posted 02-02-2010 08:13 PM               

I don't follow all the space details to the degree as do many of you, but I thought the program would progress and was so looking forward to watching American lunar landings within 10 years, at age 64-65, perhaps with any grandchildren I might have by then. Well, I guess that's not going to happen. For those of you too young to have experienced the Apollo landings, well, you really can't imagine how awesome it was. Now I wonder if I will ever get to watch it again in my lifetime. I'm scared that at this rate, I'll probably be too old and enfeebled, in my convalescent bed with my tubes and diaper. And just my luck, right before a future landing would appear on TV, someone will probably come along and pull my plug...

posted 02-02-2010 09:20 PM               

For those of you who support the change of strategy, I hope you are right. I hope it leads to the outer reaches. I hope that we have grand new propulsion systems. I hope that the cure for cancer is discovered in micro gravity on the ISS.

Now, back to the real world. Fanboy, maybe. Disappointed, definitely. I have a big problem with the lack of a manned space vehicle. I hated the gap between the shuttle and Orion and this is worse. We are giving up the high ground and that is a big mistake. Rovers and satellites are cool but it is not the same as having manned spaceflight capability. Please, do not talk about private companies taking over ferrying astronauts to LEO because guess what? They can't. They need to string together a couple of successful spare parts trucking missions first.

posted 02-02-2010 09:49 PM               

I am sure that I am not qualified to judge the technical merits or shortcomings of Constellation, but I have had many misgivings about it for some time. If it was in fact unable to do the job it was intended to, it is probably just as well that it gets cancelled. But the loss of 6 years, $5 to $9 billion (I've heard both numbers), and the hearts and minds of all who worked on it and believed in it and hoped for it is really hard to swallow.

The thing that really gets me is that there was no concrete proposal of something to replace it with. While I do have some confidence in the ability of private companies to do unmanned flights, I just don't understand how we can expect them to take on manned orbital operations any time soon. If NASA, with all its historic knowledge, experience and infrastructure cannot come up with a sound manned program after 6 years of work and $5+ billions spent, how can we expect private firms with no history or experience or infrastructure and considerably less funding to do it?

I do believe that private enterprise has a place in future manned space flight, but not in 5 years, not in 10. And relying on it exclusive of a government program is simply incomprehensible to me. I'm afraid that we have seen the end of US manned space flight for the foreseeable future, but what saddens me the most is that this is just symptomatic of the continuing loss of American leadership in the world.

posted 02-02-2010 10:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Space Emblem Art:
However, if I'm wrong and there are moon landings within the next 10-20 years, I hope the TV will provide English subtitles for the Chinese or Indian astronauts languages so I can follow along.

---

China's human spaceflight achievements to date consist entirely of tossing up a few tricked-out Soyuz copies. Even if the Chinese were to put Taikonauts in lunar orbit, or even land them on the moon, that would represent no significant developmental leap from what the US accomplished a generation ago (though it might just put the foot into the arse of America's political "leadership" necessary to reach a coherent consensus on the direction and goals of our own space effort).

The Indians, while I wish them well, also won't be breaking any technological barriers anytime soon.

And more to the point, both nations are facing radical sociological and demographic challenges in the near future that will severely impact their national priorities, and not likely in favor of their space programs. Ditto Russia.

posted 02-02-2010 10:03 PM               

I salute Buzz's enthusiasm for trying "new" things to get us further into space, but sometimes it takes less "reaching for the stars" (and more pushing for more nearby objects), to make it happen. So far Harrison Schmitt, Gene Cernan, Tom Jones and Bill Nelson think Obama is wrong. I'd venture a (sizable) majority of polled astronauts would agree with them (and not just because it might get them a seat on a flight).

posted 02-02-2010 11:02 PM               

In the process, it will free NASA to concentrate on developing new technologies, implement existing advancements and leverage partnerships to push astronauts beyond low Earth orbit.

posted 02-03-2010 12:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
It is my opinion that the plan is doomed to fail as far as any exploration beyond LEO, mostly due to my belief that you have to have a plan and deadlines. I do believe the commercial sector will be successful, they already are, just not human rated yet.

---

posted 02-03-2010 01:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoesTo11:
...this whole conversation strikes me as more than a little surreal.

---

However - fractionally increase that budget and suddenly we can invent a raft of brand new spaceflight technologies, invigorate a clutch of new aerospace companies, extend our (financial) commitment to the ISS, launch unmanned missions to half the solar system and as a consequence launch a next generation manned space program that will put a man on another planetary body by when - 20 years from now? 40 years from now?

Ares died from lack of funding - not because it was inherently flawed or nostalgic, or lazy, but because it was underfunded. The nebulous future that Obama has laid out for NASA is also underfunded and a much much longer game plan than I believe it's proponents are willing to admit to themselves.

posted 02-03-2010 01:57 AM               

The administration that started the program never gave it the funding it would have needed to reach that goal and with the global economy as it is that funding was never going to appear.

The Apollo program was an integral part of the Cold War and the exceptional funding and national effort that went into it was the kind of thing that could only have happened as part of a War.

Kennedy would never have aimed for the moon if it wasn't for the race with the Russians. Sure there would have been a space program, but it would have been purely science-driven and largely under-funded and would have taken many decades to go where the M-G-A programs went in one.

Even the early Shuttle program was largely driven by the Cold War.

posted 02-03-2010 03:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
I'd venture a (sizable) majority of polled astronauts would agree with them (and not just because it might get them a seat on a flight).

---

posted 02-03-2010 03:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
How many other past and present astronauts support Obama?

---

posted 02-03-2010 04:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
Augustine recommended an extra $3 billion per year for NASA to function in any meaningful sense, regardless of the path/plan/approach, and Obama is not delivering it, just as his predecessors haven't.

---

posted 02-03-2010 04:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
That doesn't make Ride and Chiao automatic fans of this decision - possibly quite the opposite.

---

"I think this is a significant vote of confidence in NASA and an exciting shift.

"This strategic shift brings NASA back to its roots. It's a significant strategic investment."

"The commercial sector should be given a chance to succeed in providing access to low Earth orbit."

quote:

---

Augustine recommended an extra $3 billion per year for NASA to function in any meaningful sense, regardless of the path/plan/approach...

---

"While many of us who believe strongly in human spaceflight might have hoped that still further funding would have been possible, this is obviously a demanding period from a budgetary standpoint. Importantly, the President's proposed program seems to match means to ends, and should therefore be executable."

posted 02-03-2010 04:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Obama just committed vast sums of money

---

You and I have different definitions of vast then. $700+ billion for defence is a vast sum of money. $700+ billion of financial stimulus is a vast sum of money. When NASA gets crumbs it doesn't hurt to call them crumbs.The entirety of the NASA budget, just over $1 billion per year, is inadequate for an agency tasked to explore space. Augustine & common sense agree on this - are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Or perhaps you feel that's a waste of time and money?

---

As you ask - I do and I'm honest enough to admit that I absolutely resent the waste of every man hour expended on it. Always have done but that's personal bias, I just prefer going to places in space.

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Maximise use of what exists instead of making pipe dreams.

---

posted 02-03-2010 05:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
I'll take Ares over unbuilt, unflown & unproven commercial craft.

---

posted 02-03-2010 05:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
The problem with this is that there are a number of us who do not consider climate change to be a socialist conspiracy.

---

posted 02-03-2010 06:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
And there are as many here who think it is. More wasted NASA dollars and plans that an eventual Republican led government will overturn, cancel and make NASA change course again.

---

posted 02-03-2010 07:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
I'll take Ares over unbuilt, unflown & unproven commercial craft. To hear a proponent of Obama's vision deriding pipe dreams is a little on the funny side.

---

Ares is NOT proven. I-X was a mish-mash of spent shuttle SRBs, using an Atlas guidance system with a fake fifth segment, fake Orion capsule and fake escape tower. Nor did it reach orbit.

At least Obama has opened up human spaceflight to the commercial sector, some of whom have real flight hardware awaiting launch (Falcon 9/Dragon).

posted 02-03-2010 07:25 AM               

1. Insufficient funding from the start; and
   
2. an unfortunate misinformation campaign staged by supporters of alternate architectures.

posted 02-03-2010 08:33 AM               

ESA Chief Lauds Renewed U.S. Commitment to Space Station, Earth Science
Space News

The head of the 18-nation European Space Agency (ESA) on Feb. 2 roundly endorsed the new direction U.S. President Barack Obama proposed for NASA, saying a firmer U.S. commitment to the international space station and space-based Earth science would further tighten trans-Atlantic cooperation.

In an interview, ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain also said his agency was ready to propose to NASA and the other space station partners -- Russia, Japan and Canada -- that China, India and South Korea be invited to join the station partnership.

The exploration goals of the two space agencies would "fully coincide" if America drops its Moon program, the director, Anatoly N. Perminov said. "Our near-term program has not included any plan for settlement on the moon," he said. "We shouldn’t rush from side to side."

posted 02-03-2010 08:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
the House Space Committee

---

House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing: Key Issues and Challenges Facing NASA: Views of the Agency's Watchdogs

Witnesses:

• Hon. Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  
• Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office
  
• Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer [U.S. Navy, retired], Chair, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

posted 02-03-2010 09:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kr4mula:
...has there been any discussion of the role of aeronautics

---

posted 02-03-2010 10:29 AM               

Members of Congress may bluster about a lack of leadership or vision in abandoning the Constellation project, but if they had really been serious about going to the Moon they wouldn't have underfunded the project by 35% since its inception. What it's really about is the potential loss of jobs back in the home district.

700 billion in defense spending is only partially about defense. Mostly its about jobs for the constituents. The same is true about the 19 billion for NASA. Congress doesn't care how long it would take NASA to get to the Moon at its current level of funding, if ever, just so long as no jobs are lost.

posted 02-03-2010 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Time will tell.

---

I remain deeply skeptical regarding this decision, but I also know it can be overturned at the ballot box. Sorry, I just don't believe the guy or have faith in any plans he proposes, including this one. He has a track record of such statements and positions that everyone can read.

posted 02-03-2010 12:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Looking back on the history of our manned program, I am amazed at how we have allowed our Presidents, just one man who has usually been ambivalent or negative about the topic, to shape our space program and how we have accepted their dictates so passively.

---

posted 02-03-2010 01:22 PM               

As it applies to his space policy, however, I think a potential key to understanding the man is to recognize that he is a pragmatist. From my observation, he is more interested in solving problems than he is in keeping political promises. People have lost faith in him because he did not adhere to the letter of a number of his campaign statements and promises. But the reason for this, I believe, is because once he got in office he found that the situation was more complex than he had realized -- and he adapted to the new information and did what he felt necessary to address or solve the problem.

I think the same is true of his change in position on the Constellation program. I think his new direction is a pragmatist's approach to solving the continual problem of presidents setting longterm goals that always fall short due to lack of funding and changing political conditions.

posted 02-03-2010 02:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You do realize that every manned spacecraft ever flown (if not also designed and prepared for launch) by the U.S. space program was built by private corporations, right?

---

posted 02-03-2010 02:48 PM            

Having said all that, when an issue you care deeply about gets compromised then it is very difficult to say, 'oh well, he was just trying to do the right thing.' If there is one thing I think President Obama does not realize is when he canceled Constellation, he stepped on peoples dreams.

posted 02-03-2010 02:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
My hope is the push back will last long enough to where he will try to come up with some kind of direction in the next six months to make us all feel better about the new program.

---

The Agency (NASA) now sees its role as doing interesting things with people once they get there, hence its emphasis on in-orbit construction, heavy lift capabilities, and resource harvesting hardware. Given budgetary constraints and the real issues with the Constellation program, none of that is necessarily unreasonable.

But it's also a frightening step into the unknown. The commercial companies that NASA will be relying on haven't yet launched any crew-capable hardware. The heavy lift and orbital assembly technology will be developed without a sweeping vision to support it ("Maybe we'll go to an asteroid at some point" really doesn't cut it in the vision department). It's a program that may make a lot of sense, but it's not a program that will inspire until some of the details get filled in.