• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

POLL: NASA's New Space Plan Fare Under the New Congress

POLL: How Will NASA's New Space Plan Fare Under the New Congress?

  • Huge Change Coming – A change in Washington means new folks in charge of NASA's oversight committees

    Votes: 15 42.9%
  • I Vote 'Undecided' – It's too early in the game to decide one way or another.

    Votes: 13 37.1%
  • Stay the Course – Congress and President Obama have already decided NASA's new direction. Everything

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

doublehelix

Guest
This week, the election results of Nov. 2 turned control of the U.S. House of Representatives over to the Republicans, while the Democrats still control the Senate. The party division in Congress comes as NASA still awaits final budget approval for its new space plan – a plan that has already been signed into law by President Obama and approved by the previous Congress, but lacks full funding appropriations for 2011 and beyond.

How will this NASA's space plan under President Obama fare in this new Congress? Weigh in with your vote.

After Elections, Critics of Obama's NASA Plan Likely to Take Over 2 Key Committees
NASA in Transition as Congress OKs New Direction
Congress Approves Bill for NASA's New Space Plan
 
N

nubsyn

Guest
If they significantly reduce or eliminate funding for the COTS program we are done. We would be better off cutting NASA loose and giving them 1% to 2% of our budget and allow an oversite committee consisting of a physicist, biologist, astronomer, robotic engineer, mechanical/rocket engineer, chemist, a democrat and republican (or a independent), heck we can even add a tree hugger also. They must all be able to name charactors from star trek and star wars. They must also study the full history of NASA and the effects of government on it. They must be elected every 4 years and cannot spend more than 8 (same as the president). And each of their terms must be staggard. Their main objective should be finding a new earth, resources and life-forms. They must also be committed to the advancement of robotic missions followed by manned missions as far and fast as possible! God Speed!
 
B

BorgeTruelsen

Guest
it not easy to tell, but I hope something good are going to happy with the space program the next 10 years... We need to give all people a way in to space
 
S

southjersey

Guest
Fund the last Shuttle flights, then COTS, then anything else. I don't like it, but NASA should expect less money, not more. Hard to sell cutting dollars everywhere else and not the space program.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Only time will tell. I read last night where two of the House committees that handle space appropriations have ranking republicans who favor the moon first concept. I still think that this path will put the most people back to work the quickest. But the USA's infrastructure is also in need of a massive overhaul. Roads, bridges, water systems and sewage systems are falling apart. Funding plans to do this work would end up putting a lot of people back to work across a broad spectrum of job talents, including mine. Although I doubt that I could be persuaded to go back to work in my field of civil engineering at this point. I might do a little side work as I have full Autocad capability on this computer. I could even do a little moon civil engineering design.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Right now I'd settle for an appropriations bill that would put 135 in the air. In fact there's a point I'm not sure about. If we see a continuation at 2010 levels (very possible I'm told), what then? The continuation wouldn't match the legal POR any longer. Do they continue with ARES or start on the HLV? Does NASA just take the current POR and trim it till it fits the continuation budget? I can't recall that ever happening.

In truth, I that NASA's future is going to be very unpredictable and NASA may literally be under the radar for a couple of years. The senate and house are completely polarized and I'd be surprised if a few dozen "VETO" stamps are not on order for the Whitehouse.

I doubt we'll see anything signficant happen between now and 2013 except for perhaps an appropriations cut. The wildcard will be when the shuttle wheels stop turning for the last time and then we really will be earthbound. It will be real then and we could then see some action triggered merely by that event. I doubt it, but who knows.
 
D

dryson

Guest
As long as the war in the Middle East continues then cut's to the space program will continue to take place. During war time a countries space exploration program is usually one of the first non-essential programs to have money taken from to support the defense systems and military to keep the country safe.

Let's just hope, actually let's not hope let's push the administration to find and kill Bin Laden so that our scope will be turned on Iran so that the Iranian Situation will be taken care of. Once Bin Laden has been taken care of and the troops redirected there should be more than enough money to sponsor NASA programs.

The other deterence to NASA programs are the supposed American's who constantly say that the cost of space exploration is too much. Those taht say this are nothing more than agent's of China and the past that do not want to progress or explore as their world which is based in the past would crumble and drift away like the dans on the winds of time. Just so what has already been done can be used over and over again for the simple fact that it is easier and does not require to much thought.
 
S

Skyskimmer

Guest
Cut cots dump the station, stop making silly probes, and send americans back to the moon, we got a tight budget we can't do it all :D
 
M

MargaretPOA

Guest
Those choices are ridiculous. the one I would have chosen is that I don't expect NASA to survive with the election of all of the deficit peacocks who find unlimited amounts of money for tax cuts for the enormously rich and for elective wars but never seem to have any for science. We are entering some dark years for science in the United States.
 
Y

YetAnotherBob

Guest
Obama's Plan is essentially Bush's plan, pointed at Mars, with maybe an asteroid in between. Obama wants to privatize the launch industries more rapidly than Bush, and spend less on the earth to Orbit part. Instead of one capsule, there are currently three, developed by private companies. also three launchers. Those parts I like. Even if two fail, there will still be one that will work.

We won't see major changes in plan. The Moon will definitely be back on the table. In 5 years or so, we may be leasing station space from Bigalow, an American company. Europe and Japan may join us in launches on commercial vehicles. In 10, there will be a little base on the Moon. It could grow to a colony in 20 years. If such a colony can find a way to pay for itself, then off planet settlement will be assured. We can't have long term settlement without a return on investment (ROI) Mars will follow.

I have always believed that to colonize Mars, we have to learn to live on the Moon first. Colonization of Mars should be our current long range goal in space.
 
S

Skyskimmer

Guest
YetAnotherBob":18l8tlgc said:
I have always believed that to colonize Mars, we have to learn to live on the Moon first.

I really don't understand this line of thinking. I mean do you work as a mechanic for ten years before becoming a mechanical engineer, but I digress I'm scared that's all I can say I'm scared :(
 
I

ittiz

Guest
NASA has been plugging along in fairly the same direction despite its "new direction." I have a feeling they know political winds are going to blow back in their direction soon and this direction is only transient. I do hope however they stick with the private space craft but get more funding and direction.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
The Republicans claim they are going to vastly cut the budget, to shrink government, to starve the beast, to maintain a strong defense, while of course also cutting taxes and balancing the budget. Under Reagan and Bush this just meant increasing the deficit. But if they really cut the budget NASA is one of the few things they can easily cut. I have heard rumors STS-135 was now uncertain even though the marginal cost is only $19M, making it the cheapest shuttle launch and one of the cheapest launches of any kind on record. $19M for a Shuttle mission! How's that for a system that "proves reusable spacecraft aren't practical"?

If I had to guess, I would say the Republicans will not cut the budget. Even though appropriations bills start in the House, they would prefer to blame the deficit on Obama and not have to take responsibility for any actual belt-tightening. But if the budget is cut, NASA will suffer because it isn't considered vital. And if NASA is cut, the funding for programs like COTS-D may be cut, because even though it is "private enterprise" it is tied to Obama, whereas Constellation, useless as it is in practical terms, is associated with Bush and supported by Republican legislators in Alabama and Utah.
 
J

jrgraphics

Guest
Our country desperately needs the manned space program to compete with the world in the decades to come. If we do not revive, fund, and continue to build the Orion program we may never get back to the moon or later on to Mars. The testing and proofing of new equipment and procedures done on the moon may mean success on Mars. An asteroid mission is brief, while a moon and then Mars mission could be continued upon, eventually becoming a colonization series of missions.

Since we have quite a large investment to date in the Orion program, it would be a terrible waste to scrap it in favor of a single type of mission where we do not have the ability to return and establish something more permanent. This new Congress must get back to common sense thinking, that would be to adjust the spending, but continue with Orion, even if it is on a slower pace than originally planned. The longer we rely on Russian (and soon Chinese) technology, the more and more wasteful spending will occur, with no way out.

We can give the private space industry a boost with shared technology and purchasing of parts of the mission, however we should still have NASA as the overall brains to produce all the necessary parts of the manned space program. NASA has proven over the years to be as safety conscious as possible, even when budget costs become a problem. NASA deserves to be back as the top dog in the manned space program.

You can delete some of the future unmanned science missions and use the funds to promote the manned missions we need. These unmanned missions, although valuable are not going to replace a series of manned missions in the future. If we do not strive to take the lead in the world scientifically, then other nations will. We should not have to depend on these foreign nations for manned space missions, since they have only their own interests at heart, including world domination. Go NASA!

J.R.D.
 
P

postman1

Guest
I am of the understanding that both sides now feel jobs should be the number one priority. I can't think of any other program which even comes close to establishing more new, high salary, jobs and/or saving more good jobs from elimination, than adding to the space budget would. It should be a no brainer, Moon, Mars, asteroid, all at once if possible. Otherwise, in the order stated. Also encourage private by whatever means available. This is the future and if the U S doesn't grab hold, it will slip away from us. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will share the moon once they are there in force, surely needs to study a little Chinese history. Once they make a claim to real estate, it is theirs in perpetuity. If jobs and spin off technologies are figured in, the return on investment in space is well worth the cost.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
postman1":me4yhw3y said:
Anyone who thinks the Chinese will share the moon once they are there in force, surely needs to study a little Chinese history. Once they make a claim to real estate, it is theirs in perpetuity.
You do realise that the Chinese are probably the least imperialistic major power in history?
 
Y

YetAnotherBob

Guest
JonClarke wrote "You do realize that the Chinese are probably the least imperialistic major power in history?"

You might want to explain that to the people in Tibet. Those in Taiwan might also have an opinion. Vietnam can also tell about the islands they owned where oil was discovered. That's all within the last 40 years. There is also the east half of Mongolia. There is a bit of a problem with the former Muslim area bordering (and formerly part of) Afghanistan.

This is a very interesting history for a least imperialistic major power. And, this is without any consideration of the Khmer Rouge, the Sandinista s, or the Guerrilla movements in the Andes that decayed into the Drug Cartels.

Tienanmen Square was just business as usual.
 
C

Chairshot215

Guest
Well I’m going to say NASA is going to run into problems with all these the earth is 6000 years old man and dinosaur walked the Earth at the same time believing Tea Party backed Republicans. These people are already calling for a complete Government shutdown of spending. Considering that polls show that more than 80% of these Tea Baggers think Evolution should not be taught in schools I am doubting they will care much for funding science in general let alone the Space Program and I can definitely see them using NASA’s budget as a means for Grandstanding their beliefs.
 
C

Chairshot215

Guest
postman1":2fguyfoc said:
I am of the understanding that both sides now feel jobs should be the number one priority. I can't think of any other program which even comes close to establishing more new, high salary, jobs and/or saving more good jobs from elimination, than adding to the space budget would. It should be a no brainer, Moon, Mars, asteroid, all at once if possible. Otherwise, in the order stated. Also encourage private by whatever means available. This is the future and if the U S doesn't grab hold, it will slip away from us. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will share the moon once they are there in force, surely needs to study a little Chinese history. Once they make a claim to real estate, it is theirs in perpetuity. If jobs and spin off technologies are figured in, the return on investment in space is well worth the cost.

Both sides may be concerned about unemployment but you have to remember that the Republican platform believes that the Government does not create jobs. Its actually kinda funny they are so against the new NASA direction as it takes the space program away from socialism. Anyway my point being that if the Republicans believe jobs are created by the rich having more money. I personally believe it is the other way around. Why would a business owner higher someone they are already doing without just because they paid less taxes. I like trickle up economics in that the poor and middle class should pay less taxes. With the extra money they will start to buy things again. This will cause business owners to higher new employees to actually meet the demand of more business. Anyhow I have gone way off my point but I agree that it should be a no brainer. I just have a fear that the new Tea Party conservatives will use NASA's budget as a means for grandstanding against what they believe to be waist-full spending. Although it is not the case NASA will be an easy target for them.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, if you were watching, worked at record speed to increase the NASA budget in the authorization bill passed just before the election. But most workers at NASA centers voted Republican anyway. Now John Boehner's comments indicate that the Republicans they just helped elect are going to slash the NASA budget in the appropriations bill, which must originate in th House. So, will the Republicans loosing their jobs in the space program blame it on the people they just elected? No, they will, as usual, blame it on Obama.
 
C

Char55

Guest
To all who say the Shuttle program is a waste of money ~ consider the over 3,000 jobs that have already been lost. The Constellation program; a tower sits at Kennedy Space Center finished on a Friday - killed by Obama the following Tuesday. ( It was hidden as a rider on the bill passed by Congress allowing parents to keep their college children on their insurance policy until age 26 ). Waste of money!! Besides Constellation was back-stepping to the "Apollo style capsule".
Consider this, for every job lost by NASA effects 2 or 3 jobs in the public sector. The United States will be paying Russia $55 million per astronaut per flight to get to the ISS (that is the current cost up from $20 million). Who is to say that when the U.S. relies solely on the Russians to get back & forth to the International Space Station 1) the cost won't increase or 2) They say " Thank you for MIR 2"; and not deal with the U.S. at all.
Cities spend billions of dollars for new sports arenas, movie producers can get billions to make ridiculous movies while theaters continue to up the cost of going to the theater to see the movie. How much are sports figures paid to play? How much do bimbos with a name made famous for getting into trouble get paid to show up at an event so it can be said that they there? ( Paris Hilton gets $20,000 for walking in the door ~ doesn't say anything about staying ).
With regard to the Shuttle Program & the Orbiters at this time they have been updated and are in better condition than when they were built. "Discovery" and the hydrogen leak that delayed the launch happened 2 times in '09; the engineers haven't come up with the right repair YET.
"NASA's New Space Plan" it won't be ready for at the minimum 5 years, why kill the existing program before we have the new program ready or the Russian's will be the dominate force in the space program. FYI, they don't have the 1st amendment for freedom of the press so we don't hear of their failures.
 
D

DavidGriffith

Guest
NASA role in our country's future is respected and understood by Republicans. If anything, Congress will give NASA all the money it needs to undertake all the important experiments and missions.....with oversight of course.... There will be someone minding-the-store for NASA, as well as America now.
 
R

Ruri

Guest
nubsyn":w3fgdh6d said:
If they significantly reduce or eliminate funding for the COTS program we are done. We would be better off cutting NASA loose and giving them 1% to 2% of our budget and allow an oversite committee consisting of a physicist, biologist, astronomer, robotic engineer, mechanical/rocket engineer, chemist, a democrat and republican (or a independent), heck we can even add a tree hugger also. They must all be able to name charactors from star trek and star wars. They must also study the full history of NASA and the effects of government on it. They must be elected every 4 years and cannot spend more than 8 (same as the president). And each of their terms must be staggard. Their main objective should be finding a new earth, resources and life-forms. They must also be committed to the advancement of robotic missions followed by manned missions as far and fast as possible! God Speed!
Agreed COTS is going to have a far more profound impact then Constellation ever could.

COTS will eventually give us a space infrastructure like in movies like 2001 etc all CxP would have done was put a handful of boot prints on the moon.

One of my big complaints of project constellation was it ignore everything learned about space flight since 1981 and it scuttled ISS.
Orion would have had no where to go from 2016 to 2020 as Ares V would not have been ready until 2020.
It also killed all there research on advanced propulsion for RLVs which only recently has been reinstated.
CxP would have got us to the moon but we would have lost our leadership in aerospace technology in the process.
 
B

BaronHarkonen

Guest
Personally, I think Obama went for the asteroid mission, because it was "sexy." Constellation and the Moon have an element of "Been there, done that" in the uninformed public's eye. An asteroid "poses a danger." But an asteroid mission has no pay-off, it is unsustainable. Oh sure, we may someday need to deflect an asteroid, but the infrastructure needed to accomplish this efficiently and economically should be built up in the process of developing the Moon.

The Moon is not only a nearby training-ground for Mars and the rest of the Solar System, it's a whole planet! It will be a vital mainspring for resources for the Earth and for the exploration of the Solar System. It is a necessary stepping-stone to the whole Solar System!

We can only hope that this freedom-intelligence-science-America hating tendency toward medieval-ism of the Tea Partiers in the GOP will die a natural death before they are able to poison our future! But, whether the Republican Politicians revive Constellation(by that name or any other) because it's associated with Bush or for a good reason, just let them do it!

If COTS works and private industry steps up to bat in LEO, how long do you think Russia's government run program will be able to compete? In ten years or less, the Russians will be out of business and buying their seats from us!

PS: Char55- We can pay for the current program OR the new program, but not both.
 
D

deagleninja

Guest
Lame poll options, talk about PC overkill....

a) Better
b) Same
c) Worse

Would have worked just fine...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS