Obama aims to ax the moon mission

[Capt Worley PE]

Are we entering a Carter-ish era of malaise?

 

[chaosiscash]

^^ I don't know if I'd go that far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01...r-weapons-work/

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Message from the Administrator:2011 NASA Budget Request Reflects Commitment to Innovation and Exploration

Today the President confirmed his commitment to space exploration and the

goal of ensuring that the nation is on a sustainable path to achieving our

aspirations in space.

The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request adds $6 billion to NASA's

programs and investments over five years, enabling the agency to embark on

an ambitious 21st century program of human space exploration, perform

cutting-edge science investigations of Earth and space, and push the

frontier of aeronautics research. In these challenging economic times, this

budget increase demonstrates the great confidence that the President has in

NASA to contribute to our nation's highest goals, and I am very excited

about the opportunities before us.

We will extend our commitment to the International Space Station to at least

2020, providing critical opportunities for expanded international engagement

and exciting utilization of this phenomenal space laboratory. We will create

the fundamental knowledge, building blocks, and flagship technologies that

will allow humans of all nations to explore space in a significantly more

sustainable way than we are able today. We will launch robotic pathfinders

to scout the way for our future human explorers, and technology trailblazers

to test advanced capabilities in space. We will aggressively invest in

commercial capabilities that will one day make space accessible to all

people. We will increase our investments in aeronautics and science, making

discoveries that will foster greater scientific understanding of the Earth

system and to improve our ability to forecast the impacts of climate change.

We will make key investments in foundational and game-changing technologies

that will expand our exploration opportunities, reduce mission costs,

contribute NASA innovation to broader national needs, and grow the American

economy by creating new high tech jobs. We will revitalize NASA to engage

in this 21st century space program. As we execute these diverse and exciting

new missions and opportunities, we will actively engage more young people

across the nation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Stepping up to create this 21st century space program will require us to

embrace some significant changes in our current plans and how we conduct our

business. The Administration is committed to flying out the remaining five

flights of the Space Shuttle Program, even if it requires that the last

flight takes place in fiscal year 2011. However, the President has directed

us to cancel the Constellation program and instead invest in the building

blocks of a more capable, forward-looking approach to space exploration. To

the NASA employees who have worked so hard and tirelessly on the

Constellation projects: While the program ultimately was not sustainable,

your efforts and dedication are genuinely and deeply appreciated. I realize

that many of you will be affected by these changes, and at times it will be

difficult to meet the challenges that will come before us. But with

challenges come significant opportunities, which I am counting on you to

embrace.

In the coming weeks and months, we will be moving out expeditiously to

implement this new direction, and will be sharing the details with you often

as we move forward. The public discussion that will follow will likely be

intense and, at times, distracting. For many of you, it will mean changes

in the work you do and a feeling of uncertainty in your position. However,

you are the best workforce in the nation, and I know you will maintain focus

throughout the challenges of the work ahead of us. Our direction is clear;

it is now time to pull together and move forward. Throughout the coming

months, I ask that you focus on your task at hand and be flexible as some of

those tasks change. We must continue to safely fly out the remaining

Shuttle flights, operate our current robotic missions at the moon, Mars and

other locales, and continue our research and building the missions that will

gaze outward in the universe and downward at our Earth.

On Wednesday at 1 p.m. EST, you are invited to special agency-wide meeting

where I will share additional information about the exciting future before

us. More information about the President's budget request for 2011 is

available on our Internet home page at http://www.nasa.gov/budget

I am honored to be here with you as we embark on creating the NASA of the

21st century.

Charlie Bolden

Administrator

 

[Capt Worley PE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/0...on-obama-budget

The announcement of an end to immediate ambitions for an American to again reach the moon, on the seventh anniversary of the Columbia space shuttle disaster, sets the stage for a furious battle in Congress over US manned space exploration.
Politicians from Florida, Texas and Alabama, three states that have lost thousands of jobs in the space industry from this year's planned retirement of the ageing shuttle fleet, promised a fight to keep the moon programme, Constellation, alive.

"They are replacing lost shuttle jobs too slowly, risking US leadership in space to China and Russia, and relying too heavily on unproven companies," said Bill Nelson, a Democratic Senator for Florida and former astronaut who flew one mission in 1986.

Michael Griffin, who resigned as Nasa chief when Obama took office, branded the plan "disastrous", likening it to Richard Nixon's cancellation of the Apollo programme in the 1970s. "It means that essentially the US has decided that they're not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future," he told The Washington Post.

Nasa has already spent more than $9bn on Constellation, including testing the Ares I rocket that was to have replaced the shuttle as transport from Earth to the international space station and beyond. The programme was "based largely on existing technologies, over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation", according to Obama's budget report.

"The truth is that we were not on a path to get back to the moon's surface," said Charles Bolden, the new Nasa administrator.

"There will be challenges as a result of cancelling Constellation, [but] the funding for Nasa is increasing, so we expect to support as many if not more jobs." The budget gives Nasa $19bn for 2011, and $100bn over the next five years; the proposal also extends the international space station until 2020.

 

[Wolverine]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/01...r-weapons-work/

"NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino said more money is needed because the U.S. needs the best nuclear weapons facilities, scientists and engineers, even as it moves toward eventual disarmament."

Rant on: ldman:

It's so hard for me to take these clowns seriously. "...even as it moves toward eventual disarmament."??? Who do they think they're fooling? China? Russia? North Korea? Or just Peace-Through-Submission-Americans who like to hear that kind of stuff at the end of any statement involving nuclear weapons (kind of like "Brought to you by Carl's Jr!")? We have no intention of disarming, certainly not while rogue nations are trying to super-arm themselves - not that we even NEED nukes to deal with those threats militarily, just that there's no way we're disarming in the face of growing nuclear threats (unless we have something better).

Ooh, I just thought of the ultimate weapon to replace nuclear weapons: Al Gore clones! We could threaten to send our enemies a Gore to jack their nation all over the place. The only downside is that this could lead to a counter-Gore-attack and maybe even a Gore Gap if we don't have enough Gores to sink our enemies. We could always fire off a few Carters though.

 

[chaosiscash]

Or just Peace-Through-Submission-Americans who like to hear that kind of stuff at the end of any statement involving nuclear weapons

Of course thats why they say it. Nobody WANTS nuclear weapons, but most (not all, but a lot) people recognize some sort of need at this point. But it makes everyone feel better so they say it.

My point is just that while cutting the space program sucks, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call Obama Carter-esqe quite yet, because a larger budget for the NWC is definately not a Carter-type move.

 

[Dleg]

The only downside is that this could lead to a counter-Gore-attack and maybe even a Gore Gap if we don't have enough Gores to sink our enemies. We could always fire off a few Carters though.

LOL!

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Boy, I saw this one coming....

Russia wants to charge more for rides to space

Russia, which is set to hold a monopoly on flights to the international space station (ISS), wants to charge more for rides on its Soyuz rocket, the space agency head said Tuesday.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_w...report_999.html

 

[Road Guy]

I watched Michelle Obama on tv this am, she was getting interviewed about her husbands job, they talked a little about the NASA deal, she actually said her husband was "staying the course"

thousand points of light, must be prudent! My God he is George H. Bush !!!!!!!!

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Apollo astronauts Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan weigh in on this...

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," the letter begins."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. ...
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 ten plus billion dollar 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.politico.com/click/stories/1004...ting_space.html

 

[Chucktown PE]

I think if you couple that article with this article "We can't be #1 forever" it makes perfect sense. I can't wait for the de-development of the United States.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

THAT was a depressing article. What a wonderful attitude for someone in his position to take.

 

[Chucktown PE]

^^ I'm sure the Obamabots will come on here defending that crap. I'd love to hear the rationalization for why we should just accept mediocrity.

 

[Supe]

^^ I'm sure the Obamabots will come on here defending that crap. I'd love to hear the rationalization for why we should just accept mediocrity.

Well, we settled for a sub-mediocre President, why not everything else?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Apparently, the letter I posted was edited for length. The entire letter can be read here:

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

 

[Dexman PE]

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate and ask the question: Why do WE (the US) have to have a top of the line space program and why does the government have to pay for it? In todays global economy and market, there are emerging companies who are showing a commercial interest in space exploration and the existing technology is being shared between so many different entities (companies, countries) that the US is not losing as much as everyone seems to be leading on. Sure, the technology may be developed in India, China, Russia, etc, but companies and other countries across the world are seeing the overall benefits of the technology.

I look at it in a similar way to highway construction. The general contractor (the US) may not have the equipment to do one particular thing (like a crane or a concrete pump truck), so they contract out to someone who does have that equipment. I say if these other entities want to pay to develop this technology, let them. Then we can use our tax dollars to cover some of our other programs we can't afford.

I know the US has historically been working under the mindset that "we want to be the first and the best at everything", but sometimes IMO it's better to let others do the work for you. It reminds me of a saying I heard a while back: Truly wise people have smart people working for them.

 

[Supe]

At what point do those subcontractors become big enough and good enough that they put the general contractor out of business?

 

[Dexman PE]

At what point do those subcontractors become big enough and good enough that they put the general contractor out of business?

Every general contractor that I know that has stayed in business has done so by cutting aspects of their business where they are losing money, and by adjusting their business plan as the markets change (sometimes very quickly). Just because this general contractor was the top of the line many years ago at this one type of work, doesn't mean it should hold onto that type of work if it's not profitable anymore (and if the work can be done by a sub for cheaper).

Yes you run the risk of seeing your subs growing to the point they are as big or bigger than you are, but it doesn't mean you stop working together. Just because they're bigger doesn't mean you can't still manage them...

 

[Chucktown PE]

I don't have a problem with the US cutting funding to NASA. I have a problem with the US government becoming complacent that we will no longer be global leaders in science and industry.

As most of you know, my libertarian beliefs require me to question the need for a space program at all, other than for issues of national defense. I also question the need for a science and technology czar and the role that person plays in making us a leader/loser in the area of science and technology on the world stage.

I tend to think that if the government were to GTF out of the way, the entrepreneureal spirits, ambitions, and profit motives of individual citizens/industries would propel us much farther than having some nimrod bureaucrat in Washington flinging billions upon billions of dollars at countless ineffective/inefficient programs.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate and ask the question: Why do WE (the US) have to have a top of the line space program and why does the government have to pay for it?

Why have it? The spinoffs from the space program are all around you. We benefitted as a society far more than we paid in. ROI for the space program was incredible. It can be again.

As for the gov paying for it, right now they are the only group with the resources and knowledge to pull it off. Sure there are some private ventures nibbling at the edge, but so far none come close to being able to throw the knowledge and expertise the US government can.