Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Obama essentially kills space program
That's Just Not Right! > KVL's Smart Arses > Debates & Discussions > American Politics
nun
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A plan to return US astronauts to the moon "is dead," a White House advisor on space issues said Friday, confirming reports that NASA will instead focus on developing commercial space transport.

"Constellation is dead," the advisor told AFP on condition of anonymity, referring to a program that envisioned returning to the moon by 2020 and using Earth's nearest neighbour as a base for manned expeditions to Mars.

Florida Today newspaper first reported the demise of the program Thursday, saying the plan was doomed by financial constraints in the 2011 budget which President Barack Obama is to present to Congress on Monday.

Reports added that the US space agency will work on finding a commercial solution to ferrying US astronauts to the International Space Station after the scheduled end of NASA's shuttle program in September 2010.

Only five more shuttle flights, including a mission by the Endeavour set for a February 7 launch, are planned.

Astronauts will be able to hitch rides aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft, but the United States will need a commercial alternative if Congress approves White House plans to scrap development of a successor to the shuttle program.

The administration reportedly plans to hike NASA's budget by 5.9 billion dollars over five years to boost commercial development, with the goal of a first commercial flight to the ISS launching by 2015, the source said.

The Constellation program was launched in 2004 by then-president George W. Bush.

Space expert John Logsdon said the abandonment of the program did not spell the end for US ambitions in space.

"While Constellation is dead, it does not mean human space exploration is also dead," said Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.

He said NASA would probably start to plan with the private sector and international partners for the future of the ISS past 2020.

Getting the cancellation through Congress would be "tough," he added, as lawmakers from Florida and other states with close ties to the space program would oppose anything that threatened local jobs.

News of Constellation's cancellation came as NASA marked its day of remembrance, honoring astronauts who died in the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia space missions.

President Obama released a statement paying tribute to those "who lost their lives supporting NASA's mission of exploration and study of the Earth, the planets and the stars."

"All of humanity has benefited from their courage and devotion," he said.

"We mourn their loss while celebrating their spirit of discovery. May their sacrifice be an inspiration as we continue our nation's work to explore our universe."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100129/ts_al...acemoonpolitics

So the new NASA directive is to focus on global warming statistics. I find that to be a tragic shame ... BUT ... I'm encouraged with the idea of privatizing space exploration and avoiding the budgetary black hole that was the NASA shuttle program.

Maybe now we'll get TRUE reliable, reusable space vehicles into play?

The heart is saddened that the American Dream of moon habitation is dead. But the head says that it's probably the best way to actually get there without further bankrupting the government.

Now ... how do we get the biased weather-satellite program shelved in exchange for better entertainment media or something? smile.gif
stucco
Fuck.


That was the only good thing Bush actually did.

I liked the Ares launchers and want a moon outpost.
shirizaki
QUOTE(stucco @ Jan 29 2010, 08:16 PM) *
Fuck.


That was the only good thing Bush actually did.

I liked the Ares launchers and want a moon outpost.


Well now you get the Fox News media outpost, located on the right side of the moon!


Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
rick
I wonder how soon after China announces their landing date that this mindset/policy will change!!
The Gunslinger
I watched a whole Naked Science episode about how they would go about putting a base/colony on the moon and what it would be like (from the humble beginings of 4 Astronauts landing and having their supplies dropped off to a fully fleshed out frontier town over the course of about 50 years.) It seemed really awesome and I am bummed that it isn't going to happen.
nun
Maybe if we dropped all the CO2 regulation and fully opened up our oil and coal and nuclear power capabilities, we'd be flush with money to pursue such endeavors.

I can't imagine what the carbon offset for launch vehicle booster rockets must be.

But as it stands, we really don't have any discretionary funds available for things like the Space Program.
stucco
Idiot.

Launch vehicles use Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen.

They make water.



Lifting the CO2 ban won't do anything but kill us all off quicker. Like the power companies would magically drop their prices once they could run full bore.
nun
Well shit, let's make cars run on that stuff too!

And here I thought it was mostly ammonium and powdered aluminum.
Kharkov
The Constellation/Ares/Orion series was nothing more than a back-to-the-Apollo program. Seriously, one-time-usage rockets? It's supposed to be the 21st Century! The economics no longer support throwing away 99% of your construction just to get you anywhere.

NASA should have oversight to prevent stupid stuff being done but really, it's time for the private sector to get into the launch business. Check out the Skylon program for a much better alternative. Before anyone points out the obvious, yes I do know that the British, while great at thinking stuff like this up, are total pants at actually applying it on a commercial basis. That said, the basic idea is sound.

A hydrogen-fueled, reusable spaceplane capable of delivering 10 tonnes or so to Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) taking off from some equatorial runway (French Guyana or Diego Garcia are obvious candidates) with a less-than-7-days turnaround and a low (absurdly low when compared to todays rockets) dollar (Euro/Yuan?) cost per kilogram, is the way forward and it's high time that someone got cracking on that.
shirizaki
QUOTE(nun @ Feb 23 2010, 04:02 PM) *
Maybe if we dropped all the CO2 regulation and fully opened up our oil and coal and nuclear power capabilities, we'd be flush with money to pursue such endeavors.

I can't imagine what the carbon offset for launch vehicle booster rockets must be.

But as it stands, we really don't have any discretionary funds available for things like the Space Program.


The companies that hold those resources wouldn't like that, since their prices would drop to the floor with too much supply.

And we would have funds to do it if we weren't off killing people in 2 countries. Instead, we could make space lasers for accuracy killings.

But a bullet is cheaper NOW, so no.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.