Report: Obama to cut Ares I, but increase NASA's budget.

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Science Insider is a column on the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) website.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsi ... obama.html

December 17, 2009

Exclusive: Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget


by Andrew Lawler

President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.

The current NASA plan for human exploration is built around the $3.5 billion Constellation program, which would provide a way to get humans to the space station and beyond. But its initial launcher, Ares 1, has faced a string of cost and technical problems, and it was excluded from several options for future space flight put forth earlier this year by an outside panel chaired by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine. Although that panel suggested a $3 billion boost to NASA's $18.7-billion-a-year budget in order to take a firm next step in human space flight, Obama's support for a $1 billion bump next year represents a major coup for the agency given the ballooning deficit and the continuing recession. And NASA just won a $1 billion boost from Congress for 2010 in a bill signed by the president.

According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.

“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs. But the decision, which has not yet been formally announced, is sure to spark opposition from Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and other members who fear that any change to the current Constellation rocket program will lead to mass layoffs in their states. Indeed, Shelby inserted language into the final 2010 spending bill for NASA requiring congressional approval before any changes are made to Constellation.
>
The new program would jettison Ares 1. To appease congressional critics like Shelby, the Administration hopes to ensure that research and development work on the new rocket would proceed without significant job losses at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

But Shelby appears to be preparing for battle. In a 14 December letter to NASA’s inspector general, he said that several Augustine panel members were registered lobbyists who took “direct advantage of their temporary roles on the Commission to further their personal business.” He asked the inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter.

Augustine could not be reached for comment. The panel did include the president of a company that stands to gain from a recompetition of the new launcher, but none of the committee members were registered lobbyists, according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel. But there were numerous staffers from industry backgrounds who helped compile the Augustine report released in October. Shelby’s press secretary, Jonathan Graffeo, did not return calls requesting comment.
>
The president’s decision to go with the second option is a major departure from his 2010 budget plan, which called for a 5% increase in 2010—the boost just approved by Congress—but then remaining flat through 2014.
>
 
M

moonfie

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Not all that surprising I guess. Will the new launcher be the Ares-V or will it be something different entirely?

The wording of the article is a little bit strange in the part where it says they will ask ESA and JAXA to build the lunar lander and modules, because it implies that they'll actually be interested in doing it. If the EU and Japan have other priorities, then NASA's kind of up a creek.

Other than that, though, it's not nearly as terrible as it could be. At least they're not abandoning human space flight entirely ... at least not yet =/
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

docm":5g9r5990 said:
Science Insider is a column on the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) website.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsi ... obama.html

December 17, 2009

Exclusive: Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget


by Andrew Lawler

President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.

The current NASA plan for human exploration is built around the $3.5 billion Constellation program, which would provide a way to get humans to the space station and beyond. But its initial launcher, Ares 1, has faced a string of cost and technical problems, and it was excluded from several options for future space flight put forth earlier this year by an outside panel chaired by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine. Although that panel suggested a $3 billion boost to NASA's $18.7-billion-a-year budget in order to take a firm next step in human space flight, Obama's support for a $1 billion bump next year represents a major coup for the agency given the ballooning deficit and the continuing recession. And NASA just won a $1 billion boost from Congress for 2010 in a bill signed by the president.

According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.

“The decision is not going to make anyone gasp,” said one source in the White House, which hopes to ease congressional concerns about the impact of the new plan on existing aerospace jobs. But the decision, which has not yet been formally announced, is sure to spark opposition from Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and other members who fear that any change to the current Constellation rocket program will lead to mass layoffs in their states. Indeed, Shelby inserted language into the final 2010 spending bill for NASA requiring congressional approval before any changes are made to Constellation.
>
The new program would jettison Ares 1. To appease congressional critics like Shelby, the Administration hopes to ensure that research and development work on the new rocket would proceed without significant job losses at NASA centers like Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

But Shelby appears to be preparing for battle. In a 14 December letter to NASA’s inspector general, he said that several Augustine panel members were registered lobbyists who took “direct advantage of their temporary roles on the Commission to further their personal business.” He asked the inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter.

Augustine could not be reached for comment. The panel did include the president of a company that stands to gain from a recompetition of the new launcher, but none of the committee members were registered lobbyists, according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel. But there were numerous staffers from industry backgrounds who helped compile the Augustine report released in October. Shelby’s press secretary, Jonathan Graffeo, did not return calls requesting comment.
>
The president’s decision to go with the second option is a major departure from his 2010 budget plan, which called for a 5% increase in 2010—the boost just approved by Congress—but then remaining flat through 2014.
>


Here lies the problem with NASA. They are simply so caught up in politics that have nothing to do with space flight. It seems to me that jobs and contractors are more important to congress than actually getting any thing done.
 
M

moonfie

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

DarkenedOne":quk7tydi said:
Here lies the problem with NASA. They are simply so caught up in politics that have nothing to do with space flight. It seems to me that jobs and contractors are more important to congress than actually getting any thing done.

This. Although I can't really blame the congressmen and women for thinking this way, since their primary concern is keeping THEIR jobs and employed voters are, in general, happy voters. I think I preferred the original Constellation option over the second option because I felt that if NASA continued what they'd already been working on for five years, they might have a slightly higher chance of actually doing it. Visiting asteroids sounds quite nice and all, but unfortunately I'm not holding my breath that it will actually happen. Which is annoying, because back in the middle of the decade when Constellation was new, I absolutely hated it when other people were pessimistic about it :lol:

It's just kind of depressing that the agency that took us from our first manned launch ever to landing on the moon in about eight years took almost six years from the conception of the Constellation program to get to one preliminary test flight for a rocket that almost immediately got canceled anyway. I've never been the shuttle's number one fan, but I do worry about the future of manned spaceflight (in America, anyway) after the shuttle reaches its much deserved retirement.

At this point, I'm really really hoping SpaceX and Virgin Galactic pull off some magic.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

I'm just very glad that Ares I story is over, or at least at it's end.
As usual, everyone else is waiting what USA will do and if i remember correctly, other agencies have already expressed their interest in participating in Moon base programs, Mars, etc, so i see no problem.
Next big thing will be allowing American companies to sell their space gear at least to allies, cooperating agencies or something like that, like Russians do for a while, which i expect will happen soon.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Option 2: is that this one?

Option 2. ISS and Lunar Exploration, Constrained
to FY 2010 Budget. This option extends the ISS to 2020,
and begins a program of lunar exploration using a derivative
of Ares V, referred to here as the Ares V Lite. The option
assumes completion of the Shuttle manifest in FY 2011, and
it includes a technology development program, a program to
develop commercial services to transport crew to low-Earth
orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. This option
does not deliver heavy-lift capability until the late 2020s
and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to
land on or explore the Moon in the next two decades.

If so, why does it mention the late 2020s for heavy lift whereas this article mentions 2018?

The idea of getting other countries to develop the moon lander is interesting. If money is going to be limited then just developing a good workhorse heavy lifter is an important goal to get right. It is going to be with you for a long time, potentially much longer than the shuttle because with expendables you will never be faced with an aging fleet. I hope they include a lot of room for evolution.
 
A

andrew_t1000

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

An extra $1 billion for NASA when your senate just voted for a $600 Billion defence budget?
That is obscene!
I guess making weapons employs more people that space exploration.

Like I've said before, I hope we don't have to stop a comet or asteroid anytime in the next 50 years.
 
E

exoscientist

Guest
This report claims the Obama administration plans to cut Ares I, and use commercial launchers to supply the ISS, and focus development on a heavy lift launcher:

December 17, 2009
Exclusive: Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget.
by Andrew Lawler
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsi ... obama.html

This article plays down the idea a decision has been made yet:

White House says no decision yet on NASA's future.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: December 18, 2009
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/18whitehouse/


Bob Clark
 
D

docm

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

I'm with those who think this was a trial balloon to see what the Congressional response would be.

Pelosi, as usual, is very predictable not being a supporter of manned spaceflight of any kind.

Then there is Shelby who is trying to protect the NASA money and jobs in his state. Poke Boeing and another Senator from Washington state would howl just as much.

The real responses they're probably looking at are from the committee chairmen.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Nothing that comes out of the mouth of the white house, the congress, or the senate should be believed or taken at face value. They are only looking after old number one (themselves), and not humanities role in space going forward into the future.

I’m starting to think the best choice right now is to scrap manned spaceflight for NASA. NASA's manned spaceflight is dying by inches... When you see a horse that has fallen down with a broken leg and suffering terribly, the best choice is to put it out of its misery.
 
M

moonfie

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Gravity_Ray":1bcyeyl8 said:
Nothing that comes out of the mouth of the white house, the congress, or the senate should be believed or taken at face value. They are only looking after old number one (themselves), and not humanities role in space going forward into the future.

I’m starting to think the best choice right now is to scrap manned spaceflight for NASA. NASA's manned spaceflight is dying by inches... When you see a horse that has fallen down with a broken leg and suffering terribly, the best choice is to put it out of its misery.

I agree with you as long as there's something to replace it (ie private industry). I think that maybe NASA should stick with what it seems to be good at, which is robotic missions, and leave the manned stuff to private companies. However, the private industry industry is still quite young, and to give up on human space flight altogether is something I find unacceptable. Therefore, I hope NASA can hold out just a little bit longer!
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Moon that’s why I said "NASA's manned spaceflight", I agree with you that NASA is doing some great things with robotic missions and aeronautics and yes, I want, need, hope that private industry or other countries will pick up the manned spaceflight torch. I am not giving up on manned spaceflight in general, but as one that has been waiting for easier manned space flight since 1982 when I got into space stuff, I have almost given up that it will happen in my life time (no, I don’t consider spaceship 2 as easier access to space, that’s not the space travel I’m talking about). If you’re younger than me then I hope it will happen in your life time, or in the life time of our children. My hope for manned USA spaceflight to be out in deep space was a 100 W light bulb back in the 80s and right now it’s glowing at about 10 W's.

But manned spaceflight by NASA has now become a distraction that is only detracting from all other science that can be done by NASA. NASA should very much focus on its core competency... Manned spaceflight is not that.



moonfie":3101ew9y said:
Gravity_Ray":3101ew9y said:
Nothing that comes out of the mouth of the white house, the congress, or the senate should be believed or taken at face value. They are only looking after old number one (themselves), and not humanities role in space going forward into the future.

I’m starting to think the best choice right now is to scrap manned spaceflight for NASA. NASA's manned spaceflight is dying by inches... When you see a horse that has fallen down with a broken leg and suffering terribly, the best choice is to put it out of its misery.

I agree with you as long as there's something to replace it (ie private industry). I think that maybe NASA should stick with what it seems to be good at, which is robotic missions, and leave the manned stuff to private companies. However, the private industry industry is still quite young, and to give up on human space flight altogether is something I find unacceptable. Therefore, I hope NASA can hold out just a little bit longer!
 
S

samkent

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Thought bubble…

If I owned a private space company I would be wondering along these lines.

Ok we get a launcher design, test it and put a work force together to build it. We have assembly lines, testing facilities, all the same infrastructure that NASA has. All of this takes until about 2015 to get on a roll.
Then come the gravy years. We build 6 – 10 per year our stock holders are happy and our stock rises.

Then in 2020 they splash the ISS. What is going to happen to my company? 2-3 flights per year? Maybe ? You are going to need to have your hand in several government cookie jars to survive, like Boeing.
 
D

docm

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

Depends on what happens with Bigelow. They're talking to NASA about supplying a hab for ISS and then there are their own stations, the first module of which (Sundancer) is scheduled for a Falcon 9 launch in a couple of years. They also have that relationship with LockMart for Orion Lite and the contract signed 2 years ago for BA-330 launches.

Not to be ignored is the size of a Bigelow station (Sundancer + 2 BA-330's) - at least 835 cu/m. Not small.
 
S

samkent

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

I wonder what Bigelow will charge for a 30 day stint on one of his stations.
I wonder if the scientific community can convince their bosses the price is worth it.
I guess the price of the trip up will exceed the price of the stay by a large factor.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I am merging the threads, but keeping the more descriptive title, instead of the rather obtuse "the second option wins" :)
 
V

vulture4

Guest
What does increased funding for ISS utilization mean with no access to ISS until SpaceX is ready to provide it? How will ISS be utilized?
 
H

halman

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

samkent":21rceev9 said:
Thought bubble…

If I owned a private space company I would be wondering along these lines.

Ok we get a launcher design, test it and put a work force together to build it. We have assembly lines, testing facilities, all the same infrastructure that NASA has. All of this takes until about 2015 to get on a roll.
Then come the gravy years. We build 6 – 10 per year our stock holders are happy and our stock rises.

Then in 2020 they splash the ISS. What is going to happen to my company? 2-3 flights per year? Maybe ? You are going to need to have your hand in several government cookie jars to survive, like Boeing.

My, aren't we optimistic about space exploration! But you make a perfectly valid point, which reinforces my belief that the United States developing a step rocket to replace the space shuttle as a manned launch system is absurd. Either we hitch rides with other countries which have space flight capability, or we keep our own existing launch system working until we develop a more evolved way of accelerating people to 5 miles per second.

I am amazed at the confidence which is being expressed by many in the commercial launch industry coming up with a man rated booster in time to service the International Space Station. At the current rate of development, it will another 20 years before we have a private sector launch vehicle capable of putting people in orbit.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
http://www.space.com/news/nasa-budget-b ... 00125.html

No $1 Billion Boost for NASA Budget, Sources Say
By Amy Klamper
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 25 January 2010
02:51 pm ET


WASHINGTON — NASA will not be getting the $1 billion budget boost civil space advocates had hoped to see when President Barack Obama sends his 2011 spending proposal to Congress Feb. 1, requiring the U.S. space agency to make even tougher than expected choices about the future of its manned space program, according to sources with close ties to the administration.

I'm shocked. SHOCKED!! :eek: :shock: :?

NOT!
 
M

menellom

Guest
I'll believe it when I see it. "Sources" and "rumors" with information about a decision on the NASA budget have spent the last few months bouncing everywhere from a $3 billion increase to a budget cut.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Re: Science Insider excluisive: the second option wins

halman":xg6y97c8 said:
I am amazed at the confidence which is being expressed by many in the commercial launch industry coming up with a man rated booster in time to service the International Space Station. At the current rate of development, it will another 20 years before we have a private sector launch vehicle capable of putting people in orbit.
For posterity ;)
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
Halman the private sector will put people in orbit by or before 2015.

For Posterity as well.
 
M

menellom

Guest
So something just occurred to me meteor - so like I said all these rumors from 'sources close to the White House' over the last few month have been bouncing all over the place, from the very good to the very bad...

... what if this back and forth just means that they haven't reached a decision? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that "sources" were reporting every single 'what if' put forth in a debate as an absolute decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts