Augustine and future of Constellation

[radarredux]

Space.com and the NY Times are reporting that the original Constellation plan and schedule are pretty much gone, largely due to reduced budget plans expected over the next 10 years. The most likely options (staying within the currently projected budgets) are:

* Stay the course but throw out the 2020 deadline for the moon. This includes ending involvement in ISS in 2015.

* Stay the course, stay with ISS until 2020, and generally give up on the Moon for a very long time.

* Give up on LEO but don't plan on landing anywhere. This includes getting out of ISS in 2015.[/list]

Kind of sobering.

Any thoughts? Any bets on what will be recommended by the Augustine Panel? Or what will be accepted by the White House?

 

[steve82]

Ordinarily I'd have an opinion, but with this administration and in this political climate, all bets are off.

 

[radarredux]

Ordinarily I'd have an opinion, but with this administration and in this political climate, all bets are off.

Unfortunately, it seems like a long-term trend independent of any administration. When Moon, Mars, and Beyond goals and schedule was announced, there was this projected outlay for funding, and NASA seemed to assume the funding would be available as it laid out its Constellation design and timeline.

But even before the current recession I don't think NASA ever got the projected funding amounts. Each year Mike Griffin would go before committees and say the flight gap was unacceptable, the Congress members would seem to agree, Griffin would say we could close the gap with just a little more funding, and then Congress would reduce NASA's funding.

 

[2001Kubrick]

Arrgh.

This administration is really testing my nerves. It's ok for Mr Obama to give all sorts of money to his cronies for bailouts, yet when it's time to cut back they go for the space program. So much for human advancement.

"Hope?" Thanks for nothing BO.

 

[clint_dreamer]

I think the United States government is taking the correct steps here. While the Constellation program was a great idea at the time, unfortunately we live in a different world now, just 5 short years later. Taking care of the economy and the citizens of the United States is much more important than going to the Moon or Mars right now. People like 2001Kubrick need to stop having kittens over the lack of manned space travel. We need to take care of the people living on this planet and stop worrying about how we are going to get off of it and what NASA will do for us.

 

[nimbus]

I think the United States government is taking the correct steps here. While the Constellation program was a great idea at the time, unfortunately we live in a different world now, just 5 short years later. Taking care of the economy and the citizens of the United States is much more important than going to the Moon or Mars right now. People like 2001Kubrick need to stop having kittens over the lack of manned space travel. We need to take care of the people living on this planet and stop worrying about how we are going to get off of it and what NASA will do for us.

The topic is risking to be moved to FS. But just out of curiosity, have you compared the relative proportions and efficiencies of all social programs vs Nasa? Just 1% taken from each of the former would dwarf Nasa. Taking all of Nasa's funding would be a drop in the bucket for social programs. The real solution to internal issues in the USA is a cultural one.

 

[Danzi]

why can't NASA withdraw from ISS without it resulting in it being de-orbited. Why can't other Nations and the whole world can maintain it. Some one said that its relatively cheap to maintain the station once its built. Its going to go like Mir isnt it! They wan't it down because they aren't involved in it! Just because they landed on the moon doesn't give NASA the right to walk all over other nations work.

Russia is generally more focused on LEO space stations rather than lunar landings and going beyond LEO. This is obvious since of the amount space stations they have had in the past. So i am sure they would happily supply funding for the station with help of other nations.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, pragmatically speaking, you may be sure that's the case, but history has shown us that the US is the major source of funds for such endevours. If other nations step up, that's great. History tells us they won't.

 

[Danzi]

Still, surley the rest of the world can maintain the ISS even if the US has pulled out. I am sure joint funds from all the other major space agency's could carry it on. China has emerged very ambitious lately.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Surely they CAN. The question is, will they? IMHO, the answer is, probably not.

 

[Danzi]

I am sure if it came down to it, and were told, "we are pulling out, if you don't fund it, then its gunna fall down anyway" i am sure if the world wanted it they would have to pay then

 

[cookie_thief]

Looks like the panel is telling the WH that the US is ceding leadership in manned spaceflight to the other powers.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I am sure if it came down to it, and were told, "we are pulling out, if you don't fund it, then its gunna fall down anyway" i am sure if the world wanted it they would have to pay then

Same problem, Does the world want to pay for it? I think not.

 

[wubblie]

I think that the next few weeks will be very interesting. There are two things that can come as a result of the Augustine commision: either a) NASA's funding is increased so that it can accomplish its goals, or b) those goals are "dumbed down"- made less ambitious so that even a mediocre effort can accomplish them. I think the choice that is made on this question will say a lot about our country, and where it is headed.

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's my view as well. We will see whether the funding is increased or the missions are decreased.

 

[samkent]

ISS science is cheap when the US pays the bill for shipping.

Lets have all the countries using the ISS split the shuttle costs.... The silence is deafening.

 

[vulture4]

>>Surely they CAN. The question is, will they?

If China is invited to join the ISS program they will provide the funds and the logistical support to keep it in orbit. The problem is that the US does not want China on board at all and doesn't want the current IPs to have actual control even if US support is cut.

 

[Bill_Wright]

What is the origin of all of these conspiracy theories that propose that we would rather crash the ISS than let the Chinese use it? What is the logic to that? If we can pull back a little bit of the support and let China, India, JAXA, RSF, and ESA help a bit more, how does anyone lose? As far as landing humans on the Moon, it has been done. Its like the four minute mile - lots of drama until somoene did it then it got boring. Who even knows the record today? Can anyone name the second crew that landed on the Moon without going to Google or admitting to being a hard-core space geek?

One of the alternatives pointed out by the Augustine Commission was landing on an NEO. That is a practical goal with a real chance of someday saving the planet. So here is my question: 'stunt' or 'save'? I vote for 'save'.

-- Bill

 

[2001Kubrick]

Can anyone name the second crew that landed on the Moon without going to Google or admitting to being a hard-core space geek?

<----- Guilty as charged (space geek).

 

[radarredux]

What is the origin of all of these conspiracy theories that propose that we would rather crash the ISS than let the Chinese use it?

From Aviation Week & Space Technology:

Bush Administration Nixed NASA's U.S.-China Cooperation Idea

NASA tried and failed to obtain Bush administration approval of an overture to China for a cooperative U.S.-China space mission, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin tells Aviation Week & Space Technology.

The White House believes that a higher level of cooperation is too great a reward to China for its human rights and arms-trafficking violations of international law.
...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 2208p2.xml

I also seem to recall that Michael Griffin used to use the specter of America returning on the Moon only to be greeted by Chinese to promote support for Moon, Mars, and Beyond effort. He would also often say, "Humans will return to the Moon, the only question is "What language they will speak?'"

As can be seen in the recent "debate" (and I use that word liberally) over healthcare, using fear is a great way to motivate people. And having a "bogeyman" has always been popular -- just look at all the propaganda used over the years to motivate people ("better dead than red") including the recent accusations by Tom Ridge that he felt pressured to raise the terror alert before the 2004 election.

And, after all, it was the launch of Sputnik that really started the US to get serious with Space and then the success of manned launches by the Soviets that motivated Pres. Kennedy to propose landing humans on the Moon.

 

[radarredux]

Does anyone know when (or roughly when) the Augustine Panel will release its report?

NBC News recently covered some of the material from the most recent meeting, including Dr. Sally Ride's observations that the currently proposed budget doesn't really allow any space exploration. I thought it was interesting how they presented it -- sort of like "increase the budget or just capitulate". I think the Augustine Report -- being relatively independent of NASA and full of experts -- might be just the ammunition needed to boost the NASA budget.

 

[radarredux]

Here is the NBC News story I mentioned: End of an Era?

(Note: you have to sit through a commercial first)

 

[2001Kubrick]

Here is the NBC News story I mentioned: End of an Era?

(Note: you have to sit through a commercial first)

Wow. OK now it's official, I hate Obama and his administration. If I would have known they would singlehandedly help destroy NASA within six months of the election, there's no way in hell I would have voted for him. Good thing we spent all those trillions on bailing out corrupt corporate sponsors rather than a few billions for the advancement of humanity. :roll:

 

[js117]

Here is the NBC News story I mentioned: End of an Era?

(Note: you have to sit through a commercial first)

The Obama administration wanted this in the first place. I realy think they want to dismantel NASA and
give the money to education.
He only told NASA he would help them to get there vote.

Wow. OK now it's official, I hate Obama and his administration frrom another post.

I also hate the Obama administration.

I hope companys like Spacex and other Commercia companys can come through.

 

[2001Kubrick]

Here is the NBC News story I mentioned: End of an Era?

(Note: you have to sit through a commercial first)

The Obama administration wanted this in the first place. I realy think they want to dismantel NASA and
give the money to education.
He only told NASA he would help them to get there vote.

Wow. OK now it's official, I hate Obama and his administration frrom another post.

I also hate the Obama administration.

I hope companys like Spacex and other Commercia companys can come through.

I truly regret voting for him now. We're not the only ones:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... eres-nasa/

But there is still a sense of unease I have, and it became more clear as I read the President’s speech.


He mentions NASA several times, including how the Apollo program was our response to a huge challenge (the Soviet launch of Sputnik and the threat of an enemy’s superiority in space), how it gave us new opportunities in science and research, and how it gave our country a renewed sense of exploration.

In fact, in that speech President Obama uses NASA many times as an analogy. But what about where the rubber hits the road; how does NASA fare in this huge increase in science investment? In that speech, NASA is mentioned only once when it comes to benefits of this new resurgence in science, and only then in NASA’s ability to help investigate climate change.

While this is an important part of NASA’s mission, it’s only one part. I would say that NASA’s main goal is to explore. To push back boundaries, to see how far we can go, to see just what we can do in space. I would bet solid money that most people in this country would agree with that; the most famous and publicly-known missions are Hubble, Cassini, Apollo and the like. That’s what we see from NASA, and that’s what the public needs to see.

But there’s no mention of this in Obama’s speech. No talk of solid reinvestment in NASA’s space science, or of how it will help create the next generation of scientific exploration in astronomy, space, and aeronautics.

For sure, NASA’s budget did pretty well in both the economic stimulus package and in the federal budget. But it bugs me that Obama didn’t see fit to talk about this in his otherwise very lengthy speech. And if that seems petty of me, remember that right now NASA doesn’t have a chief Administrator! Mike Griffin left the post months ago, and Obama has not appointed a new one. Why not? If NASA is a priority in Obama’s mind, then why leave it headless for over three months?

Why pick the new White House puppy before the top dog at NASA?