The Emperor's new Space Program

[Winner]

It's official, Obama has proposed to end decades of American human space exploration.

Obama kills Constellation Moon plan
By Jonathan Amos
Science correspondent, BBC News

President Barack Obama has cancelled the American project designed to take humans back to the Moon.

The Constellation programme envisaged new rockets and a new crewship called Orion to put astronauts on the lunar surface by 2020.

But in his federal budget request issued on Monday, Mr Obama said the project was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation".

It was draining resources from other US space agency activities, he added.

He plans instead to turn to the private sector for launch services.

Constellation was initiated by President George Bush in the wake of the 2003 shuttle accident, which saw seven astronauts lose their lives when their vehicle broke up on re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere.

The idea was to retire the spaceplane and replace it with a new ship and new rockets capable of sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit.

But critics claimed the programme was never properly funded, and when it ran into technical difficulties its time schedule began to slip.

Mr Obama is cancelling Constellation even though Nasa has spent some $9bn on the project already.

President's budget request plans an investment of an additional $6bn in Nasa over the next five years - an overall $100bn commitment to the agency (its budget for 2011 would be $19bn).

He wants some of the extra funding to be used to incentivise private companies, to help them to bring forward a new generation of launchers to carry humans into orbit.

As well as being a customer for these rockets, Nasa would also set and oversee standards in the nascent market, especially in matters that concerned crew safety.

In addition, Monday's funding boost would enable America to extend the operation of the International Space Station from 2015 to at least 2020.

The changes fit broadly with ideas put forward by a special panel convened last year by Mr Obama to review US human spaceflight options.

The Augustine committee argued strongly in favour of giving the commercial sector a greater role in the nation's space programme. The panel members thought such an approach could reduce costs and even speed up the adoption of new technologies.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm

I imagine the Chinese space programme leaders are having a little celebration in Beijing right now. Europeans and Russians can only react with a *facepalm* and + Especially the Russians who will now be the sole provider of transport to and out of the space station.

50 years long space race between the US and Russia is finally over. The Russians have won through sheer perseverance

 

[Theige]

So we have to send or plan on sending men back to the moon, a place we went 40 years ago, to qualify as "still exploring space?"

 

[Winner]

No, but you still need... I don't know, rockets and spaceships to send people to space. Big rockets if you want to go beyond low-earth orbit. Under Obama's proposal as I understand it (I spent the last few weeks digging up info and speculations about the US space future), you will get neither.

As if it was so bloody hard to cut the DoD's budget by some 2 or 3 billion a year and give it to something which can bring huge benefits in the future. But hey, it's your country - I am just trying to understand the logic behind it and so far I've failed...

 

[Patroklos]

There is a lot still left to be done on the moon, the chief one being practical experiance in long term space voyage and landings if we plan on visiting asteroids of Mars.

This is extremely short sighted. I can understand axing the moon in the program is really in a shambles, but there is no excuse for not completing the orbital transporter.

The article left out the fact that Obama plans on refocusing much of NASAs attention on climate change related products. Epic fail.

 

[warpus]

Good move by Obama. The Americans don't have enough money to be spending on ambitious projects like this, while fighting 2 wars overseas, spending billions bailing out banks & other companies, and cutting taxes across the board.

He's being realistic and China and/or Russia aren't sending people up to the moon anytime soon.

It's also good to see support for the ISS. It would have been a shame to send it crashing into he ocean only years after it was completed. This extends its life to 2020 at least

The one thing that should be worrying is the lack of a vision for a space shuttle replacement.

 

[JohnRM]

Good move by Obama. The Americans don't have enough money to be spending on ambitious projects like this, while fighting 2 wars overseas, spending billions bailing out banks & other companies, and cutting taxes across the board.

He's being realistic and China and/or Russia aren't sending people up to the moon anytime soon.

It's also good to see support for the ISS. It would have been a shame to send it crashing into he ocean only years after it was completed. This extends its life to 2020 at least

The one thing that should be worrying is the lack of a vision for a space shuttle replacement.

Very this.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They could always quit fighting the wars overseas and bailing out banks...

 

[Quackers]

Reagan promised Star Wars! I want that

 

[MobBoss]

I would rather have seen some social programs cut instead of this. Space travel needs to be our future. I mean, how in the hell are we supposed to find Pandora now?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Good move by Obama. The Americans don't have enough money to be spending on ambitious projects like this, while fighting 2 wars overseas, spending billions bailing out banks & other companies, and cutting taxes across the board.

Indeed. It is about time Obama abandoned GWB's cockamamie scheme to help win the 2004 election by pandering to all the space exploration buffs.

However, I don't agree with trying to "privatize" launch vehicles, especially by subsidizing them. If a company can provide a safe and effective alternative on their own, that's fine. But it shouldn't be done with taxpayer dollars.

 

[Theige]

No, but you still need... I don't know, rockets and spaceships to send people to space. Big rockets if you want to go beyond low-earth orbit. Under Obama's proposal as I understand it (I spent the last few weeks digging up info and speculations about the US space future), you will get neither.

As if it was so bloody hard to cut the DoD's budget by some 2 or 3 billion a year and give it to something which can bring huge benefits in the future. But hey, it's your country - I am just trying to understand the logic behind it and so far I've failed...

If your conclusion after researching this for a few weeks is that the US will no longer have rockets or spaceships to send people into space because of this then you're simply "doing it wrong".

Patroklos and MobBoss: His plan is to encourage the continued growth of the private sector into space exploration, do you think that is a bad idea?

 

[TheLastOne36]

I'm switching my Space Alliance over from America to China/India/EU/Russia. (Haven't decided which one)

 

[Winner]

There is a lot still left to be done on the moon, the chief one being practical experiance in long term space voyage and landings if we plan on visiting asteroids of Mars.

Not to mention paving the way for later colonization of the Moon.

This is extremely short sighted. I can understand axing the moon in the program is really in a shambles, but there is no excuse for not completing the orbital transporter.

... especially since the track record of commercial space companies is tragic. Going full commercial won't be safer, cheaper nor faster. "Never" fits better.

The article left out the fact that Obama plans on refocusing much of NASAs attention on climate change related products. Epic fail.

Especially now when ESA has already started its Earth observation programme which will cover pretty much everything we need in the short to medium-term.

Good move by Obama. The Americans don't have enough money to be spending on ambitious projects like this, while fighting 2 wars overseas, spending billions bailing out banks & other companies, and cutting taxes across the board.

NASA in its heyday during the Apollo programme was getting like 30-40 billion in today's dollars, if I remember it correctly. Constellation needed only some $ 3 billion a year more. Nothing compared to the military budget (600 billion).

He's being realistic and China and/or Russia aren't sending people up to the moon anytime soon.

At least they have the ambition to do that, in the Chinese case. If the US Congress confirms Obama's plans, the US will have handed them the victory. China, Russia and probably even India have or soon will have human-rated launch vehicles and spacecrafts, all under firm government control, whereas the US will be leasing commercial capacities which don't yet exist and remain stuck in low-earth orbit for the foreseeable future, because there is NO CHANCE IN HELL (and I mean it) that commercial companies ever develop anything capable of launching a spacecraft beyond it without extensive government funding, expertise and coordination.

Look at Russia - in the early 1990s, they were literally eating dirt, but they still managed to keep human space programme active - they even greatly contributed to the construction of ISS. That's the spirit we need.

It's also good to see support for the ISS. It would have been a shame to send it crashing into he ocean only years after it was completed. This extends its life to 2020 at least

2020 is not enough. But seeing that the US lacks ambitions to go beyond LEO, it will have to extend the ISS programme beyond 2020 anyway when the time comes, in order to save the last remnants of NASA's prestige.

The one thing that should be worrying is the lack of a vision for a space shuttle replacement.

If I was in charge of ESA, I'd now seriously start thinking about European manned spacecraft. We'll need it soon.

If your conclusion after researching this for a few weeks is that the US will no longer have rockets or spaceships to send people into space because of this then you're simply "doing it wrong".

You can prove me wrong and tell me which human-rated rockets and spacecraft will the US have. Hint: Elon Musk's words are yet to be put to the test.

 

[lovett]

No, but you still need... I don't know, rockets and spaceships to send people to space. Big rockets if you want to go beyond low-earth orbit. Under Obama's proposal as I understand it (I spent the last few weeks digging up info and speculations about the US space future), you will get neither.

As if it was so bloody hard to cut the DoD's budget by some 2 or 3 billion a year and give it to something which can bring huge benefits in the future. But hey, it's your country - I am just trying to understand the logic behind it and so far I've failed...

Why do we need to send people into space?

 

[Patroklos]

Patroklos and MobBoss: His plan is to encourage the continued growth of the private sector into space exploration, do you think that is a bad idea?

No, but the way he is doing it is backwards. Private industry has always been heavily involved in space projects. Who do you think builds all these things.

The problem here is that Obama is leaving everything up to the private industry. In this interaction the US government is a customer, and thus when it wants something specific made for a particular purpose it is basically hiring private firms to accomplish this for them. Because it is a customer, that means the US government has a say in what that company is doing. Because it is a customer, and in this case usually the only customer, those companies have a vested interest in creating exactly what the government wants.

It appears that Obama just wants to throw money at the private sector with the hopes that they eventually produce exactly what he wants regardless of market forces and then he will just co-opt it. This is as stupid as me throwing money at a tailor with the hope that he eventually produced that detailed woolen grey suit I want in exactly the right size.

BTW, this sort of COTS approach can work, but only when the requriement desired is already filled by an existing product when the requirement is identified. This is not the case here.

 

[Winner]

Why do we need to send people into space?

Because robots worth of billions are unable to get out of a little hole in the ground filled with dirt, or to swipe dust from their solar panels, for starters. Seriously, if humanity plans to survive in the long term, it must expand to space.

I am trying to imagine people with Obama-like mentality ruling over 15th century Portugal or Castille-Aragon.

"I am sorry, Vasco, but your planned voyage to India is simply too expensive, you're over the budget. We have wars to pay for and the peasants are getting restless, we must throw them some coin. But don't worry, our explorations programme isn't over, we'll hand it over to private investors. In the meantime, we want our navy to focus on more closer-to-home activities, like fishing and patrolling "

 

[JohnRM]

They could always quit fighting the wars overseas and bailing out banks...

We're working on it and we had to (apparently).

 

[JollyRoger]

Can't we at least incarcerate the terrorists on the moon? Housing them in Cuba is just not good enough and puts America at risk.

 

[Theige]

Because robots worth of billions are unable to get out of a little hole in the ground filled with dirt, or to swipe dust from their solar panels, for starters. Seriously, if humanity plans to survive in the long term, it must expand to space.

I am trying to imagine people with Obama-like mentality ruling over 15th century Portugal or Castille-Aragon.

"I am sorry, Vasco, but your planned voyage to India is simply too expensive, you're over the budget. We have wars to pay for and the peasants are getting restless, we must throw them some coin. But don't worry, our explorations programme isn't over, we'll hand it over to private investors. In the meantime, we want our navy to focus on more closer-to-home activities, like fishing and patrolling "

The thing is there aren't millions of people out there on Mars and Venus to trade with.

We aren't close to establishing moon colonies, and we still won't be in 20 years.

 

[JohnRM]

Because robots worth of billions are unable to get out of a little hole in the ground filled with dirt, or to swipe dust from their solar panels, for starters. Seriously, if humanity plans to survive in the long term, it must expand to space.

I am trying to imagine people with Obama-like mentality ruling over 15th century Portugal or Castille-Aragon.

"I am sorry, Vasco, but your planned voyage to India is simply too expensive, you're over the budget. We have wars to pay for and the peasants are getting restless, we must throw them some coin. But don't worry, our explorations programme isn't over, we'll hand it over to private investors. In the meantime, we want our navy to focus on more closer-to-home activities, like fishing and patrolling "

Yeah, cause that's the same thing.