provides some type of immediate "win" that politicians can cash in on will we ever get the support on the level that is needed.

[HellToupee]

It needs to be a rationale that resonates with the common people tho, some sort of return eg beating the reds at something or fusion fuel. Rationale like possibly discovering life existing or existed on another planet to further understand orgins of life itself doesnt inspire people to sacifice especially the religious.

[artjomh]

Pride and vanity (very Christian values, no doubt!) were surely the driving motivators in the original space race. Can't have the Soviets beating the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, now can we?

So the best hope for NASA might be for China to suddenly start kicking ass and taking names in terms of pushing the boundaries of the final frontier. Which China (or India, or Europe, or whoever) won't do, considering the snail-like pace at which their current programmes are developing.

Everyone except US and Russia are pretty much stuck at the level of '70's space technology. So, scratch that... the best hope for NASA might be if aliens suddenly arrive and we have to compete with another advanced space-faring civilization. Because there aint' one here on Earth for NASA to compete with.

[danielc]

Our current examples of internation joint efforts doing anything have been shown to be stagnate and stale. The biggest advancements in space exploration came when the United States was in direct competition with the Soviet Union. Things have slowed down because there is no competition to advance any further.

I wouldn't disagree that competition is a great catalyst for progress, however, I'm not sure that the slow down is related to lack of it at this point. Rocketry, robotics, electronics, etc, have been progressing very fast in the last decades, and space exploration, as far as the US is concerned, does not seem to have slow down that much either, it just seems to have gotten more selective in what it wants to research. Perhaps this is why having some international cooperation would bring about faster progress overall, as different countries could research areas that US/Russia have to overlook due to resource constraints.

[MN_Air]

Constellation program:
2009: 3,433,000,000$
2010(pro): 3,326,000,000$
2011req: program most likely will be shut down.

Space Shuttle:
2009: 2,979,000,000$
2010(pro): 3,139,000,000$
2010 Req: 989,000,000$


Total Planetary science:
2009: 1,288,000,000$
2010pro: 1,341,000,000$
2011req: 1,486,000,000$


Lets stop sending 1960s technology into space, and work on new propulsion techniques. The extra cash will go towards planetary rovers. Manned space flight is expensive, and not worth it until better propulsion and life support systems are made. It is wasted money to send a man to Mars, or even the moon again.

Source: Physics Today, April 2010 issue, page 30-31.

[IconOfEvi]

Damn, I REALLY hope Obama reverses at least this. This is one of the things that DEFINES American character and exceptionalism - refusing to be limited. Going ever further. Well then again, Obama believes in American exceptionalism as he said British believe in British exceptionalism, and Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.

Oh well, I REALLY can't see him winning 2012, no matter who it is.

[MN_Air]

Damn, I REALLY hope Obama reverses at least this. This is one of the things that DEFINES American character and exceptionalism - refusing to be limited. Going ever further. Well then again, Obama believes in American exceptionalism as he said British believe in British exceptionalism, and Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.

Oh well, I REALLY can't see him winning 2012, no matter who it is.

Damn Obama for ending an over bloated, over engineered V2 rocket program. I would much rather see my tax money go to rovers and R&D on new forms of propulsion than sending humans into space.

[Mastermind]

Billions for Chrysler and GM...Billions for AIG and B of A...Billions for Goldman Sachs. But, as for the leadership of our nation at the forefront of technology and discovery....a pittance. Let China, Russia, Europe, and Japan lead the world to the new ages of discovery. America can eat their dust for a change.

[plato]

Damn, I REALLY hope Obama reverses at least this. This is one of the things that DEFINES American character and exceptionalism - refusing to be limited. Going ever further. Well then again, Obama believes in American exceptionalism as he said British believe in British exceptionalism, and Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.

Oh well, I REALLY can't see him winning 2012, no matter who it is.
People used to say that back in 2008,too.

For pointing out what Gibbs and the white house do on a regular basis?

Really?


Here's the US debt clock.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

How much money do you want invested into the NASA program? The US military defense budget as of 2010 is 664 billion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010

Money doesn't grow on trees, so, I think either borrow money from other countries like China again, or cut funding like education and health for the NASA budget.

China had to cut its military budget this year, so it is kinda odd we can still borrow money from them.


Damn Obama for ending an over bloated, over engineered V2 rocket program. I would much rather see my tax money go to rovers and R&D on new forms of propulsion than sending humans into space.

I am watching spaceX closely. They seem to be making good progress.

It is funny how the same group of people claiming their form of "capitalism" is the solution to everything is not happy about government reducing its role in space. So, what is it? Is it really about "capitalism"? or you guys just want to be anit-Obama? I am really confused.

[MN_Air]

I am watching spaceX closely. They seem to be making good progress.

It is funny how the same group of people claiming their form of "capitalism" is the solution to everything is not happy about government reducing its role in space. So, what is it? Is it really about "capitalism"? or you guys just want to be anit-Obama? I am really confused.

SpaceX is very interesting, but unfortunately the prices for lifting is very high. They are supposed to come down within the next 5-10 years if I remember correctly, which would be a God send if it ends up being relatively cheap!

[Alex G]

China had to cut its military budget this year, so it is kinda odd we can still borrow money from them.

Well i think you are misinformed here - they cut the growth of their military budget. Not budget itself. They still got plenty of money.

[plato]

Well i think you are misinformed here - they cut the growth of their military budget. Not budget itself. They still got plenty of money.

whatever! They still don't have an aircraft carrier, or a long rang bomber, or an attack helicopter, etc.....So much for that hyped growth! Last time I checked, even Thailand or India got an aircraft carrier. They sure do have plenty of money.

[Jurinko]

He he. No more space flights, but money will be diverted for further fudging climate data. Ain't it so, Dr Hansen?

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The space program was once one of the greatest things about America.

Unfortunately it got lost somewhere in the late 80s-mid 90s sometime between the Challenger explosion and that space probe that crashed into Mars because the NASA engineers forgot to convert between english and metric units when calculating flight path.:cantbeli::cantbeli::cantbeli:

Now, the manned space program is almost totally broken anyways.

The solution is to fix it, not get rid of it.

[Alex G]

whatever! They still don't have an aircraft carrier, or a long rang bomber, or an attack helicopter, etc.....So much for that hyped growth! Last time I checked, even Thailand or India got an aircraft carrier. They sure do have plenty of money.

Last time i checked, they only bought it. China tries to build up it themselves, so it will take some time. And dont forget that usefulness of carrier isnt same for all countries. Some of them dont wish to invade countries that are on other continent, and can use their own military bases to start jets. Carriers are main weapon of US, but this dont mean that everybody else should have them as first priority.

[dava]

He he. No more space flights, but money will be diverted for further fudging climate data. Ain't it so, Dr Hansen?

The money will probably be diverted to useless increases in defense spending, DEA spending, CIA spending that more hurt the US than actually help it. But it keeps a lot of highranking government officials on the payroll so that helps.

I really wonder how many of the 'small government' advocates here would support a decrease in spending in those areas. We are all big government-lovers, the only difference is the opinion on which part of the government should be the biggest.

[hulaku]

Last time i checked, they only bought it. China tries to build up it themselves, so it will take some time.

India's indigenous Aircraft Carrier is set to sail in 2011 and probaly inducted by 2014.


India’s indigenous aircraft carrier to sail by 2011: Indian Navy chiefhttp://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/indias-indigenous-aircraft-carrier-to-sail-by-2011-indian-navy-chief_100156604.html

[Alex G]

India's indigenous Aircraft Carrier is set to sail in 2011 and probaly inducted by 2014.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/indias-indigenous-aircraft-carrier-to-sail-by-2011-indian-navy-chief_100156604.html

They do build one, but still its not clear what for they would need one. Only reason is war with China.

[hulaku]

They do build one, but still its not clear what for they would need one. Only reason is war with China.

What made you come to that conclusion Captain Brilliant?

The Aircraft carrier is basically for the protection of Indian interests in the Indian ocean.

[ggk]

They do build one, but still its not clear what for they would need one. Only reason is war with China.

india have been operating aircraft carrier for quite a while actually..

[Alex G]

What made you come to that conclusion Captain Brilliant?

The Aircraft carrier is basically for the protection of Indian interests in the Indian ocean.

It not a defensive weapon.

[hulaku]

It not a defensive weapon.

Main Entry: de·ter·rence
****unciation: \di-ˈtər-ən(t)s, -ˈter-; -ˈtə-rən(t)s, -ˈte-; dē-\
Function: noun
Date: 1861
: the act or process of deterring (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deterring): as a : the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment b : the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack

[MN_Air]

Megaraptor;4887548']The space program was once one of the greatest things about America.

Unfortunately it got lost somewhere in the late 80s-mid 90s sometime between the Challenger explosion and that space probe that crashed into Mars because the NASA engineers forgot to convert between english and metric units when calculating flight path.:cantbeli::cantbeli::cantbeli:

Now, the manned space program is almost totally broken anyways.

The solution is to fix it, not get rid of it.

Manned space flight run by NASA will be dissapearing until new technologies are found. It isn't like we just had our last human foray into space. We are just getting rid of the V2 rockets, and finding better propulsion techniques, and life support systems.

[xav]

When is Obama's Space Summit (if it didn't take place already) ?

[Wimbly]

When is Obama's Space Summit (if it didn't take place already) ?
I think its on any minute now.

Its being played up on all the channels, because Obama bought off Aldrin. They didnt care that Armstrong was against it, but they're gizzing their collective pants over Aldrin.

[JKD]

I think its on any minute now.

Its being played up on all the channels, because Obama bought off Aldrin. They didnt care that Armstrong was against it, but they're gizzing their collective pants over Aldrin.

Aldrin was critical of the Constellation program long before Obama came along.

[Wimbly]

Aldrin was critical of the Constellation program long before Obama came along.

Yeah, but he definitely believed in using the moon as a launch pad for future missions and now he acting like there is no reason to go back.

[JKD]

Yeah, but he definitely believed in using the moon as a launch pad for future missions and now he acting like there is no reason to go back.

not quite. From 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.html?pagewanted=1

A much more practical destination than the moon or the space station is a region of space called L 1, which is more than two-thirds of the way to the moon and is where the gravity fields between the Earth and Moon are in balance. Setting up a space port there would offer a highly stable platform from which spacecraft could head toward near-Earth asteroids, the lunar surface, the moons of Mars and wherever else mankind decides to travel.

Unlike the Moon and the International Space Station, which is in low-earth orbit, L 1 is not the site of strong gravitational pulls, meaning that spacecraft can leave there without using much energy. Thus L 1 would be the most sensible position for a base that would function as a test area and way-point for robotic flights as well as a support station and safe haven for human exploration of the solar system.

[Jobu]

cut funding like education and health for the NASA budget.

Sounds good to me. There should not be a federal dept of education. Nor should there be federal funding for healthcare. In fact I think I could find many federal programs that should be cut completely. I would slash the federal budget in half if I had that kind of power.

[vinny_121_ND]

Sounds good to me. There should not be a federal dept of education. Nor should there be federal funding for healthcare. In fact I think I could find many federal programs that should be cut completely. I would slash the federal budget in half if I had that kind of power.

I'm all for education, but when school administrators demand millions and millions of dollars for olympic size pools, athletic facilities, state of the art computers, but test scores don't increase and drop out rates still are the same, I think the money can be used elsewhere. I just watched abc's 20/20 'stupid in america' on youtube ... not really sure if it's biased or not since I'm not american. But it's scary if these kids are learning anything.

Health care is complicated, it's ideal to have a universal health care system, but when a third of americans are obese due to lifestyle choices, it would cost too much for the american tax payer to pay for their treatment costs. In Canada, the health budget is getting killed because of obesity. I'd tell these patients you're on your own, go see a naturopathic doctor to help them, not drugs so they can continue fueling their bodies with more fast food junk.

This money should be allocated to the space program or else we would not be able to continue the discoveries they've already made recently.

[seraosha]

I think that America really is moving towards a greater stratafication between the classes, and the "stupid %$&*ing moron" class is vastly outnumbering the rest of us.
It's the greatest weakness in any Democratic based government, when the lowest common denominator cares only for their short term instant gratification...and votes accordingly.

We are getting the government, and future we deserve.

[LineDoggie]

Obama Lied, the Space Program Died.....

[MN_Air]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/obama.space/index.html?hpt=T1

Oh hai.

6 billion over the next 5 years.

[gaijinsamurai]

I think that America really is moving towards a greater stratafication between the classes, and the "stupid %$&*ing moron" class is vastly outnumbering the rest of us.
It's the greatest weakness in any Democratic based government, when the lowest common denominator cares only for their short term instant gratification...and votes accordingly.

We are getting the government, and future we deserve.

x2. Sadly, you are correct, seraosha.

[JJHH]

Barack Obama: 'we will reach Mars in my lifetime'

Barack Obama has outlined plans to send astronauts to orbit Mars by the mid-2030s, followed by an eventual landing on the planet.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 10:04PM BST 15 Apr 2010

Making his case to a sceptical space community at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida last night, Mr Obama said his new space exploration plan would lead Americans beyond the moon and to Mars within his lifetime.

“I expect to be around to see it,” he declared. “The bottom line is, nobody is more committed to manned space flight, to human exploration of space, than I am. But we’ve got to do it in a smart way,” he said.

Mr Obama said a $6 billion increase in NASA's budget will help ramp up exploration of the solar system, increase Earth-based observation to improve an understanding of climate change, and bolster support for private space companies which he said have formed a bedrock of America's space programs.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7595810/Barack-Obama-we-will-reach-Mars-in-my-lifetime.html

[IconOfEvi]

Rockets will henceforth, instead of running on solid fuel, now run on hope and change

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/04/mr-obama-pitches-for-asteroids.shtml

[xav]

Aldrin was critical of the Constellation program long before Obama came along.

And he wants to go see that monolith on Phobos...


Seriously, 6 Billions is good for Brevard county and the Space coast area, as some say it will turn the " I 4 corridor into the silicon valley of space".

However nobody is fooled. It will take time to create those new R & D private jobs... and in the meantime there are only 3 shuttle fligts left, and by the end of the year, guess what's gonna hapen to a lot of shuttles employees around KSC and jobs depending on these jobs.

[BlackWarder]

Obama speach


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rNn_cUrlmE

Norman Augustine:


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=OTotzOtUANw&feature=channel

Thoughts to follow...

Warder

[JKD]

However nobody is fooled. It will take time to create those new R & D private jobs... and in the meantime there are only 3 shuttle fligts left, and by the end of the year, guess what's gonna hapen to a lot of shuttles employees around KSC and jobs depending on these jobs.

Best of luck to them. But it shouldn't come as a surprise. The Shuttles' retirement has been scheduled since 2004.

[Wimbly]

Its hilarious how Obama's original anti-manned space flight position has morphed in to "we're going to mars!" by evening yesterday.

[JKD]

Its hilarious how Obama's original anti-manned space flight position

When did he ever take that position?

[Irbis]

And you know what the most ironic thing is? For the monies thrown through the window on Iraqi/Afghani wars, USA could have build at least 10 space elevator-like projects, cutting costs of space exploration dramatically (and also dramatically increasing their military hegemony through easy militarization of space). This amount of money was also 20 times greater than cost of establishing base on the Moon, or flying to Mars (with yet another wasted possibility, that is, using them Moon in some way, maybe as source of Hel-3). Both would also increase economical and technological strength.

Instead, we got 7.000 soldiers dead, tens of thousands of heavily wounded ones, a few thousand vehicles destroyed, not to mention two destabilized countries along with a few hundred thousands of victims here. Geee, where were critics of cash spending then? I'm not saying the wars were bad per se, but about 60% of 1.800 bln $ spent so far were throughly wasted on useless stuff and mismanagement, making the critics above... hypocritical, to say the least.

[BlackWarder]

Its hilarious how Obama's original anti-manned space flight position has morphed in to "we're going to mars!" by evening yesterday.

It's hilarious how people had no concept of the original budget plane and saw the cancellation of Constellation as the first step in killing maned space flight...

Fact is, Constellation was over budget, behind schedule and the final product would have been something that we could have been built 40 years ago, it would had costs 1.5 billion per flight to the space shuttle 1 billion while carrying half the crew and non of the cargo the space shuttle could, in short it was a bad plan.

The shuttle have entered it's twilight days before Obama was elected, extending shuttle flights is not an option due to several reasons the main one is that reopening the manufacturing lines will take too much time, but relying on a bad architecture to future space flights is even worse. NASA need to find what tools we need to help us get outside of the earth-moon system into deep space and then it need get the needed technology, build said tools and blast off into deep space, leave LEO, MEO and GEO to the commercial sector, NASA role souled be that of technology developer and path blazer.

Warder

[BlackWarder]

And you know what the most ironic thing is? For the monies thrown through the window on Iraqi/Afghani wars, USA could have build at least 10 space elevator-like projects, cutting costs of space exploration dramatically (and also dramatically increasing their military hegemony through easy militarization of space). This amount of money was also 20 times greater than cost of establishing base on the Moon, or flying to Mars (with yet another wasted possibility, that is, using them Moon in some way, maybe as source of Hel-3). Both would also increase economical and technological strength.


Non of it is technically feasible most of it is 10-50 years away...

Warder

[Wimbly]

When did he ever take that position?

Its been his position since before the election.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/02/16/obama-human-spaceflight-not-necessarily-the-best-investment/


“I intend to pursue an ambitious agenda in both space exploration and earth sciences,” Clinton said. “I want to support the next generation of spacecraft for a robust human spaceflight program.”


Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.


But, he said, the next president needs to have “a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201359.html

The question of future manned space exploration took on greater prominence this week when Sen. Barack Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/) (D-Ill.) made clear that he is not enamored with NASA's effort to build a new spacecraft to take astronauts to the moon and beyond.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/08/obama-orders-a-review-of-nasas-human-space-flight-program/

While NASA (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/tag/NASA/)’s central mission is the same as it always was–to send astronauts up, up, and away!–the details of how it will send bold explorers into the space frontier are suddenly, well, up in the air. After months of signaling displeasure with NASA’s operations, the Obama administration has ordered a 90-day review of the human space flight program. In a letter to NASA Acting Administrator Christopher Scolese, the president’s science adviser, John Holdren, wrote that “it would be only prudent” to review NASA’s human space flight program given the magnitude of its ambitions and “the significant investment of both funds and scientific capital”

Like Armstrong said in his letter to Obama, this new path takes us away from manned space flight. Since Obama's plan was generating all kinds of negative press, he started talking up things like mars missions and of course the media was right there to facilitate it. I don't beleive for a second that Obama is interested in manned space flight.

[MN_Air]

And why should he? I'm not sure that you understand. Manned space flight as of right now is an absolute joke. The only reason people want manned missions still, is to have bigger balls than the other countries. Well when we are sending more advanced probes to the outer planets, and to the inner ones alike with the money saved from the black hole that was the constellation program, we will have advanced the knowledge of the universe far more than what a manned mission to even the moon could do.

[JKD]

Its been his position since before the election.


But it's not always the best investment. For many things, robots can do it cheaper and faster. It doesn't mean there's no role for man in space.

His budget has always included billions for developing private sector rockets to....send man into space. And a heavy lift rocket to help send man into deep space. Yesterday he just laid out some destinations is all.

[JKD]

Its been his position since before the election.

The question of future manned space exploration took on greater prominence this week when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made clear that he is not enamored with NASA's effort to build a new spacecraft to take astronauts to the moon and beyond.
^That's in reference to the Constellation program.

[Wimbly]

But it's not always the best investment. For many things, robots can do it cheaper and faster. It doesn't mean there's no role for man in space.

His budget has always included billions for developing private sector rockets to....send man into space. And a heavy lift rocket to help send man into deep space. Yesterday he just laid out some destinations is all.

So, why is Armstrong worried then? Why did Obama change his message between the letter and his appearance on TV? Are you saying Armstrong doesn't know what hes talking about?


And why should he? I'm not sure that you understand.

This isn't about me. Its about what great minds like Neil Armstrong (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591082,00.html) and Neil Tyson (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270038/april-08-2010/neil-degrasse-tyson) are saying. Are you saying they don't understand?

[BlackWarder]

@Wimbly non of the quotes you gave clearly demonstrate that Obama was against manned space flight , the most you can say is that he was against manned space flight as it currently was/is and I heartily agree with that sentiment. Think about it after reaching the moon in less than 10 years we found ourselves "playing" for 40 years in LEO and now we try to recreate past glory instead of suppressing it.

I was never a fan of Constellation, I thought that technically it was a step backward rather than a step forward, I think that in focusing NASA goals on exploring deep space we will see great things in the next couple of decades.

Warder

[MN_Air]

I've never said manned space missions were a joke. What I did say was that manned space flight with current technology is a joke. Have you seen the constellation program? It is an absolute joke. I am all for manned space flight, but not until NASA or the private sector can come up with a more efficient way of sending humans into space. Until then it isn't worth the money to build a giant V2 rocket.

[JKD]

So, why is Armstrong worried then?
Because he has a different opinion. People have different opinions on things. It happens. It's life.


Why did Obama change his message between the letter and his appearance on TV?
Probably a mixture of having had months to refine his proposal and politics. Heavy on the latter I would think.


Are you saying Armstrong doesn't know what hes talking about?
Are you saying Buzz Aldrin doesn't know what he's talking about? My astronaut is better than your astronaut? *facepalm.* Again, people have different opinions. Some people, including astronauts disagree with this plan. Other people, including astronauts, do agree with it.

[Wimbly]

Are you saying Buzz Aldrin doesn't know what he's talking about? My astronaut is better than your astronaut? *facepalm.* Again, people have different opinions. Some people, including astronauts disagree with this plan. Other people, including astronauts, do agree with it.

Well, Aldrin was wooed on Air Force One (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/buzz.aldrin.obama/) from what I've read. I'm sure he he was convinced that maned space travel wasn't going to be axed, to get his temporary endorsement. I guess we'll see.

Believe me when I say my fear of whats happening to NASA here is based solely on my genuine love for outer space. Its got noting to do with my dislike of Obama. I think the same goes for Armstrong and everyone else who is worried.

[JKD]

Well, Aldrin was wooed on Air Force One (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/buzz.aldrin.obama/) from what I've read. I'm sure he he was convinced that maned space travel wasn't going to be axed, to get his temporary endorsement. I guess we'll see.
Aldrin was critical of Constellation from the beginning and he was in favor of private sector rockets since at least last summer when he wrote this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4322647?page=1
"NASA should also step up its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to subsidize private rockets like the SpaceX Falcon 9, which could make its first flight any time now. SpaceX is also developing the Dragon capsule to fly seven astronauts to the space station."

I doubt the administration had to do much wooing to get an endorsement since he more or less already had similar ideas.


Believe me when I say my fear of whats happening to NASA here is based solely on my genuine love for outer space. Its got noting to do with my dislike of Obama. I think the same goes for Armstrong and everyone else who is worried.
My love of space is why I'm exited about it. It gets NASA out of the taxi business and back into the exploration business. And it kicks open the door for the private sector.

[BlackWarder]

Armstrong Lovel and Cernan main objection was the lack of US manned space launch capabilities in the comming years, but lets face it, at the current pace the soonest for maned launch with Ares was around 2017.

No matter what you do right now there is going to be a gap in launch capabilities, so way continue in a dead end road that will yield a machine less capable than the last one?

Warder

[Wimbly]

My love of space is why I'm exited about it. It gets NASA out of the taxi business and back into the exploration business. And it kicks open the door for the private sector.

Where are you getting this information? How is building escape pods for the space station and hitching rides with the Russians getting "back in to exploration"?

[Bia]

Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan... three of the most amazing humans alive.

Class acts... ideal Americans... my heros.

All of the others too... Gemini, Mecury and Apollo astronauts... tons of pride.

[JKD]

Where are you getting this information? How is building escape pods for the space station and hitching rides with the Russians getting "back in to exploration"?
Going to asteroids, going to mars, etc. It's what the heavy lifter is for. And there will be more robotic missions.

We'll be hitching rides with the Russians for a while even if Constellation doesn't get cancelled.

Keeping Orion around works since it's already funded under the previous budget.

[seraosha]

Screw Mars.

Go to the Moon, then the asteroid belt...use unmanned robotic landers and build what we need as cheaply as possible, as quickly as we can, and get some of our eggs out of this basket.
Hell, the Legrange points are excellent ideas for stations...and all the free energy we need, there for the harvesting in our van allen belts.

NASA needs to trim the fat, lose the "egghead" mentality and get back to being mechanics with engineering and aerospace degrees...Uncle Sugar isn't going to be there forever.

[tea drinker]

Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan... three of the most amazing humans alive.

Class acts... ideal Americans... my heros.

All of the others too... Gemini, Mecury and Apollo astronauts... tons of pride.

US has gone from "Can do" and "Made in USA" to "Cannot do" and "Outsourced in USA"
Kennedy: We will go to the moon!
Obama : We will NOT go to the moon!

It's sad to contrast those inspirational times to the mediocrity we live in now. No problem if you are too big to fail to get a few hundred billion dollars eh?
AF Tanker bid? - forget about it, just a small distraction, an absolute irrelevance compared to this.

These cancellations are dangerous for USA, possibly leading to skills shortages and knowledge gaps, which decrease her long term security.
Here's hoping you get back on track.

[danielc]

Projects that seem to have good value:

- Orbital space station
- Space elevator
- Moon base
- Unmanned exploration probes and vehicles
- Scramjets

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

What we need is a viable SSO vehicle to replace the shuttle, not massive rockets where nothing is re-useable.

[MN_Air]

I would like you all to think about where the material will be coming from to build a moon base. You can have all the rovers you want placing the re-bar. But the re-bar has to come from earth. That is where the expense is.

[seraosha]

I would like you all to think about where the material will be coming from to build a moon base. You can have all the rovers you want placing the re-bar. But the re-bar has to come from earth. That is where the expense is.

Not if it's constructed from carbon molecules by nanoforges, harvested from the regolith along with H3.
Rebar? In 1/16 Earth gravity? Inflatable shelters with aerogel sprayed on the outside with foil solar cells to crack the hydrogen from the ice.

[plato]

We must be strong at home in order to be strong abroad. Same is true for space explorations. Deal with the problems at home first, and only then can we be strong in space. Maybe it is time to practice some of that "capitalism" we have been hearing about in the space industry. Going to the moon is so 1960's, aren't we in 2010, now? BTW, didn't it cost 5% of our GDP to go to the moon? How much cheaper would it be this time around?

[seraosha]

Maybe it is time to practice some of that "capitalism" we have been hearing about in the space industry.

Absolutely, because a financial return is the greatest way to get investors, especially our current crop of innovators like Virgin.
Enlightened Self Interest in action, I'm all for it.

Be sure to keep a tally of all the starving kids that don't get a rice bowl so we can finance our species survival, hmmkay?

[Wimbly]

We must be strong at home in order to be strong abroad. Same is true for space explorations. Deal with the problems at home first, and only then can we be strong in space. ?

The two go hand in hand. You will never fix all the problems we have here on earth, especially if we slow down or stop our pursuits in space. The things we will accomplish and discover in space will be part of Earth's problem solving process.

[Jobu]

Aldrin was critical of Constellation from the beginning and he was in favor of private sector rockets since at least last summer when he wrote this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4322647?page=1
"NASA should also step up its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to subsidize private rockets like the SpaceX Falcon 9, which could make its first flight any time now. SpaceX is also developing the Dragon capsule to fly seven astronauts to the space station.".



Buzz Aldrin also just happens to have a company which could benefit greatly from government subsidy of private rockets.

[plato]

The two go hand in hand. You will never fix all the problems we have here on earth, especially if we slow down or stop our pursuits in space. The things we will accomplish and discover in space will be part of Earth's problem solving process.

Let me get this clear to you. We are NOT slowing down, and we are definitely NOT stopping! Slow and fast are relative terms! How can you say we are slowing down when we are moving faster forward than all the other major players in space? YES! faster than Russia, China and EU. The only thing different is that it is Obama in the white house, that is it. You don't like the guy, and therefore everything he does will be a problem for you. That is it! If Obama went ahead with going to the moon, then you guys will sure attack him for something like "why! why! we have already been there, what about mars? etc....". There will always be different options, and I am not sure if he picked the best option. But ONE thing for sure, WE ARE NOT slowing down or STOPPING!

[BlackFlag]

I've always been a fan of Mars Direct. I'm not upset if we bypass the Moon and go to The Red Planet instead.

[seraosha]

Let me get this clear to you. We are NOT slowing down, and we are definitely NOT stopping! Slow and fast are relative terms! How can you say we are slowing down when we are moving faster forward than all the other major players in space? YES! faster than Russia, China and EU. The only thing different is that it is Obama in the white house, that is it. You don't like the guy, and therefore everything he does will be a problem for you. That is it!

You know, if you keep getting your panties so bunched up, it's even harder to take what you post seriously than usual.

[Jobu]

Let me get this clear to you. We are NOT slowing down, and we are definitely NOT stopping! Slow and fast are relative terms! How can you say we are slowing down when we are moving faster forward than all the other major players in space? YES! faster than Russia, China and EU. The only thing different is that it is Obama in the white house, that is it. You don't like the guy, and therefore everything he does will be a problem for you. That is it!

Actually, this decision marks the end of America's manned spaceflight program. We'll be relying on the Russians for next 5-10 years until we can then rely on some private company (we hope.)
It's an enormous change for NASA and for America and in many opinions including those of Armstrong, Cernan, and Lovell, not a good one. I hope Romney, or whoever beats Obama in 2012, restarts the program immediately. We'll have already lost 4 years.

[plato]

Actually, this decision marks the end of America's manned spaceflight program. We'll be relying on the Russians for next 5-10 years until we can then rely on some private company (we hope.)
It's an enormous change for NASA and for America and in many opinions including those of Armstrong, Cernan, and Lovell, not a good one. I hope Romney, or whoever beats Obama in 2012, restarts the program immediately. We'll have already lost 4 years.

The end of America's CURRENT manned spaceflight program did not happen overnight, and 4 years will not be lost. It will force us to come up with a better manned spaceflight program. While we are doing this I don't see the Russians doing anything new to their manned spaceflight program, so how do we lose 4 years when we are going forward and the Russians stay the same? Well, of course the Russians can also change their ways, and try to do something new. I think we should welcome that, just more incentives for us to work harder.


You know, if you keep getting your panties so bunched up, it's even harder to take what you post seriously than usual.

whether you take my posts seriously or not is seriously not my concern.

[JKD]

Obama's asteroid goal: tougher, riskier than moon

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 4 hours ago


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Landing a man on the moon was a towering achievement. Now the president has given NASA an even harder job, one with a certain Hollywood quality: sending astronauts to an asteroid, a giant speeding rock, just 15 years from now.

Space experts say such a voyage could take several months longer than a journey to the moon and entail far greater dangers.

"It is really the hardest thing we can do," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said.

Going to an asteroid could provide vital training for an eventual mission to Mars. It might help unlock the secrets of how our solar system formed. And it could give mankind the know-how to do something that has been accomplished only in the movies by a few square-jawed, squinty-eyed heroes: saving the Earth from a collision with a killer asteroid.

"You could be saving humankind. That's worthy, isn't it?" said Bill Nye, TV's Science Guy and vice president of the Planetary Society.

President Barack Obama outlined NASA's new path during a visit to the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday.

"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space," he said. "We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history."

On the day the president announced the goal, a NASA task force of scientists, engineers and ex-astronauts was meeting in Boston to work on a plan to protect Earth from a cataclysmic collision with an asteroid or a comet.

NASA has tracked nearly 7,000 near-Earth objects that are bigger than several feet across. Of those, 1,111 are "potentially hazardous asteroids." Objects bigger than two-thirds of a mile are major killers and hit Earth every several hundred thousand years. Scientists believe it was a 6-mile-wide asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Landing on an asteroid and giving it a well-timed nudge "would demonstrate once and for all that we're smarter than the dinosaurs and can avoid what they didn't," said White House science adviser John Holdren.

Experts don't have a particular asteroid in mind for the deep-space voyage, but there are a few dozen top candidates, most of which pass within about 5 million miles of Earth. That is 20 times more distant than the moon, which is about 239,000 miles from Earth on average.

Most of the top asteroid candidates are less than a quarter-mile across. The moon is about 2,160 miles in diameter.

Going to an asteroid could provide clues about the solar system's formation, because asteroids are essentially fossils from 4.6 billion years ago, when planets first formed, said Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near Earth Object program at the Jet Propulsion Lab.

And an asteroid mission would be a Mars training ground, given the distance and alien locale.

"If humans can't make it to near-Earth objects, they can't make it to Mars," said MIT astronautics professor Ed Crawley.

Also, asteroids contain such substances as hydrogen, carbon, iron and platinum, which could be used by astronauts to make fuel and equipment — skills that would also be necessary on a visit to Mars.

While Apollo 11 took eight days to go to the moon and back in 1969, a typical round-trip mission to a near-Earth asteroid would last about 200 days, Crawley said. That would demand new propulsion and life-support technology. And it would be riskier. Aborting a mission in an emergency would still leave people stuck in space for several weeks.

The space agency may need to develop special living quarters, radiation shields or other new technology to allow astronauts to live in deep space so long, said NASA chief technology officer Bobby Braun.

Even though an asteroid would be farther than the moon, the voyage would use less fuel and be cheaper because an asteroid has no gravity. The rocket that carries the astronauts home would not have to expend fuel to escape the asteroid's pull.

On the other hand, because of the lack of gravity, a spaceship could not safely land on an asteroid; it would bounce off the surface. Instead, it would have to hover next to the asteroid, and the astronauts would have to spacewalk down to the ground, Yeomans said.

Once there, they would need some combination of jet packs, spikes or nets to enable them to walk without skittering off the asteroid and floating away, he said.

"You would need some way to hold yourself down," Yeomans said. "You'd launch yourself into space every time you took a step."

Just being there could be extremely disorienting, said planetary scientist Tom Jones, co-chairman of the NASA task force on protecting Earth from dangerous objects. The rock would be so small that the sun would spin across the sky and the horizon would only be a few yards long. At 5 million miles away, the Earth would look like a mere BB in the sky.

"It's going to be a strange alien environment being on an asteroid," Jones said.
But Jones, a former astronaut, said that wouldn't stop astronauts from angling to be a part of such a mission: "You'll have plenty of people excited about exploring an ancient and alien world."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvDhvPm9l5fHqiHIU5uc6Gpzs-MAD9F4C2NG0

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

We must be strong at home in order to be strong abroad. Same is true for space explorations. Deal with the problems at home first, and only then can we be strong in space.

We're never going to solve the problems of poverty, hunger, crime etc. So why let them hold humanity back?

[plato]

Megaraptor;4893236']We're never going to solve the problems of poverty, hunger, crime etc. So why let them hold humanity back?

I am sorry, I really don't think those are our biggest problems. Do we have those problems in US? Yes, we do. But, the economy is the underlying problem for all the problems you just mentioned. How is making America strong at home holding the humanity back? Aren't we not going forward with new and bigger things in space exploration?

[Alex G]

The end of America's CURRENT manned spaceflight program did not happen overnight, and 4 years will not be lost. It will force us to come up with a better manned spaceflight program. While we are doing this I don't see the Russians doing anything new to their manned spaceflight program, so how do we lose 4 years when we are going forward and the Russians stay the same? Well, of course the Russians can also change their ways, and try to do something new. I think we should welcome that, just more incentives for us to work harder.


.

Well, actually Russians do have their own space program, they arent standing still but are developing new spacecrafts. You should know, that in 4 years there cannot be anything new - it needs time. But they are doing their job.

[plato]

Well, actually Russians do have their own space program, they arent standing still but are developing new spacecrafts. You should know, that in 4 years there cannot be anything new - it needs time. But they are doing their job.

Really! They do? That is news. Do you really have to point out the obvious?

[Alex G]

Really! They do? That is news. Do you really have to point out the obvious?

Russia is developing a lot of new projects including manned and unmanned spacecrafts, rockets to start them and new space station. Some of projects are still in early phase, while other are already farther.

[themacedonian]

I don't see how an asteroid mission is a training ground for Mars.

Mars would be endurance and sustainability mission.

USA needs transport to space to sustain its missions. Face it if one wants to be a naval power one needs a ship.

USA needs its own Sojuz. A truck to space.

[plato]

Russia is developing a lot of new projects including manned and unmanned spacecrafts, rockets to start them and new space station. Some of projects are still in early phase, while other are already farther.

good! like I said, that should be welcomed.

[JKD]

I don't see how an asteroid mission is a training ground for Mars.

Mars would be endurance and sustainability mission.
A mission to an asteroid, while not as for as Mars, would still take months. If you can't keep a crew alive to and from an asteroid you can't keep them alive through a Mars mission.


USA needs transport to space to sustain its missions. Face it if one wants to be a naval power one needs a ship.

Think of orbit as the harbor not the earth

[Mastermind]

A prolonged moon mission with people is necessary before ever attempting Mars. A permanent moon base is certainly necessary. So far, every attempt we have made on Earth to test a permanent sealed base has failed miserably. We just do not have the knowledge to construct a permanent, self sustaining base. I thought the experience we have with nuclear submarines would be an advantage....But, those missions survive because of the massive amounts of surplus energy on board...not available in a space mission without an on-board nuclear power plant...and that is not in the books of the Green-NASA organization...not now, not ever.

So, I say forget about a manned moon base and a manned Mars base. Too expensive and way too impractical for the foreseeable future. I do not expect human beings will be basing on Mars until early in the next century...if then. There is nothing Humans will be able to do there better than machines. The risk is just not worth the present knowledge of potential reward. Now, if they suddenly found "Mars Diamonds" by the bushel full...that's taking all bets off the table. We could be there by Christmas, 2015.

[JKD]

.But, those missions survive because of the massive amounts of surplus energy on board...not available in a space mission without an on-board nuclear power plant...and that is not in the books of the Green-NASA organization...not now, not ever.


NASA's used nuclear power in a number of unmanned spacecraft like Galileo, New Horizons, the Voyager probes, and others. The main problem they're running into now is that plutonium is in short supply.

[Thom]

If you want a sensible long term space program then there is one glaringly obvious path that you should take. Mining NEOs. A medium sized NEO contains more mineral wealth than has been mined in the history of man, and there are millions of them, billions even.

It will require ALOT of money to set up the required infrastructure in space to mine an NEO and manufacturing facilities in space, but once that is done then you really have so much opportunity. When you have fuel producing facilities in space, spacecraft producing facilities (remember no need for them to launch from the bottom of a gravity well in an atmosphere, then you have an incredible ability to explore the solar system beyond anything possible now.

If you really wanted you could also de-orbit rare metals back to earth relatively easily, but they'd probably be worth more in space.

Once that stuff is done then we really have space cracked and it's just a matter of time for expansion and amazing amounts of missions to further science and human experience. After all that is done then you can piss about around in the bottom of gravity wells all you like.


It's all possible now, it's just needs the funding, o'neills high frontier details many possibilities, and that's a book from the 70s! Anyway it's great news about going to a NEO and i'm rather excited about it.

[Mastermind]

Both above...good points. But, the kind of nuclear power I am thinking permanent presence in space would require much more than the small 14 kw plutonium cells NASA and others have put up. Now, we are probably talking in terms of megawatts. Water would have to be cracked to make O2 and convert waste water. Also, metal working in space would be an almost necessity...thus power to weld and fabricate structures. Also, power to supply proper environments of green house units for food. So far, only lager nuclear power plants can achieve that kind of power in space on the long term. I disagree with the shortage of plutonium mainly due to the excess of nuclear weapons available...weapons Obama is eager to do away with.

I must agree with the concepts presented for long term occupation of space and near planets. Yes...there is a wealth to be had. That wealth is probably in huge excess of the cost of obtaining it and returning it to earth or even (so sensibly) using it right there in space. However, it probably will take decades before investors are confident enough in the new space tech to create proper sized coorporation to go out there on the first venture try.

When I think of private "Space Investment" I think of the investment effort in the first true ocean going steam vessels...particularly the Great Eastern. That effort failed financially...but, provided the knowledge and experience to push the technology to a point investors were finally confident in steam ship endeavors. No one wants to be the first, since there is great risk. But, the reward potential is growing every day, and will eventually present enough motivation to get things going on a grand scale.

[dc_b4.mc]

The economics professors selected by the Change would say, these costs are sunk costs - -

Pretty much he just wants to divert money to fix the budget holes left by his social agenda

Such projects need long term investment. Their benefits are in the long term, too. Except voters are short term

[wigon]

Guys, the manned Mars mission is a fools errand. Why do people forget the simple fact that Mars has something called GRAVITY and LOTS of it???? Getting humans on to the face of Mars would be the easy part. Getting them OFF of Mars would essentially require landing an entire Earth type launch system and rocket. It would be an endeavor of insane proportions taking into account the vast armada of ships required for backup systems, logistics, etc... One tiny screw up and all the guys landing would be stuck on Mars. In essence it would be a suicide mission. A large more sustainable colony on the moon would be more practical then trying to drop launch vehicles, fuel, food, housing, and launch facilities onto the face of Mars without anything getting dammaged. Hell we get all happy if we successfully manage to land some little rovers let alone anything on that scale.

As for Obama's "vision" I agree it's short-sighted. However I think we're looking at things all wrong. We can't compete economically against Russia, China, and India's space programs. They do it cheaper. Hence the reason for the competitions for private companies to build low-cost vehicles that can enter space. Technology is our big advantage and that is what hopefully will be developed. The alternative is to fire all non-essential NASA employees and replace them with Indian aerospace engineers who will work for 25% of what the American workers are paid. The same would work with our healthcare industry. Shocking yes, but that's pure free-trade capitalism where not only capital has freedom of movement but so does labor. If Americans don't want to work for less benefits and way less money, then tough luck...they can go work other jobs. That's REAL freedom. Economic freedom and choice. If America truly believes in capitalism, why would something like that be unacceptable? We do afterall bring in thousands of Indian hi-tech workers every year in many other technology fields already. Market economics would then even the playing field forcing Russia to do the same if they wanted to compete. The main obstacle would be to pass laws bypassing labor union's efforts to stop true capitalism. But I doubt socialist luv'n Obama would ever do this.

[JKD]

Guys, the manned Mars mission is a fools errand. Why do people forget the simple fact that Mars has something called GRAVITY and LOTS of it???? Getting humans on to the face of Mars would be the easy part. Getting them OFF of Mars would essentially require landing an entire Earth type launch system and rocket. It would be an endeavor of insane proportions taking into account the vast armada of ships required for backup systems, logistics, etc... One tiny screw up and all the guys landing would be stuck on Mars. In essence it would be a suicide mission. A large more sustainable colony on the moon would be more practical then trying to drop launch vehicles, fuel, food, housing, and launch facilities onto the face of Mars without anything getting dammaged. Hell we get all happy if we successfully manage to land some little rovers let alone anything on that scale.


Escape velocity on Mars is about twice that of the Moon but less than half that of Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#List_of_escape_velocities
Landing could be more difficult. You'd have a larger heavier craft than what carried the rovers and you're not going to get much help from the thin atmosphere. I'm sure lots of very smart people have looked at the problem over the last few decades

[wigon]

Escape velocity on Mars is about twice that of the Moon but less than half that of Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#List_of_escape_velocities
Landing could be more difficult. You'd have a larger heavier craft than what carried the rovers and you're not going to get much help from the thin atmosphere. I'm sure lots of very smart people have looked at the problem over the last few decades

Even so, I've never seen NASA or anyone else explain how getting men off of Mars would be accomplished. I think they're more interested in getting the public excited so that they can get more tax-dollars thats all. More useful would be unmanned probes devoted to testing terraforming concepts on Mars. Mankinds only hope is getting off this rock before we destroy ourselves. Simply landing men on Mars and getting them off would be a waste of resources if a plan is not in place to actually terraform the planet to make it more sustainable for life. -

[dava]

MAking Mars suitable for life is one thing, sustaining life and a stable biosphere is another.
The Biosphere experiments showed that the latter is not an easy thing, it even failed here on earth.

[IconOfEvi]

I would wish we started terraforming Mars. It'll take a long long time, sooner the better.

Also, relatedly, Alan Bean is a damn good artist

http://www.alanbeangallery.com/collection.html

Also, as much as I don't like wanting to believe Rich Hoagland about the stuff he says, and Im quite sure he's false on some counts, when it comes to observing photographs, he is a master at that.

So who knows, maybe we'll have announcement of life this term. Who knows.

[Alex G]

Well, at least NASA is going to send a humanoid robot with next shuttle to ISS.

[BlackWarder]

Well, at least NASA is going to send a humanoid robot with next shuttle to ISS.
Woot???

warder

[BlackWarder]

Even so, I've never seen NASA or anyone else explain how getting men off of Mars would be accomplished. I think they're more interested in getting the public excited so that they can get more tax-dollars thats all. More useful would be unmanned probes devoted to testing terraforming concepts on Mars. Mankinds only hope is getting off this rock before we destroy ourselves. Simply landing men on Mars and getting them off would be a waste of resources if a plan is not in place to actually terraform the planet to make it more sustainable for life. -

Just like they gotten them off the moon only bigger...

Warder

[JKD]

Human spaceflight: diversify the portfolio

by S. Alan Stern
Monday, April 19, 2010


The American people expect big things from our nation’s human space flight enterprise.

Tragically, however, for the past 20+ years, our country’s civil human spaceflight effort hasn’t been able to deliver big things, such as historic exploration milestones at far away destinations, or advancing the cause of easy human access to near-space locales.

Instead, human spaceflight in the United States has struggled just to keep its sole domestic transportation system, the Space Shuttle, flying a few times per year, and to complete the assembly of its sole destination—the International Space Station. And new programs, with names like Orient Express, SEI, Orbital Space Plane, and now Orion/Ares, in every case became politically or fiscally unsustainable, yielding only hallucinations for space exploration, rather than the real thing. This is something we must change if the United States is to lead in space.

One common characteristic of human spaceflight efforts in the US is that they have consistently revolved around a monolithic architecture-destination combination that required the efforts of many tens of thousands of individuals and virtually the entirety of NASA’s human spaceflight development budget.

By contrast, in NASA’s science program, which I formerly directed, dozens and dozens of concurrent space flight projects are always in development, from brief suborbital missions, to small Earth orbiters, to small, medium, and large-scale planetary missions, to vast multi-billion dollar efforts like Hubble and the James Webb Space Telescope that require thousands of individuals to develop.

The diversity of NASA’s science mission portfolio is one of its great strengths, for no single mission, no individual development, no single charge number, and no single launch risks the fate of the entire program. After all, it’s no secret that if you only own one stock, you probably deserve what you get.

This diversity of science mission efforts, just like the diversity in other forms of aerospace development—from airliners to missiles to combat aircraft to transports—is a trait that civil human spaceflight could well benefit from.

Fortunately in the Obama Administration’s vision for NASA, we already see the seeds of a diversified portfolio for human spaceflight. In its fiscal year 2011 NASA budget request, the administration requests funds to use multiple human-carrying suborbital vehicle designs to conduct research and education missions, and to initiate two separate new human-carrying systems to transport crew to the International Space Station.

Multi-****ged of this sort efforts promote competition, drive innovation and design diversity, and give the government valuable cost control options that monolithic (single-legged) transportation access does not. Multiple efforts also provide a kind of robustness in the event of accidents that domestic human spaceflight has never before enjoyed.

The Administration is to be commended for this fresh and promising approach, and Congress should endorse it in the authorizations and appropriation processes. Could that same approach be further extended, to help us again realize human exploration of the solar system?

There are no laws of man or physics that require human exploration systems to cost tens of billions of dollars and take multiple decades to field. Indeed, there is now ample empirical evidence that old-style, Apollo-like development practices today produce more commotion than forward motion, and have only stymied the pace and achievement of human space exploration.

What we need now is more than just a flexible path. We need parallel paths.

To be more specific, we need a suite of lean human space exploration system development efforts, each perhaps fielded by different NASA centers, in analogy to how we implement robotic spaceflight. These new human exploration efforts should be aimed at putting in place simultaneous lunar and asteroid exploration, high earth orbit and Lagrange point servicing, and perhaps the first forays to the planets.

Of key importance to successfully exploiting this approach will be the recognition that these new systems—developed in most cases via non-traditional “NewSpace” economic practices—cost pennies to dimes on the dollar compared to the old-style “so big they always fail” human spaceflight efforts. This is how Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites invented and fielded a fledgling human spaceflight capability for many times less than NASA expended on Space Shuttle brakes alone.

Lowering costs through true competition and the realization that projects can be cancelled is fundamental: for it is only the combination of a multiplicity of efforts and breakthrough price points that makes a diversified human spaceflight portfolio viable.

So let’s incent industry to produce safe systems for human exploration inexpensive enough for NASA to afford multiple parallel efforts. And let’s ask how, more than 40 years after Apollo—as far in Apollo’s future as Charles Lindbergh was in its past—American ingenuity can produce a lunar return by Americans for a development cost of $3–5 billion, a high orbit satellite servicing capability for still less, and a first mission to a near Earth asteroid that costs no more than ten times what a decade-long robotic mission to Pluto does—say for $7–8 billion.

Yes, the developments that result may be limited in their capability compared to what $100-billion development efforts might promise, but expensive, monolithic development efforts have been singularly unproductive in delivering any actual exploration.

It is time to reinvent human space exploration, to make it simultaneously affordable, sustainable, exciting, and robust. It may be hard, but it is time to find a new way forward that can serve the future, rather than the past.

So let’s diversify our human spaceflight portfolio in the United States, let’s reinvent how we do things, let’s turn some heads, and let’s make history and lead again, and again, and again.


Alan Stern is an aerospace consultant and NASA’s former Associate Administrator in charge of Science. He is the chair of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s Suborbital Applications Researchers Group.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1609/1

[xav]

Figures. Obama’s NASA Speech Completely Staged – No NASA Employees Allowed to Attend
Obama traveled to Florida to speak to NASA. Except that he didn’t. NASA employees were not allowed to attend the speech. This only became known after it was leaked out during a live segment on MSNBC by Jay Barbree — the longtime NBC science correspondent.
Via Doug Ross:

BARBREE: …I’m a little disturbed right now, Alex. I just found out some very disturbing news. The President came down here in his campaign and told these 15,000 workers here at the Space Center that if they would vote for him, that he would protect their jobs. 9,000 of them are about to lose their job. He is speaking before 200, extra hundred people here today only. It’s invitation only. He has not invited a single space worker from this space port to attend. It’s only academics and other high officials from outside of the country. Not one of them is invited to hear the President of the United States, on their own space port, speak today. Back to you Alex.

Of course, this surprises no one.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/obamas-nasa-speech-completely-staged-no-nasa-employees-allowed-to-attend/

[JKD]

A politician gave a nationally televised policy speech in a controlled setting? Shocking. Only a Obama would do such a thing.

[xav]

A politician gave a nationally televised policy speech in a controlled setting? Shocking. Only a Obama would do such a thing.

We were promised a "Space Summit" and all we got was this lousy "nationally televised policy speech in a controlled setting" p-)

[JKD]

We were promised a "Space Summit" and all we got was this lousy "nationally televised policy speech in a controlled setting" p-)


President Barack Obama's space summit at Kennedy Space Center will include four panel discussions aimed at helping chart a new course for NASA in the 21st century.



The panel discussions, happening simultaneously, will follow the president's speech and will be streamed live at floridatoday.com and nasa.gov. Members of the four groups will meet with reporters at the conclusion of the summit to discuss their findings and recommendations. The panel topics include:

# Increasing access to and utilization of the International Space Station.

Panel members will discuss the prospect of the United States having multiple means of ferrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station, as well as expanded research opportunities that will be available as a result of extending outpost operations through 2020.

# Jump-starting new technologies.

Panel members will discuss the development and demonstration of critical space technologies required to reduce the cost of space operations while enabling missions within and beyond low Earth orbit. NASA wants to jump-start demonstration flight tests in areas such as orbital refueling and propellant storage, lightweight inflatable habitation and research modules and autonomous rendezvous and docking capabilities.

# Expanding our reach into the solar system.

Panelists will discuss robotic precursor missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies that will increase the safety and capability of human expeditions while providing scientific dividends. Human expeditions would target a variety of destinations -- from asteroids and the moon, as well as the moons of Mars and that planet itself.

# Harnessing space to expand economic opportunity.

The launch of cargo and astronaut crews to the International Space Station through 2020 is expected to create a new commercial market in low Earth orbit that would spawn job creation on Earth. Panel members will discuss that market as well as others that could enable future human expeditions beyond Earth orbit, such as the creation of orbital fueling and propellant storage depots.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/obamas-space-summit-schedule-what-will-happen-today-567554.html

[MichaelF]

I hope John Shannon and the STS team get a fair shake at pushing the SDHLLV ("Shuttle Sidemount"). That seems to be the Heavy Lift system with the best chance of running the gauntlet.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle