Another Ignorant Columnist

A minor gripe if you ask me, yes there were gaps but there were programs WELL underway, we were commited and we did NOT give up and just walk away.
Even when people died.

Gaps are not a new thing.

But what is new....

Obama wants to cancel all, walk away, give up on NASA HSF and offers no specifics what is supposed to replace it, if ever.

He's dead bang on here.

"At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA was consuming almost 4 percent of the federal budget, which in terms of the 2011 budget is about $150 billion. Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year -- 1/300th of last year's stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.

As for President Obama's commitment to beyond-lunar space: Has he given a single speech, devoted an iota of political capital to it?

Obama's NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy's liberalism and Obama's. Kennedy's was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama's is a constricted, inward-looking call to retreat.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama has just shut it."

God save NASA.
And I'm not even religious.

I saw this article earlier, before you picked it up. I just had no words. I feel as though the new plan is going to be sabotaged by special interests and ignorance (if not outright stupidity).

Krauthammer's NOT the ignoramus! The statement quoted above is a conjunction with two parts: "... the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space" - TRUE and "no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future" - TRUE. The last time I looked, the conjunction of two true statements is TRUE! ANY questions Mr. Cowing?

Before you call someone "ignorant", consider first who in the end might look ignorant.

Charlie is just reading from the Republican playbook, so everything Obama does is wrong. Obama is proposing that private companies bid on work now done by the government, Republicans hate that, but only when the government workers in question are mostly Republicans.
Obama did not kill the moon program, he just noticed that it was already dead from underfunding. If congress did not want to spend an extra few $B per year on NASA under Bush, how is that Obama's fault? No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Steve

I don't normally agree with much of what Mr. Krauthammer writes, but actually this article (ignorning the obvious mistake that you pointed out) hits the nail on the head.

Previously, in the gaps, there was always a new spacecraft being developed (or an existing spacecraft being fixed). Now there is nothing. All there is left is some hope that a commercial operator will hopefully come along sometime soon and fix the LEO access problem. If that happens, thats great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

And he's right in the article about the Mars vs Moon. And he's right about the fact that they are killing constellation for the lack of $3 billion a year, as he states, 1/300th of the stimulus package.

So all in all, its a good article.

Krauthamer is a putz. His statements are so rife with errors and misfacts, it's hard to know where to start. But one thing is for sure, if this had been a Republican Administration rolling out this policy, then he'd be championing it as a model of free enterprise.

The funny thing is that the new direction is very similar to what Newt Gingrich has been calling for NASA for some time: help commercial enterprise and concentrate on technology (along with going through a huge downsizing).

It's funny how Krauthamer holds Kennedy up as a model. Of course he does while also stumbling over the facts. He states,

"Moreover, there is the question of seriousness. When John F. Kennedy pledged to go to the moon, he meant it. He had an intense personal commitment to the enterprise. He delivered speeches remembered to this day. He dedicated astronomical sums to make it happen."

This is unadulterated BS. Only shortly after giving his famous Go to the Moon in a Decade speech, Kennedy expressed serious doubts about the program to his aides, and considered changing its emphasis to being more international. Kennedy's death is probably what saved Apollo, because it was really LBJ who kept the program going full throttle. Johnson is the guy to thank for the vast sums spent on Apollo.

Krauthamer should take the time to study the facts a bit before submitting his op eds. But then again, he's made a pretty successful career of doing just that.

I got as far as: ", space will be owned by Russia and then China." then had to stop reading for its LOL worthyness!
This is either a brilliant piece of sarcastic humour or a particularly poorly researched piece of partisan garbage. From a cursory reading of the comments, I think its the latter. #Fail

Although of course, a lot of the Krauthammer verbiage is just presidential politics, it is interesting to see how many people are now up in arms that:

(1) Shuttle is ending - sorry, that decision was made years ago - NASA should have made the situation and ramifications very clear to the public and Congress, and

(2) Constellation was getting nowhere fast - if the Congress, or public, or NASA management, or workers cared, they should have spoken up when one milestone after another was missed. To the people working Constellation and Orion, what, did you think no one noticed that you did not have a design and were not flying for ten years ?

Not surprising; Krauthammer will use any available opportunity to criticize Democrats - and won't let facts get in the way. He couldn't care less about NASA or space exploration; he's just seizing an opportunity.

Keith, I think the difference is, in all those cases, in all those previous gaps, there were specific plans to return to flight. By the time Apollo-Soyuz ended, the shuttle program was already underway, at least in planning.

You'll probably say, well, RocketScott, we have a plan, now; using commercial. No, that's not a plan, yet. It's an idea. Plans have specific milestones and identified steps. We are just studying the idea, now.

A capitalist would be happy for the Russians to raise their prices based on monopoly power. They would only incentivize even more commercial competition, which would tend to undermine or end the monopoly.

"For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space -- and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future."

Keith, um, the author DOES correctly state that for the first time the US will have no access of its own for launching our astronauts. You seem to have missed the point. Each of the previous gaps had a planned Project following each predecessor Project. For example Mercury had Gemini; Gemini had Apollo, etc. These Projects all had definable goals, mileposts, and destinations.

Wow, I didn't know that NASAWatch.com was such a bastion for Obama sycophancy. The fact is that Obama's policy leaves us without any plan to have LEO capability (SpaceX et al. will have it when they get it - brilliant!) nor any goal to go anywhere realistic in the foreseeable future. Just saying "Mars" is meaningless twaddle!

It appears Krauthammer understands the situation better than Keith and many of his readers do.

Who is the ignorent columnist here? I love how nasawatch spins facts, I think Kieth has an attitude now that he is allowed in press briefings. Charles has it right, let's just hope other nasawatch spinners go and read Charles ENTIRE column.

Editor's note: and you cannot even spell the word ignorant correctly?

@Keith

'"For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space"

Um, check your facts next time. First: America did indeed have the ability to launch people on Mercury-Atlas missions after John Glenn flew'

I think his meaning was that 'Glenn's launch marked the start of a period during which the United States had access of its own for humans into space', not that the US lost that capability right after Glenn's flight - which seems to be the way you read it?

@joshcryer

"is going to be sabotaged by special interests and ignorance"

Your right on one thing, it *is* in big trouble.

But your wrong everywhere else.

It's not special interests at all opposing and that is easily proven....
It's long standing national interests.
Approved by five congresses who knew exactly what they were voting for.

Sorry, the special interests here are the commercial fetishists

First off, as others have mentioned, it's no secret that Krauthammer is decidedly partisan. He does make a few good points- the danger presented by the lack of direction being the most salient- but in that case, he's just echoing what other commentators have said.

There are a couple potential inaccuracies that stand out to me: first off, his referring to green energy as "speculative." Say what you will about the policies of green energy, but saying that the technology is "speculative" like saying computers are "speculative." It certainly exists, and it can be argued that it's starting to even reach maturity (whether we should use it or not, and how much, is an entirely different debate).

Secondly, regarding this quote:

"If we can't afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles? "

Mr. Krauthammer, advanced drives like this already exist- do yourself a favor and research the VASIMR engine, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. VASIMR, if it holds to its potentially, could get us to Mars in about 8 weeks. Mars is not "too far away"- in fact, it's never been closer.

Lastly, it was my understanding the B1 was cancelled originally because it had already been made obsolete by air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs). It was only revived when the B52s that carried ALCMs themselves were made obsolete by advances in Soviet fighter power in the mid-80's. As for the stealth bomber, the military itself requested the down-scaling of the program so they could focus on new emerging priorities in the post-Cold War environment.

While I fully admit I have an ideological bias against Mr. Krauthammer, I still can't shake the feeling that if the situation had been reversed (Obama cancelling Bush's Mars program to focus on the Moon), he would be deriding Obama for his lack of imagination and willingness to just repeat Apollo.

I just want to second (or third, or fourth) the comments that argue that Krauthammer is essentially correct.

For the first time since the 1960s, we will have no access to LEO, and no defined program to have it again.

Outsourcing basic LEO access to commercial companies is fine, but not in the absence of new programs for human space exploration.

The partisan political arguments are a distraction. The situation is what it is until it changes.

"advanced drives like this already exist"

Regarding VASIMR, as far as I'm aware, there are no operational engines in space. Lab units are one thing, operating in the space environment another. T

This is true. However, they have been cleared for on-orbit testing in the next year or so, if I recall correctly. Hopefully it will live up to expectations.

Charles Krauthammer may be a lot of things but I have to say I've not heard him called "ignorant" very often. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and Keith, your arguments against Krauthammer just don't hold up -- a point raised by others. His point about the gap is well-made. During the other gaps Keith mentioned (which as other commentators pointed out were scattered among active programs with perhaps the exception of the post ASTP gap) there a) were active long-term programs in place; b) no ISS and c) no VSE. Constellation may be flawed -- I'm no expert on the conduct of that program and don't pretend to be -- but it's the only viable game in town right now. Why not fund *it* fully if it needs funds? Instead, there are untold billions for "green technology" and "job creation" which will lead to neither greening nor jobs. Obama is simply ceding the one arena in which we have clear technological dominance. What's the justification? What's the alternative plan to go to the Moon and/or Mars? My guess is Obama couldn't give a damn about either goal. Keith, do you *really* want to rely on foreign nations to do anything? Remember the mess getting the ISS going during the post-Soviet collapse???

Truth in advertising -- I am *not* a Republican and the libertarian urges in me tell me Government should leave space to the private sector. However, if Government has a clear role in anything it seems to me to be here -- without the input of funding and manpower to stay in space that the federal government can provide we will lose dominance in space and that's not good for the nation, to include our private sector space industry.

Editor's note: My comments were confined to his statements about programatic gaps - and dates - not all of the other issues you accuse me of getting into.

I'm loving the double standard that is being exhibited on this site and others, conservatives calling for Apollo-like social spending on a bad plan that eats money. Calling Keith, of all people, an Obama supporter.

And the biggest irony? The Cx plan to cancel Shuttle and leave us without manned flight was the fault of the previous admin, not the current admin.

As Bob Livingston said on The Space Show a few days back (I believe it was the 7th), this plan was what VSE was originally supposed to do. Commercialize space. Had we done it then, SpaceX or Boeing would likely be flying by now and we would not have had a gap in manned space flight. Instead half a decade was wasted on a plan that was never viable to begin with.

The "backlash" is from a few very loud supporters of Cx, and the half dozen or so constituents who stand to lose a lot of jobs over it. The people who are for the cancellation of Cx are numerous, high profile individuals in the space industry.

If the worst case scenario that Bob Livingston happens, and Cx is mandated, then NASA as a whole is going down a road of cost-plus expenditures that will bleed it dry and kill any hopes of serious manned flight beyond LEO for several decades. We'd get an Apollo redux with ISS 2.0 on the moon, and lose all of that time that we could have better spent on actually advancing our space program. Manufacturing on the moon, commercial flights to LEO, advanced propulsion for manned flight to anywhere in the inner and even outer solar system. And, scary, good science that would search for life in the universe (oh no, science bad!).

I look like I'm in a minority here, but the familiar faces I see here on NASA Watch and other sites, people who have been invested in NASA stuff for decades (and not newcomers bemoaning something because they want to play politics), these people agree with me.

keith I think you jumped this too quick. I believe Krauthammer intended to say since the beginning of US manned spaceflight and he said Glenn instead of Shephard. The point is since then we've always had a plan to go to space, not some nonsense about buying rides from dot com guys building weed burners. and by the way for all you spaceX enthusiasts, even if f-9 is "successful" to some degree on its first flight, are you all REALLY dumb enough to believe LM and Boeing and ULA would cede that business to them? seriously? do you all you really believe elon's ego is going to overcome their muscle??? get real

Editor's note: Now you are reading everyone's mind and jumping to conclusions about people's intentions - and about what they meant to say or wanted to say or ..."get real" yourself.

@spacenerd99

'Regarding VASIMR, as far as I'm aware, there are no operational engines in space.'

Yes; although Griffin (him again!) held discussions with Ad Astra on using a VASIMR on the ISS (for orbital maintainence), and a formal agreement between NASA and Ad Astra to test VASIMR on the ISS has been signed (December 8, 2008), as of September, 2009 the flight engine was still under design (although a very similar prototype unit was operating at that point), and as of January 2010 there are still no definite plans on how to loft the flight unit.

Again, although I think VASIMR is neat, and I hope they succeed, we're still a long way from a unit I'd trust my tail-feathers to for a trip to Mars. (And, more importantly, back!)

Who's the "Ignorant Columnist?" Although I love NasaWatch, I can not help but notice Kieth's lean to the left. No doubt an supporter of Obama. (Kieth, you do remember Obama lied to the folks in Florida during the campaign, right?) I do see ads here now from the opposition, so what should we expect.

Kieth knows that Krauthammer's comment on John Glen meant that for the first time since John Glen, NASA without Ares, has no manned spacecraft even on the drawing boards. Although there where gaps, NASA was always working on what was next. Mercury-Gemini,Apollo,Shuttle - now thank's to Obama, nothing? Drink that KoolAid while riding the high speed rail system that took NASA's money instead, (along with ACORN, FANNIE MAE and FREDDY MAC, GM etc,) since Amtrack is so successful. More jobs for Unions!

I have no doubt SpaceX can and welcome the day when SpaceX will offer LEO services, but as for now they have no escape system, neither immediately after launch, or on the pad. (Talk about Spam-in-a-can), nor will the astronauts have manual control of the craft if need be. NASA astronauts must be demoralized at this prospect at flying in this "sit down and shut up mode"

Remember that Constellation was more then just the Moon, (although I'm all for us getting there and setting up infrastructure there instead of letting China do the job and then demanding passports from us!) it sets up the vehicles for getting to Mars and beyound as well. The Obama plan? Oh wait, there is none except some touchy-feely "Hope" of advanced future technologies sitting on a bench. I have no reason to believe Obama keeping his promise on supporting manned spaceflight when he has no idea on how to do it and takes an axe to what we have spent billions on developing and have actually flown. You can believe in fairy tails but I don't. This is Jimmy Carter Part II, (Let's compare: Carter cancealed the B-1, Russia comes out with the Backfire bomber that looks just like the B-1. Obama canceals the F-22, and just last week Russia comes out with it's own clone), but at least Carter served in the military, Obama as a State Senator refused to even put his hand over his heart during The Pledge. (Yes, it is on, or was, on YouTube.) I think in his heart Obama loves people, one to one, the common man etc, but when it comes to love of his country and what's best for the long term well being of the country, he could care less if states started dropping out of the Union.

The one who I really feel bad for are the NASA employees and Bolden, who just have to take their marching orders and soldier on. How heart breaking, even Bolden could not get through the press conference without choking up. I can hear the Russian and Chinese laughing from here.

Let the knit-picking begin, the bottom line is getting beyond LEO for the US just got whole lot harder.

Keith's note: is the repeated and incorrect spelling of my name some sort of commentary on your part? Just curious. As for your claim that there is no escape tower for Dragon - your ignorance is showing - have a look at this http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0606-1206

I'm pretty much a fan of Krauthammer, but then I tend toward the conservative side anyway. But I've noticed that when anyone writes 'authoritatively' on a subject that's outside their normal bailiwick, some small errors may be made, e.g., he missed those gaps.

Yes, there were gaps, but the big difference is that men in space was not routine when those gaps occurred; it is now, and we're more dependent on access to space than we were back then. And we won't have that access from within for some time now, which is a shame.

Someone said that Krauthammer might support the new direction had Bush proposed it, and that's possibly true. He is not an Obama fan in any respect.

I believe that many people on this blog are being unfair to Mr. Krauthammer. While it is true that he is a conservative Republican, his assessment of the President's "Plan" for the future of NASA is spot on. There are very few government programs Charles Krauthammer is willing to spend money on, but believe me the American space program is one of them. The fact that some people believe the administration's plan to scrap Constellation is a good thing astounds me. There's some serious cognitive impaitment going here. If these delusions persist, I would recommend a CT Scan for starters. Not only did he throw the baby out with the bath water, he's busting up the tub and ripping out the plumbing. All of the hardware is gone, and watch how the talent and money will follow. And the private sector is going to save us with a little seed money from the new think tank called NASA? Huh. Well, I guess Lincoln was right, "you can fool some of the people all of the time." Thirteen months ago, while many here were having a "food fight" over the hardware, I mentioned how ominous I felt the new administrations actions were, and I was hooted down. Well, things have gotten better, and now you don't have any hardware to argue about. Many more victories like this and there won't be anything left to argue about. What a success this has been.

As I said, let the knit-picking begin, I knew you would find something irrelevant to pick on, such as spelling your name correctly. (Editing is your full time job, not mine, and screw that I after E rule.)

However, thank you for enlightening me on the Falcon/Dragon escape tower, great link! (and you forgot to slight me as THERE IS a manual-over ride for astronauts to take control of the Dragon) That is awesome! However, Keef, (oops I mean "Keith") could you enlighten me if the Dragon/Falcon system has any sort of escape system that allows the astronauts to flee from the launch pad itself? I have yet to see anything on that yet. - Thanks!

Keith's note: how about you do the research and get back to us. As for the spelling of my name - it has been spelled that way for centuries.

"As for your claim that there is no escape tower for Dragon - your ignorance is showing - have a look at this"

Wow, an artist's rendition of a launch escape tower. I guess that means it's real, been built and tested.

BrentAndrewHawker, I can find so much wrong with that article that it's a joke. The characterizations the article makes are just sad, pathetic, even. And coming from a "conservative" one would think would be behind the free market and not social space.

"When you have a monopoly, you charge monopoly prices."

Which is why NASA is not going to allow Russia to keep its monopoly. A seat on Soyuz is cheaper than Shuttle. A seat on Falcon 9 or one of the Boeing options will be 5 to 10 times cheaper.

"Within months, Russia will have a monopoly on rides into space."

The contract goes until 2013. Bolden and even SpaceX are confident they will have a solution when that contract is up. Until then we are fixed in to a price that is cheaper than Shuttle.

"By the end of this year, there will be no shuttle, no U.S. manned space program, no way for us to get into space."

This was going to happen regardless of what the NASA budget was. Ares I was not ready to fly for at least another 4-7 years. This is a fact.

"Our absence from low-Earth orbit was meant to last a few years"

See above. Ares I was not flying until 2014 (2017 according to Augustine commission). This is fact. Krauthammer is blaming the current administration for the failure that was Ares I. The current administration plans to have us in to LEO before ior on 2014 (Bolden said optimistically we should be before the Soyuz contract is up). All the time lines are advanced.

"This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It's too expensive."

Not if NASA is their first come first serve customer. Yes, space is expensive, if you have cost-plus contracts with the government where unlimited funds are poured on your head indefinitely. Whole budgets being squeezed dry to pay you off.

Note, hilarious that a conservative is bashing the free market here.

"And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high."

Which is why Bolden explicitly stated that they are going to have to work out new standards. They are, after all, renting a ride in to space from the private sector. In any case it appears that even SpaceX is able to meet their standards, as they will be flying Falcon 9 in 1-3 months.

"If we can't afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?"

Ares wasn't affordable because it was built by cost-plus status quo which bled NASA dry. Maybe, just maybe, if there were no design reconsiderations, and maybe, just maybe, if they budgeted for ESAS, it would be in a workable state right now. It is not. The commercial sector makes our boosters to LEO, we then have plenty of money left in the budget to make nuclear propulsion for the moon and Mars. Plenty. Instead Krauthammer wants NASA to keep building rockets and squeeze out the private sector. Ironically the commercial sector through COTS got done what the government sector could not in a much shorter time frame, in a sense the commercial sector has beat Cx at its own game (given the same time frame considerations and given what was accomplished with much smaller sums of money).

"Has [Obama] given a single speech, devoted an iota of political capital to it?"

Why would he? He's given the reigns to Bolden. Good for him.

akear, liberals haven't been happy with Obama for awhile. The new plan to commercialize space is in fact "anti-liberal," since it puts it in to the hands of the free market as opposed to big government spending (some free market liberals would not like this characterization). Most of us posting in favor of the plan are either moderate or slightly right of the fence. The only people championing Cx are those who just hate Obama, really.

spacenerd99, they said that the escape system is the hard part, but when you're talking about having 1) a first stage 2) a second stage 3) a module 4) a parachute system (they are using the SRB chute supplier), the last thing, an escape system, is such a small thing that it's a joke. They have 3 years to produce it, and then, NASA has several escape options, from Orion's escape system to the bottom mounted one that they recently paid commercial space to develop.

Guys, I promise you, the new direction is the best thing to ever happen to NASA. I wish you would see past the politics.

Spot on, Josh. NASA's path since about 1975 would never have taken anybody to the stars.

This is the end of a bloated socialist-style government monopoly and an aerospace welfare program, not the end of space travel for Americans. Turning to the private sector for carrier services will free NASA to do more of what it should have been doing all along: science, basic research and technology development rather than running an astronaut hotel and an unreliable trucking service. Partly because of this policy change more people will travel in space in the next 20 years than did in the past 50. The fact that NASA travelers will be in ships designed, built, owned or operated by an entity other than NASA is no more cause for despair than is the fact that the US Mail is carried on commercial airlines.

richard, Elon Musk believes that $500 / lb is perfectly reasonable to LEO, now I know I am getting way way ahead of myself here, but if he can put people up for that cost (and this estimate is not going with heavy or super heavy), then space becomes affordable to guys like me, upper middle class or higher. That's millions and millions of customers.

A far cry from the $80 million a seat on Shuttle and the $30-50 million a seat on Soyuz. If competition is allowed to prosper, the starting price could be as low as $10-20 million a seat. It's ridiculous.

And people want to go with the old ways. It breaks my heart. I'm getting too old for this crud! (I say this at being only 33.)

It is funny people tossing around republican, democrat, conservative, and liberal here.

Conservatives have always supported NASA. Not because it was a government program, but because NASA IS part of our nation's national security. I would argue that NASA, historically, has been the best government agency in the history of our republic minus the military. Ever. Lately, however; notsomuch.

I'll stick to what I think I know and say conservatives are pulling for SpaceX (and Orbital) to succeed. If they do succeed then it will drive EELV (ULA) to become more competitive. This will make the Russian Soyuz situation moot as prices for American launch vehicles to drop in price. Americans would be good to remember that government does nothing "well". The government cannot even balance a budget and neither can NASA.

I also know many conservatives are concerned without having some national launch capability. They are also concerned (and these are conservatives who do not have NASA centers around)about how NASA is run. My opinion aside, many conservatives are very uncomfortable with how NASA is currently run... under the past TWO commanders in chief. Some of these conservatives need to be held to account with their votes.

There is enough blame to go around. As a conservative, I am actually supportive of what MY Commander in Chief is attempting to accomplish with NASA. Commercialization taking over LEO operations, again in my opinion, is the right way to go. NASA is fat and bloated. Changes need to be made with the management and its culture. Major projects rob other project budgets, causing delays and overruns. MSL and Constellation of the top of my nugget.

I am not comfortable with everything the president is proposing; but I, personally, hope NASA is right sized. Right sizing NASA will allow room for a heavy lift vehicle. But then the question becomes what do they does America it?

NASA is not a jobs program. The way NASA has executed its contracts have been poor. The same can be said for most centers. We do not need a General or an Astronaut running NASA, we need CEO of a fortune 50 company who will cut NASA down and make it much more efficient in design, research and development, and execution of his budget.

Anyways, politics is going to be huge with NASA. No one has a crystal ball; but if HLV wants a piece of the immediate future they better get together.

Agree or disagree with Keith Cowing all you want, it isn't a liberal or conservative issue. This is an American spaceflight issue and how we should execute the mission. Mr. Krauthammer's piece is causing a lot of people who normally wouldn't know a thing, or care, about NASA to become educated.

This is all my opinion.

VR
RS327

joshcryer

"the last thing, an escape system, is such a small thing that it's a joke."

You don't really understand much about fault detection, abort acoustics, transonic stability for ascent abort, and ability to escape, reorient, and get chutes open for a pad abort case do you?

Ever had a 100,000 lb thrust solid motor ignited 20 feet above your head?

Charles Krauthammer bashes Obama once a week. It really doesn't matter what Obama does you can depend on Krauthammer to bash him. If he had given NASA $3B more year the guy would have written a hyper negative editorial about the budget deficit and how this just adds to it. It is the only thing he writes about. It is certainly understandable that this decision, definitely a huge near term change of direction, would create such strong feelings on both sides. But from certain perspectives, NASA getting a budget increase in these times was a definite positive. But without a huge increase Constellation is not possible, at least on any reasonable schedule. And if you know much about the program you will know it is far behind schedule and hugely over budget which you can be certain will only get worse. I know that 3 years ago we were doing PDRs and that we are now simply redoing those as Ares performance issues and other things caused much of the original work to be almost completely redone. The biggest complaint I have for Obama's plan is that is has no "real" goals to shoot for. Developing the technology is great but I believe you need to drive people to a hard goal, not some esoteric far out goal that is presently almost completely undefined.

Well, Keith, you should have know posting a link to a Krauthammer article was sure to bring out the wingnuts and teabaggers. Ol' Charlie gets 'em riled up like no other. Predictably, Charlie took the standard Republican "Obama - bad, bad" line, offering little light and much heat to the discussion. It's amusing to see him take this stance when Obama has taken up the traditional Republican flag of supporting the Free Market.

For fits and giggles I pulled out the Aldridge commission's report and reviewed it. For those who may have forgotten, that was the commission called by President Bush in the wake of the Columbia disaster, and in which he laid out his Vision for US Space Exploration, the VSE. It was interesting to note that the only way Obama has deviated from the VSE are the dates, which we all know were toast anyway under Constellation. Also, I want to remind you that one of the main recommendations of Bush's commission wasn't the restructuring of NASA that Obama has initiated, but rather the dismantling of NASA.

NASA has been dysfunctional for quite some time now. Instead of kicking the ball down the road like so many administrations have done for years now, this Administration has determined that an efficient and forward looking NASA is a great thing for America. Obama's plan is not one to destroy NASA; rather, Obama is trying to save it.

The Constellation crowd screams that we're destroying our space faring ability as if Constellation was fully built and operational. Well, it isn't. NASA has failed at delivering capabilities before, and was on the road to do just that with Constellation. Had Obama let NASA continue, there is a better than even chance that failure would have been the outcome, at which point the President would have taken up the recommendations of the Aldridge commission and put NASA out of its misery.

joshcryer is right; this is the best thing to happen to NASA in a long time. A budget increase, the killing of a dangerous and destructive program, and the creation of a private market in launch services to get NASA and the government out of an industry that's long been a commodity. All of us are sorry for those losing their jobs, but aerospace unemployment is running at 3-5%, so most will land on their feet, and the truly bold will stand to gain a lot by starting their own Space Company to help America move forward into space.

Mr Krauthammer is absolutely correct "For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space -- and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future."

Editor's note: WRONG. The Mercury/Atlas system was fully operational and was used for subsequent flights after Glenn's. If Krauthammer's point was to refer to the stand down of the Mercury program then he should have referred to Gordon Cooper's flight - not Glenn's. But that would also be incorrect as well since Gemini/Titan system was being brought online and flew several years later- as planned.

Yes there were other gaps, but we knew there was follow up and improved progam or repaired sytem scheduled to follow! Now we have nothing scheduled to follow. We are laying off our space workers while subsidizing the Russians to launch US and partner astronauts. It 2012 that contract will expire and the Russians have all ready have anounced they will raise price as they know they will be only ride. What will this cost be? 2x? 3x? If we decide not to pay that price will the ISS become the RSS? Do not try to say a ride in the Shuttle is more expensive that Soyuz. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Shuttle can carry 7 crew, an air lock,robot arm and a 60ft long payload bay filled with tons of payloads, both up and down. I'm sure it could carry a crew of 7, plus 2 whole Soyuz in it's payload bay! I am for commercial space, but it is not any where near ready to fly humans into orbit. We must keep flying, if not with Constellation then keep shuttle flying a couple times a year until there is something better to replace it. Lets not throw out 50 yrs of technology and leadership. The space program is good for the economy, that is why all these other countries are getting involved. All the money is spend here on earth paying skilled workers and developing new technology. A few days ago the only thing Bolden anounced was a possible heavy lift capability in the mid 2020's. No plans at all about what it payload might be. What would that take maybe another 15 or 20 yrs to develope? We need leadership with a bold plan, a program and a timetable. This plan of Obama's ends the US Human Space program for at least the next 20 years and it is a crying shame!

Gemini Titan flew less than a year after the last Mercury Atlas.

Apollo Saturns were flying while Gemini Titans were also flying. The real gap was between the Saturns and Shuttle.

Obama had nothing to do with setting up this disaster.

The Shuttle program was being terminated 4 years ago, just planned to finally happen this year.

At the rate Constellation was moving, the best their Program Manager was saying (to Augustine) they could do was 2015, and Augustine was saying, not likely; more likely no earlier than 2017 and 2019 was the likely date.

The gap was not created by Obama.

The new Obama direction could advance the launch date of the next vehicle and narrow the gap by several years. Even a Lockheed commercially produced Orion is one possibility and we've been hearing from Lockheed that they could have it ready in 2013 as long as NASA is not intricately involved. I wonder if Lockheed has a launch vehicle that will be ready ?

BrentAndrewHawker writes "..Obama as a State Senator refused to even put his hand over his heart during The Pledge. (Yes, it is on, or was, on YouTube.) .."

This site should be for thinking people who are working in space, not silly teabaggers. Pledges are for blind followers and Boy Scouts.

There are good arguments about the new space plan on both sides. Let's try and stick to the subject.

Krauthammer is a partisan fathead. If a GOP president would have proposed what Obama did, he would be telling us how great it is.

It's too bad that debate over space policy is bogged down by so much partisan nonsense.

I have been a fan of NASA Watch for years, however calling someone ignorant because you don't agree with them actually hurts your argument. Both sides have good points, but I think throwing away several thousand trained engineers so a commercial contractor can fill its ranks with new graduates doesn't make sense.

Keith, the quote says
"For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space -- and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future."

And you say

"Editor's note: WRONG. The Mercury/Atlas system was fully operational and was used for subsequent flights after Glenn's."

I understand exactly what Krauthammer's saying but don't understand your complaint.

He says that for the first time since John Glenn flew, this is the first time that we have no prospect of getting into space. That is correct. This will be the first time since we first started orbital space flight (Glenn) that there will be a gap with no planned replacement.

He may have not said this exactly, but that is IMHO what he was trying to convey.