Obama Redirects Space Program to Commercial Contractors, Says No More Manned Trip to Moon

[Leopolds Ghost]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/nasa-budget/?intcid=inform_relatedContent

The Obama administration has officially decided to end the Constellation mission back to the moon, although the replacement plan faces a tough route through Congress.

“NASA’s Constellation program — based largely on existing technologies — was begun to realize a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies,” the budget summary concluded. “Using a broad range of criteria, an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives.”

As anticipated, the independent Augustine Panel’s work was used as the basis for the new NASA direction. Though the blue-ribbon panel did not officially take a position on which future plan made the most sense for NASA, statements made by members and the tone of their report made it clear that a continuation of the Constellation mission was not the group’s favored choice.

Constellation had been heavily criticized since it was unveiled in 2005 by President George W. Bush. Even before the plan was announced, some scientists pointed out that manned exploration has drawbacks, such as high costs, extreme safety requirements, and humans’ biological sensitivity to radiation. Scientists such as Ronald Arkin of the Mobile Robot Laboratory asked whether robots could do exploration better. The high-profile success of the Mars Rovers, Cassini, and Mars Phoenix mission suggested that robotic exploration was viable, at the very least.

Even among those who supported blasting humans out of the atmosphere, the details of the Constellation program were subject to attack. Many criticized the Bush administration for not providing enough money to back its grand Vision for Space Exploration.

In commenting on the Augustine report, David Mindell, a science and technology historian at MIT, called it, approvingly, “an utter rejection of the Bush plan because it’s unfundable, unbuildable and dangerous.”

NASA administrator Charles Bolden made measured statements, ultimately noting that regardless of Constellation’s merits, it was not going to put humans back on the moon as envisioned.

“We were not on a sustainable path back to the moon’s surface,” Bolden said.

The Obama administration’s budget also knocked the Constellation program for siphoning money “away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations.”

Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, whose district includes the Marshall Space Flight Center, lashed out against the administration plan.

“The President’s proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human space flight. The cancellation of the Constellation program and the end of human space flight does represent change — but it is certainly not the change I believe in,” Shelby wrote in a statement. “Congress cannot and will not sit back and watch the reckless abandonment of sound principles, a proven track record, a steady path to success, and the destruction of our human space flight program.”

Shelby harped on the need for safety in manned missions and held that commercial companies could not provide the low levels of risk that NASA could. Bolden, though, in his statements to the press, provided a personal guarantee that he’d protect astronaut lives.

“I flew on the space shuttle four times,” he said. “I lost friends in two space shuttle tragedies, so I give you my word that these vehicles will be safe.”

Predictably, commercial spaceflight companies were ecstatic at the news.

“Working with NASA, the industry can develop the capabilities to safely launch U.S. astronauts just as commercial spaceflight providers are already trusted by the U.S. government right now to launch multi-billion dollar military satellites, upon which the security of our nation and lives of our troops overseas depend,” wrote Bretton Alexander, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, in a prepared statement. “Investing $6 billion will fund a full program of multiple winners for commercial crew, so that robust competition in the marketplace can reduce costs and generate innovation.”

[Fumesucker]

1. And now the president speaks on this historic GE-Lockheed-Martin Moon landing..

Live from the Viacom Oval Office..

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. What would Kennedy say?

I'm really, really disappointed. What would Kennedy say? :cry:

Oh yeah -- he would have withdrawn troops from imperial misadventures and redirected the money for use on projects that benefit the public good, not private corporations.

[Javaman]

4. Kennedy would say...

We beat the Russians, but now the nation is broke, it's time to open up space to private investors.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Is that what YOU support?

[Javaman]

22. Yes. We are broke, we beat the Russians and I want to open it up to

private investment. LOL I think given the current circumstances in the nation, one has to take a very pragmatic view on the situation.

I fully support unmanned space craft and advanced "telescopes", but manned space craft is colossally expensive.

Reality dictates that privatization of space is the only logical path.

Then again, I would be for manned exploration, if 1) we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan 2) rolled back the tax cuts for the rich.

But as a nation we are dying a slow death. It would be sped up if we invest a trillion bucks into going back to the moon. I would prefer to use that money for health care.

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. There are even opponents of manned spaceflight on DU

Either that or some people can't take criticism of bad decisions.

Democratic UNDERGROUND, ya know?

[derby378]

5. I'm not opposed to commercial spaceflight, but NASA shouldn't be dealt out completely

We need to maintain a government-run spaceflight program for the same reason health care reform needs a real public option, if not single-payer.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. I agree with you. Except I'm opposed to the corporate ownership of space.

Did you know private corporations own the spy satellites that are used to monitor all domestic corporations, post FISA? That's why they wanted immunity from prosecution for spying on their own customers. And many people here wanted to give it to them.

[derby378]

32. I'm with you on this one

:toast:

[LynneSin]

9. It's very difficult for me to support manned space flights when the country is broke

nuff said.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. The country is broke because the current and prev Admin sold out hundreds of billions to Wall St.

Where is that largess when it comes to social programs? Commercialization of manned spaceflight? Is that what the people who downvoted this WIRED article believe in?

[Hugabear]

43. Doesn't matter.

When we're in such deep shit, it doesn't make sense to spend billions upon billions of dollars just so we can send a few people to walk on the moon.

[Lerkfish]

6. in other words, we're planet-bound forever as a species until we kill the planet

and then were just dead.

[Donnachaidh]

8. I'm sure the wealthy elite will be off-planet well before the species dies completely

But the rest of us folks are just plain f*cked.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. A New Life On The Off World Colonies!

Well, that's the point of making spaceflight a paid operation, isn't it?

[Donnachaidh]

7. and our use of outside contractors has saved us sooooo much money in the military, yes?

Those $400 toilet seats, etc....

It's a big old sell out of everything that isn't nailed down. Which PAC is getting paid back with this *deal*?

[jmowreader]

11. Don't mention the $400 toilet seat again...

The toilet seat in your house would cost $400 if they only ever made 108 of them and if they had to be designed to withstand repeated 3-g impacts.

There's plenty of waste in the military (ask me about the $63 Coleman lantern sometime) but those toilet seats aren't on the list.

[quiet.american]

10. If you're interested, go take a look at the actual NASA budget. Shelby's talking out his ass.

No surprise, there.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. So manned spaceflight is not dead? Whiplash, I can't keep track--one thread DUers are trashing a guy

For saying that the country is in deep economic doo-doo and that we are experiencing a "Dead cat bounce" thanks to all the hundreds of billions of dollars in free money we are giving to Wall Street.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. Meanwhile other DUers are downreccing a WIRED ARTICLE for even suggesting we can afford spaceflight

when the "economy is so bad".

But there's never too much money to spend on paying private contractors to demolish public housing. Half of DU is all for that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Well first of all, that isn't even what the WIRED article says, despite your selective bolding.

I'll say it again-the only individual in the WIRED article who is disappointed with the decision is Republican SHELBY.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. You think DUers aren't disappointed in the decision?

Shelby is disappointed because he represents a district that has a lot of government spaceflight employees. Yay for privatization if it hurts a Republican district?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. Scientists have been calling for a focus on unmanned spacecraft for years.

Our best science has come from unmanned spaceflight.

See:
Buzz Aldrin
Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Steven Weinberg
Dr. Bob Park.

And your own article states:

"Even among those who supported blasting humans out of the atmosphere, the details of the Constellation program were subject to attack. Many criticized the Bush administration for not providing enough money to back its grand Vision for Space Exploration.

In commenting on the Augustine report, David Mindell, a science and technology historian at MIT, called it, approvingly, “an utter rejection of the Bush plan because it’s unfundable, unbuildable and dangerous.”"

[quiet.american]

29. Link: NASA's budget. Take a look at the first bolded subject line. Should answer your question.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Here's the section you're referring to. So question is, why is industry crowing about privatization?

Sounds like the new plan is to pour money into privately patented R&D.

The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration that includes:

* Research and development to support future heavy-lift rocket systems that will increase the capability of future exploration architectures with significantly lower operations costs than current systems – potentially taking us farther and faster into space.
* A vigorous new technology development and test program that aims to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities. NASA, working with industry, will build, fly, and test in orbit key technologies such as automated, autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in-orbit propellant transfer, and advanced in-space propulsion so that our future human and robotic exploration missions are both highly capable and affordable.
* A steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies to increase the safety and capability of future human missions and provide scientific dividends.

[reformist2]

18. "blasting humans out of the atmosphere", LOL!

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. Sounds dangerous.

Someone could sue. No OSHA compliance!

[NightWatcher]

19. no "more" trips to the Moon, :rofl:

we can sit back and point out lie after lie after lie of a government that has murdered millions for money and power, but to suggest some very dramatic events may have been posed by the very same government is wingnut, tinfoiled-hat, conspiracy?

We've tortured hundreds, displaced millions, killed noisemakers, SURE, but to suggest that we perpetrated the events that facilitated same said war, is nutty?

Flame me, but I dont trust anything this or any government says further than I can throw them....and with my bad back I shouldnt be throwing anyone.

[JCMach1]

20. If this stands, soon the UAE will be putting more people into space than the US

:(


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ras_Al_Khaimah_spaceport

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Xenophobia has always been the only thing capable of persuading Americans to spend $$ on exploration

Unfortunately.

Lewis & Clark? Keep the Brits out of the Pacific Northwest!

Rescue all that untamed wilderness from the clutches of non-European savagery!

Man on the Moon? The Russkies put Sputnik in orbit, made us look like we were beneath them (literally).

The PBS docu on National Parks was especially enlightening on the rationale for saving many of the early parks, same problem, same mentality.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. When you have "ARABS IN SPACE" people will change their tune on the issue tout suite

See, that makes it national security and compete for valuable moon resources!

(didn't Mel Brooks do that film?)

[berttheturk]

21. Personally, I'm sick of the Billions spent on privileged sight-seeing tours of outer space.

We have too many other needs in this country that cannot and will not be solved by these over-priced junkets.

NASA = No Access to Space for Americans

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Here's what a guy who's actually walked on the moon has to say about it.

"Thank you, Mr. President."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html

[johnaries]

28. Thank you for posting that. It puts things in perspective

and shows the wisdom of the move. I especially love these 3 paragraphs:

To keep the focus on the return to the Moon, NASA pretty much abandoned all hope of preparing for Mars exploration. It looked like building bases on the Moon would consume all of NASA's resources. Yet despite much complaining, neither a Republican-controlled nor a Democratic-controlled Congress was willing or able to add back those missing and needed funds. The date of the so-called return to the Moon slipped from 2020 to heaven-knows when. At the same time, there was no money to either extend the life of the Space Shuttle, due to be retired this year, or that of the International Space Station, due to be dropped into the Pacific Ocean in 2015, a scant handful of years after it was completed.

Enter the new Obama administration. Before deciding what to do about national space policy, Obama set up an outside review panel of space experts, headed up by my friend Norm Augustine, former head of Lockheed Martin and a former government official. Augustine's team took testimony and presentations from many people with ideas on what way forward NASA should take (that group included me). In October, it presented its report to the President and to Dr. John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and a friend and colleague of mine. The report strongly suggested the nation move away from the troubled rocket program, called Ares 1, and both extend the life of the space station and develop commercial ways of sending astronauts and cargoes up to the station. And it suggested a better way to spend our taxpayer dollars would be not focused on the Moon race, but on something it called a "Flexible Path." Flexible in the sense that it would redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons. Many different destinations and missions would be enabled by that approach, not just one.

But with the limited NASA budget consumed by the Moon, no funds were available for this development effort -- until now. Now President Obama has signaled that new direction -- what I'm calling Flexible plus, containing much of the steps called for in the Augustine report. If Congress agrees, we'll turn over all space taxi services to the private sector and aim NASA at fully using the station -- extended to at least 2020 in Obama's plan -- and spending a billion dollars a year in creating these new private sector spaceships. When the time comes to start building deep space transports and refueling rocket tankers, it will be the commercial industry that steps up, not another government-owned, government managed enterprise. And if we want to use the Moon as a stepping stone in the future, we'll have to join with our international partners for the effort. No more "go it alone" space projects. If you or your children or grandkids ever hope to fly into orbit, these new vehicles are their only hope for a ride to space.

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. Since there's not money enough to do both, why should we care? This is a failed mentality

This is an agency that can't fund interstellar propulsion systems despite the technology existing to do so. They are debating which rock they can afford to land on and Obama is telling them the solution is to give their money to private industry to pay for commercially branded low-orbit spacecraft.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. "NASA to spend $1B on buying rides for astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles"

"-that's American space vehicles." --Buzz Aldrin.

Yeah, commercially owned and developed space vehicles are AMERICAN because them's AMERICAN multinational corporations, boyz!

That's the kicker for me. Apparently the RWers on DU are cheering the privatization of space flight -- and so is Buzz Aldrin.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. You, who are accusing that anybody that disagrees with you(including nobel laureates and astronauts)

of being a secret Right Winger are accusing OTHER PEOPLE of sophistry? That is rich.

[Lorien]

27. Privatize our schools, our military, NASA, what's next?

Oh yeah, the SCOTUS just decided to privatize the government. x(

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. The very article you posted seems to suggest that this was the right theng to do.

In fact the only one that argues it is not is a lying Republican scumbag. So what is your problem? People have had problems with manned spaceflight for a very long time-longer than Obama has been in office and before he even ran.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. "NASA to spend $1B on buying rides for astronauts aboard new, commercially developed space vehicles"

Sophistry does not become people with a supposedly liberal mentality.

Argument by Association -- "The very fact that the only person quoted who's against it is a Republican scumbag"

Argument by Reputation -- "Many people have had problems with (the idea of) manned spaceflight for a long time"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. What do you believe is the point of NASA?

And again, I'll say that someone who accuses those that disagree with him of being secret RWers has no business accusing others of sophistry.

I thought the point of NASA was to explore space and gather useful information. Our best information has come WITHOUT QUESTION from unmanned exploration.

And you are presenting this as though it were an attack on science when the article that you quoted only has Shelby speaking out against it-not a single scientist.

[fascisthunter]

33. I don't Believe in Giving Tax Money to Private Interests

why? Because they are fucking PRIVATE and therefore owners of what they discover with our fucking money!

[Political Heretic]

34. It's simply immoral to pour government money into space before addressing our social inequality.

It's a question of priorities.

[Yurovsky]

38. I'd rather take it out of defense...

first, there's a lot more money there. Second, think of all the great innovations that came out of the space program (everything from Tang to LEDs to laptop computers).

While I share your concern about America's neglect of its neediest citizens, keep in mind that TENS OF THOUSANDS of people in the aerospace industry (particularly in Central Florida) are going to lose their jobs. Unemployment is already in the teens in many of these communities. They can't take much more.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. Read above. The new plan is to take the Constellation $$, increase it, give it to private industry

To develop the privately branded LOCKHEED MARTIN space craft Clinton and Gore wanted to build.

[backscatter712]

47. I remember the X-33.

Too bad that didn't pan out. There was some initial promise, but it turned into yet another aerospace contractor boondoggle that wouldn't actually fly and got canceled when it got too expensive.

If by some miracle it did fly, it would have been a reusable single-stage-to-orbit ship; that particular technology would be really damned cool. The promise is to make flights into space much cheaper, more reliable and routine, like an airliner.

Maybe some new materials science would make such a ship feasible today. Who knows?

[David Zephyr]

42. This is a mistake, but many at NASA saw this coming before Obama.

Not a good move.

[mmonk]

45. There is no need for a space program in a third world country

like ours is going to be.