Is Obama-Bolden budget a tool to kill NASA?

[montylc2001]

Cutting back or cancelling a program/programs that put back ten dollars or more into the economy for every dollar spent (show me another government program that can claim that) is evidence of one or more things, either ignorance, stupidity, or malfeasence. A few points.
Either.......
1. Our president has no idea what he is doing.
2. He does but doesnt care as long as he does away with initiatives that the previous administration enacted.
3. Part of the deal with China to buy up a large portion of our debt is to give up our lunar ambitions so they can get back to the moon first.
4. All or some of the above or anything else that I dont have the knowledge to think of.
His policies make no sense to me. Reorganizing NASA would have made sense. Killing our manned effort does not.

 

[rcsplinters]

Is Obama using the budget as a tool to kill NASA? Well, that's a bit conspiratorial for my taste and I'd consider such an action nearly treason. So what's he up to? Its a political question so pardon my unavoidably political answer.

I frankly think the administration is unwilling to pay for manned spaceflight. If the current direction makes it go away, then so much the better from their perspective. Let's look at just a few things to support this hypothesis. First, there is absolutely zero technical reason to delay an HLV design till 2015. There is no serious technological advance that is going to make that profoundly cheaper and we aren't going beyond LEO without heavy lift. Consequently, the delay has other than technical motivations. Saving money certainly isn't one because its going to cost MUCH more in 2015 than now due to the immense debt we're accumulating. So what's the motivation? The one that seems most plausible to me is that he intends to stop the manned space flight program on his watch and his recommendation would do that quite effectively. Frankly, I quite understand his approach though I most strongly disagree with it. The workers in the space program are quite possibly not his typical voting constituency. Also, the states which have the most to lose by crippling manned space flight did not send electorial college votes his way. He has some history of retribution and his background in Chicago politics has deep historical trends in this direction.

So why the small bump in funding? Simply put, he lacked the political fortitude to come right out and cancel the program. Instead, he deflected the problem to the private sector and through them a bone in the form of 6 billion over some number of years. Problem solved, right? Well, I think he probably thought that. Then the cries issued from both sides of the aisle. The administration responded with quite possibly the most stupid thing I've seen in space flight politics. The Orion life preserver. This told us one thing with great certainity. They hadn't thought this through and the simply didn't understand the US commitment to spaceflight. Now they are dug in with clearly the most irresponsible approach that we have ever seen to manned spaceflight beyond LEO. Huddled in the bunker, they have to ride the train they created and their own party may be arrayed against them. They've scuttled a viable program and replaced it with absoutely NOTHING. The insider placed in the top NASA spot does not have the technical backing to refute his detractors. He's also faced with a news media that will pounce on the story of the last shuttle and end of manned space flight in the US, a topic they have ignored for most of this fiasco.

Ironically, Obama may get his wish for the most part. I fully expect congress to order NASA to pursue a heavy lift capability in 2011 but Pelosi will throw a tantrum to keep from funding it, blaming every case of cancer and starving child on manned space flight and George Bush. I think Obama is a one term wonder and I think he knows it given his retreat into the liberal politics. He's totally failed to govern from the middle, as Clinton was smart enough to do and I interpret this as him having given up on returning. Regardless of your political affiliation, this must be seen as a sad time in our history. 2010 marks the time when the US backdown and took the easy road. As a citizen, I am ashamed of our leadership and their failure to embrace the pioneering spirit and risk taking that is our American heritage. We are on the path to failure in manned space flight.

 

[rockett]

I frankly think the administration is unwilling to pay for manned spaceflight. If the current direction makes it go away, then so much the better from their perspective.

You are correct here. All their actions say this.

First, there is absolutely zero technical reason to delay an HLV design till 2015. There is no serious technological advance that is going to make that profoundly cheaper and we aren't going beyond LEO without heavy lift. Consequently, the delay has other than technical motivations. Saving money certainly isn't one because its going to cost MUCH more in 2015 than now due to the immense debt we're accumulating.

And if Ares V is revived, we would save a lot of development that is already done.

The workers in the space program are quite possibly not his typical voting constituency. Also, the states which have the most to lose by crippling manned space flight did not send electorial college votes his way. He has some history of retribution and his background in Chicago politics has deep historical trends in this direction.

This is a very relevant point. As for his history of retribution, I am glad to see someone finally bring it up.

Simply put, he lacked the political fortitude to come right out and cancel the program. Instead, he deflected the problem to the private sector and through them a bone in the form of 6 billion over some number of years. Problem solved, right? Well, I think he probably thought that. Then the cries issued from both sides of the aisle. The administration responded with quite possibly the most stupid thing I've seen in space flight politics. The Orion life preserver.

Under different circumstances, it would be almost comical...

They hadn't thought this through and the simply didn't understand the US commitment to spaceflight. Now they are dug in with clearly the most irresponsible approach that we have ever seen to manned spaceflight beyond LEO.

No, it's pretty plain that all through this farce, they are winging it and making it up as they go.

2010 marks the time when the US backdown and took the easy road. As a citizen, I am ashamed of our leadership and their failure to embrace the pioneering spirit and risk taking that is our American heritage. We are on the path to failure in manned space flight.

And we all should be.

 

[SteveCNC]

I'm not sure who his advisor is when it comes to space but he really needs to rethink giving them the job . The only good thing to come from it all , and I'm very happy to see is the boost to commercial access to space . Other than that there's nothing good about it IMO . I think we all know (including Obama) that he's a one term kind of guy , got in on flare but the thrill is gone . Not that I voted for him cause I'm independent but even a lot of people that did vote for him are less than pleased

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).

link

 

[spacedengr]

As far as a "tool to kill NASA", it would almost seem that someone in the White House has it in for NASA. However, we should probably fall back on the adage "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". The concept of manned spaceflight as a "strategic national capability" is completely lost on this administration. If you destroy a technical capacity that has taken 60 years to build you cannot get it back. This idea seems to be completely foreign to them. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what the space program, and it's supporting community, is all about.

The only real "concern" seems to be for the jobs lost on the Florida Space Coast due to the end of Shuttle. That fact that everyone involved has known for years these operations jobs were ending seems to be irrelevant. Under this warped conception, the move to siphon off another $100M from NASA for "retraining planning" appears like effective PR, instead of merely maddening. [If you lay off 7000 people, and you have $100M, each person gets $14,286. How much planning does this take?]

The Space "Plan" fits in with the Administration's worldview that "strategic capabilities" and "leadership in strategic areas" are no longer important in a future where America is no longer the dominant player. It's all about "managing" the decline to second-rate status.

At this point, all the President wants is to get "Space" off his desk. After that, he probably won't care if he ever hears of "NASA" again.

 

[deagleninja]

I've been of the opinion NASA is already dead
(38 years since we've left orbit and counting)

Seriously, without a profit motive and/or clearly stated goals of "living off the land" so to speak, NASA is never going to be anything more than a huge government welfare program for our scientists.

What is needed is a Department of Colonization which devotes itself to developing and testing technology needed to harness local resources be it the Moon, Mars or wherever.

 

[rockett]

I've been of the opinion NASA is already dead
(38 years since we've left orbit and counting)

Seriously, without a profit motive and/or clearly stated goals of "living off the land" so to speak, NASA is never going to be anything more than a huge government welfare program for our scientists.

What is needed is a Department of Colonization which devotes itself to developing and testing technology needed to harness local resources be it the Moon, Mars or wherever.

We could do that with what we have today. Only a 3 day trip.

 

[kelvinzero]

Unless you accept the conspiracy angle, this budget is most certainly not a tool to kill either nasa or manned spaceflight.

It increases the budget to NASA.

Of course commercial companies can lift crew and cargo. Commercial is not just spacex.
We are primarily talking about the existing companies that NASA already uses:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 00625.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloud ... t-101.html

The new plan will put more humans in space, and is a solid push to create an environment where space tourism may be become a reality.

The new plan contains significant research into new technology that is only relevant to HSF: closed cycle life support, radiation protection, ISRU experiment actually delivered to the moon, propellant depots (only relevant to large BEO payloads). Unlike constellation, all this is should be within Obama's time in office.

It is important to note that NASA’s new budget does not end our ambitions to explore the moon.
http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articl ... xploration

What it is not, is human BEO exploration asap. (asap for constellation turned out to be around 2030 from memory, at the expense of killing all groundbreaking research, or really doing anything apart from sorties)

I would have liked to see a permanent lunar base, but I think constellation and lack of support by congress over the previous two terms are largely responsible for killing that option. At least this plan is flexible. If the next president wants to go to the moon, or the 2015 precursor mission sees something at the lunar pole that really fires our enthusiasm, I think we will be in a very good position to go for the moon using fuel depots and existing launchers.

 

[rockett]

Unless you accept the conspiracy angle, this budget is most certainly not a tool to kill either nasa or manned spaceflight.

It increases the budget to NASA.

Of course commercial companies can lift crew and cargo. Commercial is not just spacex.
We are primarily talking about the existing companies that NASA already uses:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 00625.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloud ... t-101.html

The new plan will put more humans in space, and is a solid push to create an environment where space tourism may be become a reality.

The new plan contains significant research into new technology that is only relevant to HSF: closed cycle life support, radiation protection, ISRU experiment actually delivered to the moon, propellant depots (only relevant to large BEO payloads). Unlike constellation, all this is should be within Obama's time in office.

It is important to note that NASA’s new budget does not end our ambitions to explore the moon.
http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articl ... xploration

What it is not, is human BEO exploration asap. (asap for constellation turned out to be around 2030 from memory, at the expense of killing all groundbreaking research, or really doing anything apart from sorties)

I would have liked to see a permanent lunar base, but I think constellation and lack of support by congress over the previous two terms are largely responsible for killing that option. At least this plan is flexible. If the next president wants to go to the moon, or the 2015 precursor mission sees something at the lunar pole that really fires our enthusiasm, I think we will be in a very good position to go for the moon using fuel depots and existing launchers.

I take it you are referring to ULA as the launchers, though the initial reference was a bit obscure.

As for increasing NASA budget, I'm afraid you are wrong. If you are looking at it in constant dollars or percentage of GDP, it's actually a decrease:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

When it come to new tech such as "research into new technology that is only relevant to HSF: closed cycle life support, radiation protection", what do you think we have been doing with the ISS?

When it comes to HLV during Obama's time in office (and many other advances), you are also incorrect. Under his plan, design will not be complete until 2015, and in service (according to Bolden) in the 2020-2030 time frame.

As for robotic missions to the moon, Google has a prize for that.

When it comes to moving on to the moon, we will have wasted 4 or years or more. Everyone seems to have forgotten what our "space truck" was for (including the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration). It was the first step of an overall plan to go beyond LEO. ISS was step two. Step three was in-orbit construction of interplanetary or translunar spacecraft and/or fuel depots. I will leave step four to you...

 

[bdewoody]

Obama's real purpose is to eliminate all American manned spaceflight. To believe it is actually anything else, one would have to accept the premise that it is possible for start-up commercial firms to recreate in 2 or 3 years what it took NASA $500B, 50 years, and some of the brightest minds the nation had to offer to develop in the first place. That simply boggles the mind. Further, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the commercials succeed--which I for one sincerely hope that they do. None of them even claim that their proposed vehicles can stay docked to the station for the requisite 6 months of a crew rotation. Thus, even if they could get a crew there, they would not be around to take them home again at the end of their stint aboard the station. That is the real reason that the administration revised its plan to have an Orion capsule docked to station at all times. Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that NASA (foolishly) allowed crew launches on commercial craft that had to turn around and come home without them in a couple of weeks. The commercials could always launch a second craft to go get them in 6 months, but obviously at twice the cost. Further, the crew would be at risk of death should the station life support systems fail while they were there without a rescue vehicle. It should also be acknowledged that one or more commercial ventures could schedule launches every 2 weeks or so, carrying up one or two crew members at a time and taking home a different one or two crew members on the return trips. That would be a little cheaper than two shots per crew, but would still leave at least some folks at risk for not having a ride home when the big leak happens.

I think that's what I said with fewer words.

 

[Ruri]

I disagree that it's a tool designed to kill NASA as leaving Ares I in place but killing the HLV would have done much more damage.
The reason why is ISS was to be deorbited under Constellation which would have left NASA in a very precarious position between 2016 and when Ares V enters service.
The Orion would be a vehicle with out a destination until Ares V and Altair are ready.
Orion plus Ares I would not be able to do meaningful science on their own like the Shuttle as it's one part of a larger system.
Well technically STS it's self was to be of a larger system that was not realized until ISS.
Giving the ISS an early death also would have been a blow to commercial space and US manned space flight would have been in a much worse position then it is now.
Constellation was on a path to self destruction it was under funded and the architecture was fundamentally flawed so drastic measures had to be taken.
The surprise here was the cancellation of Orion though as it had not major flaws and could be reused in a different architecture.
This likely might be political as the early termination of the X33 project was.
Doing the same as GWB did get rid of the old administration's pet projects and put you own pet projects in place.
I suspect Obama is an O Neillian vs a Von Braunian.
Still overall we might be in better shape as now four crew vehicles are under active development and funding was restored to advance propulsion concepts which we need to travel to Mars and beyond.

 

[EarthlingX]

Obama-Bolden are just trying to save what was messed up during the last 10 years, or perhaps even more.

Promising heaven, and cutting funds was modus operandi, and that did more killing of NASA than anything else.

And then there is ITAR, which complicated American space companies access to the foreign markets, and resulted in development of capabilities outside of US, which were before bought in US.

ULA was a reaction to the proposal for International Space Association, and a result is a declining number of commercial launches from USA in the past 10 years. It made military more or less the only costumer, which might have been the purpose of that policy.

As to the HLV, the only real reason i see for it, is MSFC, not to mention that now it will be at least a couple of years sooner than it would be under previous eye-smearing silliness.

NASA budget under Bush went down for about 30%.

Did i mention that Shuttle was also killed during that time, without plans to evolve it ?

Dubya is already a history for his 'brilliant' remarks, and comparing Obama to him is actually an insult, though not so surprising for a country where you have 'race' as one of statistics. Reminds me a bit of a good old Apartheid.

 

[kelvinzero]

(Numbering inserted by me)

(1)I take it you are referring to ULA as the launchers, though the initial reference was a bit obscure.

(2)As for increasing NASA budget, I'm afraid you are wrong. If you are looking at it in constant dollars or percentage of GDP, it's actually a decrease:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

(3)When it come to new tech such as "research into new technology that is only relevant to HSF: closed cycle life support, radiation protection", what do you think we have been doing with the ISS?

(4)When it comes to HLV during Obama's time in office (and many other advances), you are also incorrect. Under his plan, design will not be complete until 2015, and in service (according to Bolden) in the 2020-2030 time frame.

(5)As for robotic missions to the moon, Google has a prize for that.

(6)When it comes to moving on to the moon, we will have wasted 4 or years or more. Everyone seems to have forgotten what our "space truck" was for (including the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration). It was the first step of an overall plan to go beyond LEO. ISS was step two. Step three was in-orbit construction of interplanetary or translunar spacecraft and/or fuel depots. I will leave step four to you...

(1) Existing launchers. It is really not that obscure. Though perhaps existing american rockets would be more clear. Or this article.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ ... ster-plan/

(2) That link only goes up to 2010, money thrown at constellation. We are discussing FY2011. Top line increase of $6.0 billion over 5-years (FY 2011-15) compared to the FY 2010 Budget, for a total of $100 billion over five years. See the FY2011 budget overview pdf; first line.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_2 ... b_2010.pdf

(3) Very little has been done on the ISS so far. Mainly shuttle launches and assembly the expensive way. Was going to be dropped into the ocean pretty much upon completion to fund constellation.

(4) I didn't mention HLV. We did not need HLV for the moon. We could have spent that money directly on Orion and Altair, launched dry on existing launchers, and propellent depots. (see (1)) Then we would actually have had a moon plan underway by now. The FY11 plan very sensibly delays HLV decision until commercial and propellant depots have been investigated.

(5) Good. Very good. Part of the FY2011 budget includes more funding for such prizes.

(6) See (1) and (4)

I understand your frustration at abandoning the moon goal. But defending Constellation is not the way. No one is seriously defending it anymore. It gave whole new meaning to the phrase "When pigs fly". Some people are advocating other SHLV approaches however, such as Direct. The problem is no one is protesting the dropping of Altair. Therefore no one is really fighting for the moon.

 

[coby21]

Keep "Constellation "on track. Too manny constituants, Voters, will loos jobs. We cant relly on other countrys to fery U.S. into space.

 

[RVHM]

Keep "Constellation "on track. Too manny constituants, Voters, will loos jobs. We cant relly on other countrys to fery U.S. into space.

Been drinking the kool-aid, haven't you?

 

[3DBME]

The American Far Left has always been disdainful of manned space flight. In fact they were disdainful of any kind of space exploration until NASA dangled the concept of climate change monitored from space in front of them.

Is there evidence that this administration is ideological with a Far left bent? With a mass media ready to go along with Obama no matter what, I think it's possible.

Today, with more Americans out of work than at any time in the last 60 years, Obama wants to give amnesty (a.k.a. 'path to citizenship') to the more than 8 million illegal aliens living here, most of who are working for cash under the table, and most of who regularly send most of their money out of the country.

He has downplayed the terrorist attacks and attempts that have occurred here in the U.S. during his 1.5 years in office.

He is downplaying the Russian spy ring bust that is still in progress.

He has alienated long standing American allies like South Korea with his appeasement policies as well as newer allies like Poland.

Despite the increased chances of a North Korean missile attack he has reduced the number of Alaska based missile interceptors. The excuse is a time worn one from the Left, i.e. if a missile defense system does not work 100% perfectly then we should have no missile defense at all.

He is ignoring the increase in violence along the U.S. southern border, to the point where here in Arizona there are signs posted warning Americans not to enter public lands. These signs are 30 miles from the border.

He rammed his version of health care reform down the throats of the American people, even though it criminalizes those who do not buy insurance and even though it is rife with Constitutional violations.

In his Oval Office speech a few weeks ago, he tried to tie the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico with his Cap and Trade plan, despite every economist saying that it means significant job loss if enacted. That speech came off as bizarre even to his most ardent supporters like Chris Mathews.

His public statements are an ongoing diatribe of finger pointing and blame towards corporate America and small businesses as well.

With this kind of background, I think that the main question presented here is answered with a simple 'yes'. With the historic discovery last year of large amounts of water, and probably other volatiles, on the Moon, Obama's dramatic shift away from the Moon is but one more signal of his disdain of all things American. This disdain has permeated the American Far Left for many years.

 

[bc]

The truth is there is still a lot of concern over this plan.

Originally Obama wanted to to delay constelation for 5 years and divert funding to education. Up to this point he has in fact delayed major components of constelation. He proposes picking back up on the heavy lift option in 2015. It just seems like he is doing exctly what he said he would do. He recently diverted funds from Nasa to another government agency and said the purpose is for helping Nasa amployees transition to new careers. It isn't a big jump for him to justify diverting Nasa funds for education. I would bet he contends that the purpose of Nasa is to promote math and science, and what better way to promote math and science than to put the money directly into the school system.. This isn't crazy conspiracy, This is Obama's stated plan from 2008. That is what he said he would do, until it was unpopular in Florida. I just hoped that it wouldn't happen, but the first step of delaying constelation 5 years (major components of it anyway) has already happened. My fear is that he will just do what he said he would.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/ ... pits-huma/

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Keep "Constellation "on track. Too manny constituants, Voters, will loos jobs. We cant relly on other countrys to fery U.S. into space.

Been drinking the kool-aid, haven't you?

A UFO is on its way behind the Halley's comet to pick these guys up.

 

[sftommy]

The criticism of the NASA budget as born of leftist intent caught me by surprise. I have grown to find many of Obama's policies rather conservative. The 5% cuts Obama is asking from his departments for 2012 for instance. Prior to BP-Gulf spill, Obama was willing to open more of US Coastal waters to drilling than any previous administration, conservative or liberal. He might be the first fiscal conservative in the White House in my time.

I think all this is proving Obama to be more of a Woodrow-Wilson-Democrat. He thinks too much and so arrives at the conservative conclusion on many issues. NASA, having been well studied for him, he arrived at the conclusion that the money available should be spent on what could really be achieved with those amounts. Is that going to kill NASA?

Is that liberal or conservative?

coby21 wrote:Keep "Constellation "on track. Too manny constituants, Voters, will loos jobs. We cant relly on other countrys to fery U.S. into space.

I disagree with the position on Constellation, but do find great merit in his concern over relying on other countries for Americans to reach ISS, even the Russians have said it's risky to have only one vehicle able to get humans there and at $51M a seat maybe we should be asking CHINA to bid on it.

 

[rockett]

((2) That link only goes up to 2010, money thrown at constellation. We are discussing FY2011. Top line increase of $6.0 billion over 5-years (FY 2011-15) compared to the FY 2010 Budget, for a total of $100 billion over five years. See the FY2011 budget overview pdf; first line.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_ Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

Since you bring it up, let's look at key parts from the NASA Budget.

Critical Technology Demonstrations (page 6)
Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and other next-generation capabilities.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Exploration Tech and Demo $652 $1,262 $1,808 $2,013 $2,087

Not really enough for what is needed

Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D (page 7)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Heavy-lift $559 $594 $597 $598 $754

Way short of serious development, at a federal level, it looks more like just stalling

Commercial Crew and Cargo (page 10)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Commercial Crew $500 $1 400 $1 400 $1 300 $1 200
Commercial Cargo $312 [/code]

That is not really serious support, just a bone tossed their way.

Space Technology (page 13)
Focuses on key areas, such as communications,sensors, robotics, materials, and propulsion. (and prizes)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Space technology $572 $1,012 $1,060 $1,064 $1,218


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TOTAL $2,595 $4,268 $4,865 $4,975 $5,259

Compared to other parts of the NATIONAL budget, all of the above is chump change.

I understand your frustration at abandoning the moon goal. But defending Constellation is not the way. No one is seriously defending it anymore. It gave whole new meaning to the phrase "When pigs fly". ..The problem is no one is protesting the dropping of Altair.

Never said it was the way. However:
Cancellation of Constellation Program
2011 2012
Cx Close Out $1 900 $600

There are elements worth saving, I simply see no logical reason to spend 2.5 billion to throw away everything that has been done. We NEED Super Heavy Lift, salvage at least some of the work done on the Ares V. We need a crew module, salvage the Orion, don't just use it as a "lifeboat". And yes, salvage the work done on Altair as well.

Therefore no one is really fighting for the moon.

Because the current administration has no intention of going anywhere in space at all. They simply want to put it far enough out in the future, that they won't have to deal with it.

 

[Valcan]

The criticism of the NASA budget as born of leftist intent caught me by surprise. I have grown to find many of Obama's policies rather conservative. The 5% cuts Obama is asking from his departments for 2012 for instance. Prior to BP-Gulf spill, Obama was willing to open more of US Coastal waters to drilling than any previous administration, conservative or liberal. He might be the first fiscal conservative in the White House in my time.

I think all this is proving Obama to be more of a Woodrow-Wilson-Democrat. He thinks too much and so arrives at the conservative conclusion on many issues. NASA, having been well studied for him, he arrived at the conclusion that the money available should be spent on what could really be achieved with those amounts. Is that going to kill NASA?

Is that liberal or conservative?

coby21 wrote:Keep "Constellation "on track. Too manny constituants, Voters, will loos jobs. We cant relly on other countrys to fery U.S. into space.

I disagree with the position on Constellation, but do find great merit in his concern over relying on other countries for Americans to reach ISS, even the Russians have said it's risky to have only one vehicle able to get humans there and at $51M a seat maybe we should be asking CHINA to bid on it.

Well, not to get off topic but...really he didnt open up much of any waters. Politicans use slight of hand more than a illusanist. Go on TV say were gonna open up more land to off shore drilling. Thats true but then stuff in more regulations so that drilling can't be dont in specific places. That accually means less land becomes available.

He's very good at this and shows more ability at such dealings than any other president or politican i know of. Of course coming from chicago....

He has shown from day one of his presidency that as long as you SAY you will do something on an evening news bite people generealy believe that is what is going to happen. Then just dismiss anyone saying how you did other wise as just trying to change the subject, lying, being payed to do it for [incert evil corporation or industry]. Of course you dont say this you get others to.

This is all why reguardless of party or why they say always watch a politican VERY, VERY, closely. And never trust them if you do you obviously havent studied much of history.

---------------------------------------------
And lets not ask china to bid on anything. Keeping this american is simply better and wiser in the long run. Of course giving nasa and the space program and space industry in america more money to do what needs done in the long run is wiser also but hey thats not something like a bailout of an industry/wealfare etc. So not so many votes even if it is smarter.

 

[vulture4]

Ronald Reagan "proclaimed" the space station program, then never put any money into it. Neither did Bush 1. All we did was create stacks of paper. It was only funded when Clinton invited the Russians in. By working with the Russians we have built a level of trust and understanding that precludes war, even when leaders on both sides rattle sabers. Eliminating the Russian monopoly on transport to ISS will reduce cost. That monopoly, of course, was created by Bush's total lack of vision in canceling both Shuttle and ISS in 2010 because he was, apparently, bored and wanted to play golf on the Moon. Bush's policy was a very effective tool to kill both ISS and Shuttle, but the conservatives, who are still in charge at most levels of the space program, ignored it and still believe his fantasy of going to the moon with tax cuts. Now they assume that regaining Republican majorities in Congress will somehow restore the magical vision of Constellation while cutting their taxes even more.

Moreover, we cannot afford to support ISS effectively without new partners with deep pockets and big rockets, and only China can provide both cash and logistic support.

"There are elements worth saving, I simply see no logical reason to spend 2.5 billion to throw away everything that has been done. We NEED Super Heavy Lift, salvage at least some of the work done on the Ares V. We need a crew module, salvage the Orion, don't just use it as a "lifeboat". And yes, salvage the work done on Altair as well."

One of the many fatal errors of the Constellation program was the attempt to "reuse" "existing" technology. It looked simple to Mike Griffin on a Powerpoint slide, but in reality this approach is simplistic rather than simple; it usually creates complicated and expensive hodge-podges like the Titan IV. Operating cost always outweighs development cost, and only a "clean sheet" design like Falcon or Delta IV can achieve efficiency in operations. The Orion was not designed for LEO logistics and is inappropriate for it. The Dragon is less than half the weight and carries almost twice the crew and over five times the cargo to ISS. Of course the Shuttle is even better.

Regarding the list of new technology inititives , WHERE ARE REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES? Sorry, didn't mean to shout. No, we don't need an HLV, and least not from NASA. It requires no new technology, so in the unlikely event we have a 100 ton payload to launch, we can just procure a 100 ton booster from ULA or SpaceX, either would be happy to build one. But what project do we have that would need an HLV and would produce practical benefits?

RLVs are a different situation; we need a generation of technology demonstrators beore we can build an operational vehicle, so we really do need NASA involvement. In fact, we had it with the X-33, X-34, DC-X and X-37, when it was a NASA project. All were trashed under Bush II, except the X-37 which was salvaged by DoD.

 

[rockett]

Regarding the list of new technology inititives , WHERE ARE REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES? Sorry, didn't mean to shout. No, we don't need an HLV, and least not from NASA. It requires no new technology, so in the unlikely event we have a 100 ton payload to launch, we can just procure a 100 ton booster from ULA or SpaceX, either would be happy to build one. But what project do we have that would need an HLV and would produce practical benefits?

RLVs are a different situation; we need a generation of technology demonstrators beore we can build an operational vehicle, so we really do need NASA involvement. In fact, we had it with the X-33, X-34, DC-X and X-37, when it was a NASA project. All were trashed under Bush II, except the X-37 which was salvaged by DoD.

Where are they? Why, the Indians, Russians, British, Japanese, and Italians are building them, that's where they are! Not counting military efforts. NASA has nothing on the books, having moved on to "disposables".

A reason for HLVs? That one seems obvious.
-Fuel depots
-Fuel for the fuel depots
-Reactors (think what VASIMR could do with that much power! NASA is even grudgingly realizing that.)
-Components for translunar/interplanetary craft and ISS add-ons to be a "construction shack".
...and those are the uses that just come immediately to mind!

ULA and SpaceX are a very long way from producing an Energia class launcher, and Energia is no longer in production.

Here's a rundown on the other programs you named:
X-33

Recently Lockheed Martin has been testing a new and different 1/5 scale rocket described to be similar in capabilities and design, known now simply as a "Space Reusable Launch Vehicle". Two tests were conducted secretly at the Spaceport America in New Mexico. The first on December 19, 2007 was billed as a complete success, while the August 12, 2008 launch ended in an irreparable crash after 12.5 seconds of flight. A third test on October 10, 2009, was another success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

X-34

As of January 1, 2010 two demonstrators remain in storage at Edwards Air Force Base.[2]

Orbital and Rockwell withdrew less than a year after the contract was signed, because they decided the project could not be done for the promised amount. (A major disagreement between Rockwell and NASA over engine choice likely contributed to the decision.)

The X-34 was reborn as a programme for a suborbital reusable-rocket technology demonstrator (illustrated). But when the first flight vehicle was near completion, the programme died after NASA demanded sizable design changes without providing any new funding, and the contractor, Orbital Sciences, refused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34

DC-X

Several engineers who worked on the DC-X have since been hired by Blue Origin, and their Blue Origin New Shepard vehicle is based on the DC-X design. Blue Origin does not require the high cross range capabilities, and therefore uses a base-first re-entry profile. Also, the DC-X provided inspiration for many elements of Armadillo Aerospace's, Masten Space Systems's, and TGV Rockets's spacecraft designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

So see, they aren't completely dead, except maybe the X-34.

 

[EarthlingX]

A reason for HLVs? That one seems obvious.
-Fuel depots
-Fuel for the fuel depots
-Reactors (think what VASIMR could do with that much power! NASA is even grudgingly realizing that.)
-Components for translunar/interplanetary craft and ISS add-ons to be a "construction shack".
...and those are the uses that just come immediately to mind!

No need for HLV for any of the above, since there are existing launchers which can do the job much cheaper, and without any 10 year development. Perhaps only reason for HLV would be a reactor, but since they just started talking about developing it, i see no need for that. When there will be one, just bid for it, COTS-like.
Components for BEO craft can be lifted by Proton, as Russians do, or Soyuzes, like those which ESA bought recently.
Delta IV(H) or Atlas V are also capable of that, but their low flight rate, caused by a small market, which was created by visionary export prohibitions, makes them rather expensive and not interesting for anyone but military and USA government, which is also not so with money, due to monetary expertise, which changed a record surplus into global economic crisis.

Only thing that was done on Ares V development, was work done on HR of RS-68, and that can be used with ULA launchers under COTS program.

If ATK would do a decent job with a stick, they could compete too, and them not competing says enough.

Only real reason i can see for HLV, is in using existing technology from Shuttle program, to not let it go to waste, if it is cost efficient, and not over stretched. To me, it makes sense to go for a next mass to LEO class above existing 20t launchers, if there is a market, which would enable sufficient flight rate.

 

[rcsplinters]

The Augustine Report, that document that the administration is using for cover to avoid funding manned space flight, has this to say about heavy lift.

From the Executive Summary (page 12): No one knows the mass or dimensions of the largest hardware
that will be required for future exploration missions, but it will likely be significantly larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in launch mass to low-Earth orbit, which is the capability of current launchers. As the size of the launcher increases, the result is fewer launches and less operational complexity in terms of assembly and/or refueling in space."

Basically, without heavy lift, anything beyond LEO is a pipe dream. The question is how heavy is heavy. The Augustine speaks indirectly to this as well in Figure 3.3.2-2 on page 3 mentions 9 ARES V class launchs as being required to test a Mars solution on the moon. Figuring that the ARES V is capable of 140 metric tons to orbit (also from Augustine), by my math that's around 1260 metric tons to LEO to mount missions of the magnitude that the administration wants us to believe that we will be pursuing. Bottom line is that we're going to need a significantly higher lift capability than we have or each mission beyond LEO is going to require a massive assembly project similar to the ISS if we try to ride uphill on bottle rockets.

Further, the Augustine report does not mention any glimmar of hope for "game changing" technologies from ride to LEO perspective. Most of their options were solid/cryo based with some nod to Kerosene or other dino burner for lower stages. In other words, for the ride uphill, if we wait till 2015, we're waiting to buld something we already know how to build today. I am 100% confident that the administration knows this. They also know that no commercial venture has such a booster on the drawing board. Further, they know that no commercial venture has crew capsule/transport designed for months - years in space beyond LEO with all the radiation and redundancy that will require. In other words, no calvary is coming over that hill in 2015.

Back to the point of the thread, kill NASA? Probably not. But it is quite plausible that this entire series of events was designed to avoid funding manned space flight on his watch. Did they up NASA's budget? Yes, primarily as pork to lead us to believe they're committed to commercial options. However, the lift is significantly short of the 3 billion/yr that Augustine suggested would be necessary to pursue goals of this nature. We're out of the business of manned space flight without congressional intervention.