Obama eliminates NASA's funds for manned lunar missions

[Bond]

NASA's grand plan to return to the moon, built on President George W. Bush's vision of an ambitious new chapter in space exploration, is about to vanish with hardly a whimper. With the release Monday of President Obama's budget request, NASA will finally get the new administration's marching orders, and there won't be anything in there about flying to the moon.

The budget numbers will show that the administration effectively plans to kill the Constellation program that called for a return to the moon by 2020. The budget, expected to increase slightly over the current $18.7 billion, is also a death knell for the Ares 1 rocket, NASA's planned successor to the space shuttle. The agency has spent billions developing the rocket, which is still years from its first scheduled crew flight.

It remains to be seen whether Congress will accede to Obama's change in direction. Industry insiders expect a brutal fight in Congress. The early reaction to media reports about the budget request has been filled with howls of protest from lawmakers in districts that would be most affected by a sharp change in strategy.

Obama's budget, according to a background briefing by an administration official on Sunday, will call for spending $6 billion over five years to develop a commercial spacecraft that could taxi astronauts into low Earth orbit. Going commercial with a human crew would represent a dramatic change in the way NASA does business. Instead of NASA owning the spacecraft and overseeing every nut and bolt of its design and construction, a private company would design and build the spacecraft with NASA looking over its shoulder.

Former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, who championed the Constellation program, views the Obama budget as disastrous for human space flight.

"It means that essentially the U.S. has decided that they're not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future. The path that they're on with this budget is a path that can't work," Griffin said, anticipating the Monday announcement.

Source: Washington Post

I find the decision to abandon manned space missions to be extremely sad. I have a deep affection for space travel, and the redemptive power it can bring to a country (both technologically and spiritually). A sad day indeed.

[Typhoid]

Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Things like that is what can really bring a country, or countries together.
Space Exploration is something that should definitely never be canceled or hindered.

[TheGame]

So we should spend endlessly on manned space travel? Has anything been accomplished that was worthwhile for a manned mission in the last 30 years?

I'd agree if you said it's disapointing that this had to be done, but I disagree if you think this is something worth spending on unconditionlly. Almost ALL of the progress we've made have been unmanned missions.

[Fox 6]

USA hasn't been to the moon in decades, do they really need to go back? I agree with scrapping the lunar program for now, it will save billions, which is good for this economic downturn.

[TheSlyMoogle]

As explained to bond earlier it was scrapped yes, but is now up for grabs to commercial business. So it's not over, just kinda up grabs in a sense.

I also agree with fox, seriously haven't been doing much with the space program as is, and more fuckups have occurred than success. Which I also said is probably due to lack of funding.

Overall I'm pretty "Eh..." about the whole thing. We'll see how this plays out in the coming years. Probably a bad decision, but at the same time who knows? This could end up being the thing our space program needs. Get some fucking people up in this shit with the money to blow.

All I'm sayin.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

So we should spend endlessly on manned space travel? Has anything been accomplished that was worthwhile for a manned mission in the last 30 years?

I'd agree if you said it's disapointing that this had to be done, but I disagree if you think this is something worth spending on unconditionlly. Almost ALL of the progress we've made have been unmanned missions.

You're right. Nothing's been accomplished, therefor nothing shall ever be accomplished again.


I never said "They should put extra funding into it." - simply that they shouldn't drastically cut funding for space exploration. And I said nowhere near "Spend Uncondtionally."

Yes, almost all of the progress has been unmanned. Correct. Humans are obsolete. We should just put robots in charge of everything, forever. I can make gross accusations as to your hidden meanings, aswell.

My point is this: Obama should - instead of cut funding from something entirely, shift the work of the project from a manned mission to the moon, to a manned mission to Mars.

The reason they should go back to the Moon, is to test how building would work out realistically on the Moon, in order to save a ton of money in the future to have a manned Mars mission. It's a fraction of the cost to send a manned mission from the Moon to Mars, than from Earth to Mars.

It's a real pity how little stock people put into Astronomy and Space these days. If it doesn't make them a quick buck, they're out.

[Professor S]

Surprisingly, I'm all for this. NASA hasn't done squat in terms of manned flight in 30 years. I think if this is opened to private industry they will make far more leaps forward than NASA will (as long as the government makes it possible by supporting private investment through tax credits and limited regulation).

Besides, I'd prefer NASA concentrate their funds on unmanned exploration and scientific study.

[Neo]

This really puts a damper on my hope of establishing a solar empire.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Space Exploration is something that should definitely never be canceled or hindered.

ok.

I stand by what I say... and I didn't put words in your mouth. My responce was for anyone who is dissapointed about this change. I'm not sure how to respond to your mix of sarcasm and assumptions that I'm attacking you.

I will say, though.. that unmanned missions can provide a lot of data.. and this isn't a permanent cut to manned missions. This will not slow space exploration down whasoever, the focus will just have to be shiffed to getting data a different way until the economy recovers.

[KillerGremlin]

Pretty shallow (and sad...damn you public education!) that a lot of you think nothing has been accomplished with the trips to the moon or space travel in the past 30 years. There has been a lot of medical research that has moved forward as well as progress made in the fields of physics.

The pro of this is we can see space move into the commercial sphere which means more funding which may ultimately be a good thing since commercial space means you'll have competition....Richard Branson and Virgin are already working on their thing. As I understand it, NASA is severely underfunded as is. Perhaps commercial space travel will give way to new innovation or different solutions.

On the other hand, going commercial means you might lose out on a wealth of valuable scholarly research. And yeah, colonizing the moon is hugely important since it is the first step to sending astronauts to other locations in our galaxy. Living in space for long periods of time may have consequences that we cannot yet surmise just from the astronauts who spend extensive time in low-orbit in the space station.

So much research to be done....this is a real shame. The real shame is humanity needs to fund several wars instead of making some real progress for the future of our species.

[manasecret]

I just took a "Level 9" Tour at the Space Center in Houston.

• We got to see full mock-ups of the living quarters they had designed for the moon, the living quarters astronauts are living in now in Antarctica to get used to the harsh living conditions.
• We got to see the fully-usable prototype rovers they had designed for the Moon and Mars. The things still had dirt on the tires from driving around the sands of Arizona.
• We got to see the forty-foot deep pool called the "Neutral Buoyancy Lab" that is the best simulation of space here on earth. They put full mock-ups of the space station down in the pool, and the astronauts suit up and spend 8 hours a day down there in the water practicing missions here on Earth over and over so they can get it right the first time up in space.
• We got to be in the mission control room, sit in the flight director's chair, and be in the spot where the world first heard the words from Armstrong after stepping on the moon.

That tour was a spiritual experience. And, as an engineer myself, it showed me my dream job. My dream now is to work for NASA in a program that sends man to Mars.

So, I'm going to say right out front that I'm a little biased. This plan from Obama is disheartening to say the least.

First off, this article is unclear about the Constellation Program. You probably all know this, but just to be clear, the Constellation program's ultimate goal was to send men to Mars, not just the Moon. The mission to go back to the Moon and colonize it was just a stepping stone in that plan.

My guess is that whatever money that is or would have been put into NASA and the Constellation program will be paid back and more in trickle-down technologies, jobs, and inspiring people across the world both young and old to take up engineering. The worth of the program is, in my opinion, far beyond the price tag. Can you imagine the day, when man steps on the Moon again? I don't think any of us here were alive when that happened, and it seems wholly unfair that it hasn't happened in our lifetime. Now, can you imagine the day, when man steps on Mars?

Originally Posted by Leonardo Da Vinci

For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.

How Obama could cut probably one of the most effective government programs that generates real science, real worth, and most of all, real jobs is beyond me. Wall Street gets $700 billion. NASA can't get a slight increase of less than $1 billion. Not to mention the waste of throwing away four years of money and work discarding the program.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Surprisingly, I'm all for this. NASA hasn't done squat in terms of manned flight in 30 years. I think if this is opened to private industry they will make far more leaps forward than NASA will (as long as the government makes it possible by supporting private investment through tax credits and limited regulation).

That is completely unfair and personally, I think b.s. If you consider the ISS and Shuttle program to be not doing squat, then you are either ignorant of what they're doing or completely biased.

The only reason NASA stopped manned missions to the Moon is because of politics such as Obama's -- that is, lack of funding. The Apollo mission was a complete success. Congress cut the funds needed to finish the program. Big surprise.

And the only thing now stopping NASA from going to Mars is politics. It's harldy because NASA doesn't have the ability.

I'm all for private industry doing space exploration, but I don't think it means NASA has to stop. In fact, the private industry already does most of the work for NASA, through contracting. But to pretend that private industry based on what is economic can replace NASA with a focus not on the economic, but exploration and science for all mankind, is just wishful thinking.

[manasecret]

I don't understand how complaining that NASA hasn't been to the Moon in three decades coincides with support for cutting funds to the very program taking them back to the Moon (and beyond).

[Professor S]

I think its a sad state when we've been trained to believe that nothing of import can get done unless the government pays for it.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I think its a sad state when we've been trained to believe that nothing of import can get done unless the government pays for it.

What other organization or business has the money laying around to throw at NASA?

I can't think of anything a commercial business stands to gain that's worth all the risks.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I can't think of anything a commercial business stands to gain that's worth all the risks.

Well, recent evidence would disagree. Just a few years ago the first private aircraft went in to space only for the promise of a $10 million award.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0...borbital.test/

That's chicken feed comparatively. Plus I think spaceflight has a HUGE upside for fast travel over long distances. New York to Sidney Australia in 4 hours? There are lots of people who would pay a lot of money to avoid the normal 20+ hour flight to point halfway across the globe.

As for outer spaceflight? I do believe Pandora needs to be mined to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...