MOVING ON: NASA chief Charles Bolden and his deputy Lori Garver laid out the blueprint of a space agency without the Constellation Program.
Image: NASA/Bill Ingalls
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
NASA leaders revealed April 8 the framework of their plans to enact President Obama's budget request for 2011, a contentious proposal that would redirect the agency's current efforts away from a moon landing in the next decade and that would rely on commercial partners to launch astronauts into orbit. In a teleconference with reporters NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver described how future funds and projects would be allocated among the agency's many centers across the country, assuming that Obama's budget wins congressional approval.
The space shuttle program has just three launches before the orbiters are retired later this year or early in 2011, and Obama has proposed scrapping the shuttle program's successor, known as Constellation, which was first sketched out by President George W. Bush in 2004. The Constellation Program had aimed to return astronauts to Earth orbit by 2015 and to the moon's surface by 2020, although independent assessments questioned the feasibility of that timeline.
Obama and NASA have not proposed a new destination or timeline to replace those of Constellation, although Bolden said that the ultimate goal of exploration remains the same: a manned mission to Mars. Garver hinted that the agency is thinking long-term with its new direction, saying that part of NASA's charge is "inspiring our children and our future leaders to dream big and start on the dreams that it may require generations to achieve."
Obama's plan has met with vocal resistance in Congress, and it is possible that the budget ultimately signed into law will feature significant changes, but Bolden made it clear that NASA is moving ahead with its implementation strategy. "I can say that in terms of NASA planning, Constellation as a program is dead," Bolden said. At the same time, he added that the agency is looking at Constellation to identify "nuggets" that could find use in ongoing programs.
In support of the Obama budget, Garver announced that the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, NASA's longtime launch point for manned space missions, would host a commercial crew development office, funded by $5.8 billion over five years, to stimulate the private enterprises that would eventually launch U.S. astronauts to orbit in the absence of Constellation rockets. Kennedy would also receive $429 million in 2011, and $1.9 billion over five years, to upgrade and modernize the launch facilities there.
Under Constellation, NASA would have had two rockets for manned missions: a crew launcher called Ares 1 and a heavy-lift cargo rocket called Ares 5. In Obama's budget the private sector would fill the void left by the cancellation of Ares 1, and a heavy-lift research and development program at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., would provide similar cover for the scrapped Ares 5. That program would receive $3.1 billion over five years, Bolden said.
With the shuttle's retirement, and no replacement on the horizon, the space industry stands to lose thousands of jobs as NASA transitions to a new way of doing business. "A very serious and real concern for everyone is the jobs," Bolden said, adding that retaining the entire shuttle workforce was never part of the plan, even for Constellation. But Bolden said that Obama believes in the importance of space exploration and will travel to Florida next week to speak with members of the space community and make his position clear.
Although much of the attention Obama's budget has received focuses on plans for deep-space missions, NASA is involved with many programs closer to home. Garver said that Obama is giving NASA another shot at the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, an Earth-observing satellite designed to measure and track carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that failed to reach orbit in 2009.
See what we're tweeting about
52 Comments
Add CommentIt's great to see the PR headshots of high ranking administrators accompanying a NASA budget article. That always makes me feel secure that I'll be getting the straight scoop directly from those in the know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese announcements are important for NASA project leaders and now especially hopeful contractors to start targeting their efforts. The blood's almost in the water - the anticipation is building...
We've been mucking about in "low earth orbit" for a half-century or more. And the Chinese...remember them?...are working feverishly on a lunar program and if we do not continue with our proposed Constellation program...especially after all the public money already infused in it...we will once again be in last place in space activities. Once the Chinese gain a foothold on the moon, you can forget a U.S. presence there without more idiotic posturing and deal making with our communist enemy...with us on the short end. We are basically handing the moon and all it's resources to the Chinese. We need a new Space Race to galvanize our space program with a bigger budget, refined Single Stage To Orbit vehicles and an ongoing program to settle the moon. Mars can wait! We cannot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO real Goal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissqengineer - Communist enemy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you mean the manufacturing division of western capitalism?
Or perhaps you see specters of US. sponsored, CIA puppeted military dictatorships falling throughout Asia, like dominoes sequentially falling to communist forces in some repetitious nightmare instilled by obsolete idiotic ideology?
Sorry if you've been laid off, but let's not start a foreign war over it!
jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStart a war over it? The space technological war is almost being won by the Chinese already (with help from our other "friend," Russia)...and they consider us in the U.S. idiots, and rightly so, the way our government grovels to this, yes communist, enemy. Or have you forgotten the real status of China? I'm not advocating a war...and, no, I have not been laid off, which is got nothing to do with the U.S. getting back into the business of space travel. Now, I think it's a great idea to encourage the commercialization of space, which is running about 30 or 40 years behind schedule. But our space program has always been the centerpiece of US technological superiority...one of the things we have done well...and starting over from scratch before we reach the moon is foolhardy when a major world power is aiming to take it from us. That's what started our original quest to the moon, competing with our "friends" the Russians. And I think it can work again, put in proper perspective. Manufacturing possibilities for new materials and processes in space and on the moon are almost endless and if we don't respond to this challenge as a first-world country, we are destined to become an irreverent third. Thanks for your reply, by the way, jtdwyer!
sqengineer - Your statement that you are not advocating a war is incorrect: referring to a sovereign nation as the enemy, claiming that 'they' see 'us' as idiots, that our government is grovelling to theirs... This political rhetoric is the very language used solely to incite political conflict between nations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may look back fondly at the political-economically incented cold war that produced the heroic race to space, but there are far more serious issues confronting the survival of the U.S.A. along with the rest of humanity. I suggest we focus our efforts on producing the new technology needed to survive on this planet rather than fantasizing about the great frontier of a New World.
The lack of a comprehensive picture when it comes to our national space efforts looks incongruous when compared to what's at stake, but I do think that focusing on space development and not necessarily the moon as the primary goal, is a good thing. That is in particular when we see that the tacit acknowledgement that the next steps will engage the burgeoning commercial space industry. What is critical, and not much being said about it, is the clear need for an economical system to supply these proposed fuel depots that will support deeper space platforms. Regardless of who wants to race to the moon as some sort of prestigious achievement, the real prize will be for the first industry to develop a cheap way to get bulky, high-g resistant materials into orbit and beyond. Using dual-purposed ballistic missiles as the preferred method currently, as it has been since the beginning of the space race ( and the cold war) will always be ridiculously and prohibitively expensive, but those limitations were benefits to a cold-war-ear defense plan that required the rockets to be transportable on flat bed trucks and hidden in silos, and therefore our rockets would have to be compatible with those restrictions and so the economy of scale could never really be expressed. A more appropriately scaled place to build an appropriately scaled launching apparatus is in a coastal ship yard with beam of 100feet like a modern cargo vessel, tanker or submarine, then hauled by tugboat to deeper water where the vessel could then be fueled using cheap and easily available fuels instead of explosive concoctions that need high tolerance engines to perform with very tight tolerances, then the loaded ship and its payload would be pointed upward at the proper angle and launched without a complex launchpad/gantry system. Old designs called for payloads weighing in the thousands of tons, designed to be fitted together with crews of technicians numbering in the dozens, living on ships that were designed to rotate and thereby create the effects of gravity we need for more permanent residence, and supplied by fleet of durable, inexpensive to launch and refit tankers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe innovative drive that's turned computers from being gigantic complex machines used by scientists into what they are today is due to the incredible potential of commercial application and that merely needs some encouragement, and as we will see, the new frontier will make exploring and even exploiting space for its intense solar energy potential and its mineral wealth will bring many benefits.
jtdwyer- I think you are getting a little off-topic with all the political/retorical analysis concerning my opinion. As for the "far more serious issues confronting the survival of the U.S.A," it is the same old story we've heard for the last 50-years...the earth needs its huge problems solved first. That's going to be quite a long wait. And if you have followed any research projects during the last three decades, you will find many new, promising space technologies in development that, at the first glimmer of sucess, were suddenly canceled and funding dropped. But I do agree that we should focus some of our efforts on producing the new technology needed to survive on this planet and also dream of the great frontier awaiting us out there...and attaining a sustained lunar presence. Maybe quietly...using the New Technologies:-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoug l-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent points you make...well put!
sqengineer - Sometimes I do that, but I'm glad to see you're moving along now. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As for the "far more serious issues confronting the survival of the U.S.A," it is the same old story we've heard for the last 50-years" - American Fool
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this50 years ago the U.S was a global super power rather than a global laughing stock, and it didn't have a 14 trillion dollar debt, that within the decade will become $24 trillion.
The solution to that of course is to defund and disband, virtually of the U.S. government. And that means getting rid of NASA entirely.
The alternative is complete bankruptcy and the loss of NASA for that reason.
Either way, NASA doesn't exist as an American entity at the end of this decade.
Vendicar9, while I agree our national debt is too high, I think characterizing our situation as a choice between disbanding our government OR complete bankruptcy is not helpful or accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn spite of our political divide, bloated government, high debt and current recession, the US is still an enormously powerful country with incredible economic power. That isn't going to go away any time soon.
While not perfect, and certainly with plenty of detractors, the U.S. is far from a "global laughing stock".
Sure the rest of the world has shown remarkable economic, political, and technological advancement over the last 50 years, which changes the U.S.'s relative power position. The US has helped/influenced lots of other economies to grow, which makes our position closer to being an equal than one of looking down on everyone, but in the end that is a pretty good thing.
If the U.S. hadn't have been here as an acting polical, economic and military power and example, much of the growth and positive progress the rest of the world enjoys today would not be at current levels.... clearly many of those that benefit directly or indirectly from the U.S.'s influence will never give this country as much positive credit as we deserve.... but "global laughing stock"? I think not.
As far as NASA is concerned... sure they have amazing accomplishments, but they've also wasted billions and billions of dollars and brought all the problems of large bureaucracy to what should have been an exciting, innovative sector.
I don't claim to have the answer here, but it does sound reasonable that refocusing them to encourage private companies to find solutions would in the end promote quicker, cheaper, and more innovative solutions.
If China wants to spend scarce resources building a moon base, more power to them. I'm sure their billions of citizens, many who still live in poverty, would prefer that money/effort be spent to try and feed/educate them at home, but I guess it would give them some more patriotic pride.... that's almost as good as food.
.
High praise and much thanks, sqengineer. Now if only those in decision making positions would start illuminating the masses while making bold decisions we could take the 4+billion dollars a year that we no longer be spending on the space shuttle and quickly engineer the practical (and profitable) systems that have for too long been overlooked by short-sighted leadership. Tally ho.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad Obama and Bolden have the courage to change a misguided direction. Sending humans to the moon is a huge waste of money and if the Chinese want to do it, good for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur tax dollars are much better spent on robotic missions and deep space observation. I think there's one more great manned mission, to put a footprint on Mars. We're explorers and it needs to be done once. There are intermediate steps needed, but the moon and Constellation is not one of them.
One part of the manned mission I think should continue is station. ISS has become a great laboratory, and we need to move to catching a ride on the next Virgin Galactgic or Spacely Sprocket rocket to get the next visiting scientist a chance to do some work.
I'd love to see NASA become tbe world leader in robotics and discovery and not leaders in sending fragile humans places we don't need to go. Let's also make sure we end up having a thriving commercial space business.
The U.S. has a short attention span. We controlled the very high ground. We gave it up for the want of vision. Politics should never have entered into achieving space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts disastrous that we allow ourselves to be blackmailed by the Russians to return to the ISS after Shuttle. It is a crime of unbelievable dimensions.
Funding for NASA should be fixed and untouchable.
What better way to restart this economy than to retool our space program....
Moonset-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are absolutely correct.
As as far as the Moon goes, I really can't understand why a lot of folks say "let the Chinese have the moon...who cares?" Because the Moon, unlike Mars, is going to be a commercial bonanza for whoever stakes a permanent base and colony there. And it's only 3-days away...and even closer with better propulsion systems. Letting the Chinese have it would be like saying "If the Chinese want all the oil wells, then let em' have it...the poor can't eat oil!" Forget "space" for a minute and think of the moon as a"territory," with a great deal of commercial potential. Because that is exactly what it is. The new lands of the old West were not secure for settlement until the government had created outposts in the wilderness. Same with lunar territory. Once established, private interests will be ready to take advantage of lunar commerce...commercial spacecraft fabricators, commercial lunar ferry services, lunar mining equipment production, lunar construction firms, solar cell manufacturing, power companies beaming microwave power back to earth converted from lunar solar collectors, water mining for conversion farms separating oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for fuel. And millions of new jobs to boot. So, no...we NEED the moon...not just for us, but as the major first step for humankind commercializing interplanetary space travel and a creating a brisk space commerce.
Making a conquest of a new world is what spurs the technology you seek. We would not be where we are, now, if it weren't for the race to the moon and would likely be much further if Nixon had not cancelled the moon program. Just look at how much our exploration has stalled, over the last few decades, and you will get a glimpse of our future. It seems likely, to me, Obama has cancelled Constellation to spite the hated Bush just as Nixon cancelled the moon program because of his hatred ot Kennedy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sqenginee
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The space technological war is almost being won by the Chinese already"
How exactly is that, have the Chinese put anyone on the moon? No. Has the USA? Yes.
Have the Chinese sent probes to other planets, or out of our solar system? No. Has the USA? Yes.
If by winning you mean being decades behind the competition I guess you are right.
It seems to me that YOU are loudly declaring them an enemy and talking about war - in the hopes of staring one. Why don't you quit the political and war rhetoric and stick to the topic of the article here.
@sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because the Moon, unlike Mars, is going to be a commercial bonanza for whoever stakes a permanent base and colony there"
A BONANZA? Really, glad to see your crystal ball is working. You think the economics and making business work are tough on earth, try throwing in a quarter million mile commute. I think any attempt at commercialism of the moon is, at best, many hundreds of years away - if it can exist at all. What happens now (as in THIS year or this decade) means very little.
Your hostile, alarmist and unfounded rhetoric is complete hogwash.
joe poppa - The same facts also support the argument that Nixon and Obama were forced to reduce spending on space programs since the economy had suffered due NASA's excessive spending of America's taxes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could also point out that when manned space launches have been deemphasized, planetary exploration has benefited tremendously.
Candide...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that's what I meant...we are decades behind the competition.
sqengineer - So you didn't get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- The cold war is over - We Won!!!!
- We were never competing with anyone to get control of the mineral rights to the moon.
- As near as I can tell, my best interests are served by competing with your obsolete world view to enable humanity to respond cooperatively to the severe challenges created by our own past policies of aggressive greed.
- If the Chinese attempt to use the mineral wealth of the moon they will simply squander the labors of their own citizens and likely producing the collapse of their own economy. As would we.
Good luck in the future - adapt!
@sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour posts are simply not based on fact.
You said: "We've been mucking about in "low earth orbit" for a half-century or more"
What do you call: Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking, Cassini, Galileo, Genesis, and probes to nearly all planets and the Sun.
Do you also consider the Apollo missions to be "low earth orbit" ?
And you apparently forgot about the Mars missions and the little US dune-buggies we sent there.
Check this link for space probes beyond earth orbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes
There are more than one hundred missions listed there, mostly the USA and USSR.
Tell me how many Chinese missions are listed? ONE (low earth orbit).
You also said: " And if you have followed any research projects during the last three decades, you will find many new, promising space technologies in development that, at the first glimmer of success, were suddenly canceled and funding dropped."
The comparatively FEW that were dropped were either not possible or prohibitively expensive.
The current budget is a pause to reevaluate and think, something that might do you good to try.
Candide,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYea, we have been mucking about in low-earth orbit for far too long...been there...seen it myself...so bury the platitudes. And China, regardless of your misinformed, defeatist attitude, is indeed our enemy, and will be using space technology, and any lunar assests against us at their first opportunity. Oh, yea...alarmist talk...start a war with our "pals" the communist Chinese. Not me...I'm just an observer who's seen a lot of your kind of head-in-the sand, it's all hogwash and non-such before. A few of us Americans still exist that DO pay attention to such signs and want us to keep the high-ground in space...we can all be one big happy family with the Communist Block...sure why not just let em have space...a great bunch of folks just wanting the Best for the West. Read this and learn the facts about your buddies in China and their true aspirations in space:
http://www.space.com/adastra/china_implications_0505.html
jtdwyer...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan, can't I ever get a comment in without you sneaking up and debating it? Get some sleep for crying out loud! Well, as I see it:
1.The "Cold War" was just a concept, not a real war...and nobody won anything...actually we and the other side lost billions of bucks.
2.We certainly were in competition for the moon...but I agree with you, not really for the mineral rights...just bragging rights. It was the late 60's...we were not thinking clearly then.
3.I don't have an "obsolete world view," as a matter of fact, it got us to the moon many times. If you could get the folks on the other side to cooperate with a better world view, and do it in a sincere and fair manner, then I'll wash your car for a week for free...and do the carpets, too!
4. They already squander the labor of their own citizens on manufactuing hundreds of thousands of Lawn Knomes...would not mining more raw material be a better use for them?
Good luck to you in the future...see you on the Moon.
sqengineer - Just give 'em a break - FedEx picks up 300K packages in Shanghai every night! I'll just stay planted here in Memphis...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFace it, you come across as a rabid political reactionary that hates the current administration and are just using this topic as a wedge to vent upon. Again, your BS here has no basis in facts, though it may sound good to the small, extremist audience you appear to be preaching to. When taken in that context your hyperbolic, unrealistic rants are perfectly consistent.
P.S. - I did READ the article at the link you sent, and do not share your pre-formed and immutable opinions. May I suggest a remedial reading course to help you with comprehension?
@sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" If you could get the folks on the other side to cooperate with a better world view"
a "better world view" according to whom? You act like that is a defined concept, or are we all supposed to listen to accept your extremist opinion as fact?
"They already squander the labor of their own citizens on manufactuing hundreds of thousands of Lawn Knomes...would not mining more raw material be a better use for them? "
- You seem to actually think that you know what is better for China than the Chinese government. Your ego must be the size of Jupiter.
"I don't have an "obsolete world view," as a matter of fact, it got us to the moon many times"
- No, obsolete would still be to current to describe your world view. Anachronistic, ancient and out-of-date (by many decades) is a better description of your warlike world view.
"we were not thinking clearly then."
- Are you a Scientologist? Are you CLEAR now?
Candide...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not going to write a thesis or a three-volume set to explain the way the world works to you. And what's with the religious reference? You are more than welcome to live on the earth, and have your own opinions...I really like the fact that you are pretty "rabid" yourself when it comes to hotly disagreeing with another's opinion. However, you should probably take a course in "Having A Sense Of Humor 101," or something. Oh...I really liked your "Anachronistic" as that word is not used nearly enough nowadays!
Cheers!
@@sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"However, you should probably take a course in "Having A Sense Of Humor 101"
- Ok, if you are saying that your posts were all a joke, that would make sense. They're not funny, but it explains a lot.
P.S. - Passed HASOH 101 with an A+ years ago, doing post-doctoral work now.
Candide...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo...my comments were not all a joke...it's just that some of my comments were not directed at you and were, while not a joke, an attempt to not take myself too seriously. And you may be correct in your assessments of our current situation and yes, I have been known to be a tad inflexible on occasion. But this little forum is not a contest; it's just discussion and opinon. That's freedom, isn't it?
And good luck with you're post-doctorial work; takes character to get that far in your education. Worth all the work though...cheers!
"inspiring our children and our future leaders to dream big"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHah!! I love that this was quoted in an article about NASA giving up. NASA hasn't been inspiring for at least 30 years, hence the public (and therefore politicians) not caring about science, exploration, or the future of our species.
I agree...unfortunately for us, the Chinese have no such problems with their space program...scary that we are going to become a 3rd world spacefaring country. Check this out this article...I'm not interested in looking up at the moon and seeing the Chinese Flag across it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/08/china-eyes-high-ground/?page=2
@MrGneissGuy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" NASA hasn't been inspiring for at least 30 years"
- Don't know about you but the Mars missions and especially the two Rovers were pretty inspiring to most of the USA. Built for 90 days and still going (at least one...)
- The repair and upgrade of the Hubble telescope is pretty inspiring. Hubble has redefined and added much to several scientific fields.
- And let's not forget about the ISS. A human has been in space for the longest contiguous time ever.
Sounds to me like you are just jaded and negative.
@sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only flag currently on the moon is the US flag.
While something is still needed to get men up there - cheapest and wisest (strategic/militiary) would have been to keep the shuttle running until an alternative was available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Chinese will likely bypass the US and Soviets using the cheap and dirty modernized Orion technique from Freeman Dyson using nukes as a rocket propulsion system.
Drill a 2 mile hole in a salt formation. Put a small nuke at the bottom in a water tank, put a thick steel plate on top of the tank with a automated payload capsule on top. Light the nuke and let er rip. When the projectile exits slam the door shut and redirect the radioactive steam back underground.
3000 tons at $10 a lb straight to the moon. I'm sure the Chinese are drilling while we twiddle our thumbs.
Seal the hole and drill a new one for the next load.
www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/150-kiloton-nuclear-verne-gun.html
With the cargo capacity available, a simple very efficient spacebased transport could use the nuclear engines from updated NASA Nerva designs. We'd be flitting around the Solar system in no time.
When Nasa was offered the technology of the Flying Saucer, they were not interested, it would make the Rocket Propulsion Engineers, touching huge salaries, obvsolete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho would need them, if we could equip a Shuttle with it so that they could take off VTOL, fly to the Moon in a few hours using a constant 1 G for acceleration and de-acceleration?
It could land on the Moon near the Lander, check everything out , try the Moonbuggy for flat tires, have a picnic and take off again for Mars .
Check the two little travelers there , pick them up in the hold, look the Russian Big One up and stash it too.
Charging the new owner for the transportation would help to derive the cost.
No pollution, no heat-shields needed, no osteoporosis for the returning crew and a great cost reduction in the amount of barf-bags.
Although the invention was evaluated by Dr. Kahn of the Hudson Institute at $600 Billion if the US would have it before Russia, I will sell it for only $50 million.
P.S. I left a few small particulars out in my patent description.
They can pay me another $50 million for supervision and advice with the installation of the new technology.
If Nasa is not interested I will offer it to Russia or India.
The Russians are already laughing their head off about these Americans. They will be howling in maybe two months.
That is the time Nasa has to send me a cheque.
P.S. I found over one thousand applications for the technology
which means new industries. More work.
I invented it in Canada but am willing to re-locate.
heavy lift rocket? anyone remember the saturn 5 rocket? why do we have to develope a new one when the blue prints for sayurn 5 are in a drawer somewhere
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey - my anti-gravity device will make even your UFO technology obsolete. In addition to unlimited cheap transport it will provide perpetual energy!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The only flag currently on the moon is the US flag." - candide
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy ignore the russian ones?
And I seem to remember that their flags were there first.
Forget about blueprints for the saturn 5,they were all destroyed,why I don't know,but that doesn't mean we can't reverse engineer, there are components for it in museums all over the USA.Why should we waist money on the moon,when we and all others concerned should start using the resources in Antarctica,but if we do go back to moon,asteroids are a much better bet,because we could take are pick without having trouble with another nation,and if we do go back to deep space,robots are even a better bet,what we should stop doing is talking about it,the longer we wait the more it's going to cost,so lets get on with,and do something now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm not going to write a thesis or a three-volume set to explain the way the world works to you" - sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA laughable statement. Particularly when it comes from a American Conservadopian like yourself. And especially after your mindless claim that China is America's enemy.
China, my dear little Whack Job, may be your enemy, But as we all know, it's America's #1 financial ally.
So tell us... For how long have you been a Conservative KookFart? It seems to come naturally to you.
"We've been mucking about in "low earth orbit" for a half-century or more." - sqengineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGosh. I seem to remember Americans walking on the moon a half century ago.
Doesn't that make your KookFart claim, KookFartie?
You are right on one thing though. NASA has been mucking about in LEO for a long time.
But as we all know, this is due to the constant call from American Conservatives to cut back NASA funding in order to provide tax cuts for wealthy Americans.
American Republicans have been plotting to destroy NASA since the Kenedy era.
The only NASA projects that Republicans have supported are military projects like the Shuttle, and white elephants like the shuttle and Reagan's Kookfart vision of the chronically underfunded space station.
NASA's problem has never been a problem of vision - as it has always been the most visionary of U.S. government programs.
NASA's problem has <always> been a problem of funding.
Apollo was cancelled due to budget cuts.
The shuttle is a white elephant due to budget cuts.
The space station is a failed monstrosity due to budget cuts.
etc. etc. etc...
Some dare call it Republican treason.
"Vendicar9, while I agree our national debt is too high, I think characterizing our situation as a choice between disbanding our government OR complete bankruptcy is not helpful or accurate." - Tharriss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of interest rates, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell puts our interest rates into perspective. He says, ” … in just four years the administration predicts the government will have to spend more just to pay interest on the federal debt than it spends on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, HUD (Housing and Urban Development), Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury, and the Corps of Engineers, Environment Protection Agency, GSA (General Services Administration), NASA, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration — combined.”
"In spite of our political divide, bloated government, high debt and current recession, the US is still an enormously powerful country with incredible economic power. That isn't going to go away any time soon." - Tharriss
The U.S. is an economic basket case, who's only economic power is to threaten to default on interest payments on it's debt.
"If the U.S. hadn't have been here as an acting polical, economic and military power and example, much of the growth and positive progress the rest of the world enjoys today would not be at current levels.... "- Tharriss
Meanwhile, back here on planet reality, the U.S. has done more to - through the support of all manner of oppressive dictatorships and the fostering of proxy wars and terrorism that have taken the lives of tens of millions of people -destroy human political and economic progress than any other nation in history.
"As far as NASA is concerned... sure they have amazing accomplishments, but they've also wasted billions and billions of dollars and brought all the problems of large bureaucracy to what should have been an exciting, innovative sector." - Tharriss
The perpetual QuackTard Republican Whine.
Some dare call it treason.
@vendicar9 -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I should have been more specific - the only flag planted in person is the US flag.
Also - just a little note on the average US citizen: a poll revealed that the average person in the US thinks that the budget for NASA is more than 25% of the federal budget.
In reality it is less than 1%.
Manned space flight is sexy and good politics but doesn't produce enough real science. The constraints imposed by lifting fragile humans into space makes for expensive but limited projects. In recent years NASA has been able to do excellent science on the cheap with projects like Magellan, Pathfinder and Mars Exploration Rover. In times of tight budgets we need to focus our money on the urgent projects of the day. Robotic space missions are the best way to answers todays urgent questions for an amount that taxpayers can afford.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9 ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG...you agreed with me on something? Well, I also agree with you on something; the Republican Scare Squad has been whittling away at NASA's budget for decades, with the predictable results by gradually weakening our space program's potential like the blood-suckers they are. My point is and always has been, we need to make space PROFITABLE and the exploration will take care of itself as a commercial byproduct. I was an aerospace engineer for about 30-years, and I can tell you, that money was wasted in many instances on programs that were never, ever going to bear fruit for the advancement of space technology or commercial operations, and were purly political pork at best...as is the ISS. Now, if the ISS were used to make money, say micro-gravity manufactuing of advance solar-cells, as the purity of the crystals grown in micro-gravity or free-fall is almost 99% pure, the greatly-increased efficiency of these devices would start garning support for space-based manufacturing, hence orbital factories. The production of new super-light, super-strong alloys that cannot be made on earth because of the density differences in certain metals in a gravity well cannot combine, but are easily alloyed in orbit. Alloys lighter than aluminum with a strenght four times that of carbon steel would become in high-demand, and a profitable peoduct on earth. It's all about taking the high-ground and making it profitable...something our political-heavyweights make it very difficult to do (and that includes both political parties).
Two "Major Announcements" on the future of NASA and US Space are expected today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first is the development of a new "heavy lift rocket" that will be used to lift future deep-space craft and is supposed to "push the boundaries" of U.S. exploration in space with the ultimate goal of sending American astronauts to Mars.
The second is the re-structuring of the Orion crew capsule, with a simpler design focused on crew emergency escape from the international space station. Administration officials say this renovation will lay "the foundation for future exploration spacecraft."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-defends-nasa-plans/story?id=10377573
sqengineer - I think there is a miscomprehension regarding a profitable company: eventually the entire investment must be returned to the investor, plus a profit, before an endeavor can be considered profitable. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody at NASA ever fully understood the concept of profitability. Spending whateverbejillion dollars to make a great battery does not make a profitable product. The salary and retirement benefits for each of those aerospace engineers, along with all capital investments and expenses, must generally be accounted for on the books.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are exactly right. Profitability from a goverment agency (look at the U.S. Postal Service) seems to be a difficult concept to them. But, yes, I totally agree with you.
Not exactly a plan for "low earth orbit" ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this===========================================
Obama Wants Manned Mission To Mars
The President defended plans to kill the space shuttle and cancel a return to the moon, insisting that NASA needs to focus on new frontiers.
By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
April 15, 2010 04:29 PM
Echoing John F. Kennedy's historic challenge to the nation to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's, President Obama called on NASA scientists and engineers to launch a manned mission to Mars within three decades.
"By the mid-2030's, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth," said Obama. "A landing on Mars will follow," he added.
Obama's words were part of an address the President gave Thursday at Florida's Kennedy Space Center designed to rally NASA and the country behind a controversial White House plan.
The plan would terminate the space shuttle program by year's end, outsource launches to private contractors, and cancel major portions of a project that would have returned humans to the moon by 2020.
Obama said NASA will get more bang for its buck under his vision, and noted that that the space agency is in line for a $6 billion funding increase over the next five years under his proposed federal budget.
"Nobody is more committed to manned space flight than I am," the President said.
Obama said NASA should focus on conquering new frontiers instead of revisiting places, like the lunar surface, where astronauts have already set foot.
"By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first ever missions beyond the moon into deep space," Obama said. Such journeys, the President argued, would pave the way for missions to Mars.
Obama's plan also calls for the construction of an advanced space telescope to replace the aging Hubble, a $3 billion investment in new, heavy-lift rockets, and the building of a new space capsule.
The capsule could be used as an escape vehicle if astronauts need to depart the International Space Station in an emergency, Obama said.
From: http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/fabrics/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400444
Very nice PR this is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nasa.gov/images/content/125171main_flight_plan_graphic.jpg