NASA and the future of space exploration: what do YOU think?

Right now, all the public knows is the rant "Obama killed NASA", which of course is nonsense. But once this is explained to them - that these new generation crew carrying vehicles and new technology investments - will open the doorway to space for them, their children and grandchildren, creating thousands of new jobs in the process, technologies that can be also applied to their worlds, I bet people will support it. Let's face it, Constellation didn't light any fires with JQP because there was no place in it for ordinary Americans. Now they'll get to go. And how cool is that?

In order to make it worthwhile to explore space, we need to provide the ability for commercial organizations to make a profit. Our current treaties make that impossible. Any organism, organization, or system needs to bring in more resources and energy than it spends in its activities, in order to thrive and grow. In human economies, that return is called profit. Our current space treaties, the 1967 Space Treaty, and the unratified, but still de facto standard Moon Treaty, make any return from commercial space development impossible. The 1967 treaty decrees that no nation can claim sovereignty of any celestial body. Without sovereignty, private ownership is in doubt. The Moon treaty is more explicit: the resources of the Moon are the heritage of all mankind, and any entity building a facility on the Moon to extract resources must equitably share all proceeds with every other nation on Earth, and report all intelligence or research about such to the Secretary-General of the UN. No commercial organization expecting to see a ROI would ever build a factory under those circumstances, and no bank would loan money to such an endeavor. It is not enough to charge customers for tours to space, or build private launchers that NASA pays for - this is obviously just re-arranging resources on Earth. What is necessary is the ability to bring in NEW resources from space. That is not going to happen until the current treaties are revisited, and re-written to allow commercial organizations to make a profit by bringing back new resources from space. I suggest ceding ownership of the Moon to the UN, with the mandate to develop a "homesteading" type system for developers to land on, develop, and purchase property on the Moon, with provisions to grant each nation on Earth their own ample plot of 10,000 square hectares or so, on the Moon, to be their sovereign foothold in space in perpetuity. This allows all nations to participate in space resources without having to invest their resources currently, and also allows those who have an interest in exploring and developing the resources on the Moon to do so in a legal and internationally accepted framework.

I agree with Frank. After studying and considering the Administration's plan the last few weeks, I believe that it is a great improvement over the previous program of record.

Rather than killing the future of human spaceflight, it might just save it.

This survey is what they call "unscientific". Extreme example or irresponsible statistics:

Do you agree that Obama should destroy NASA?
Yes
No

99% of respondents polled support the Constellation program.

Ditto to Frank's point, and an addition

It is time for NASA to start flying true spaceships - not stuff that can merely go from earth to orbit. NASA's job should to go from LEO to Beyond LEO (GEO, Lunar orbit, NEOs, Martian orbit, and of course, planetary surfaces). Let Commercial space do the easier stuff. NASA can prove its greatness by working on building true spaceships.

This plan will put us on a path to becoming a spacefaring society

Hi Miles,

I've really enjoyed watching "This Week in Space" and I hope you can find adequate funds to continue the show.

Two points:

1. Securing America's leadership in the development of the solar system can best be accomplished by enabling a self-sustaining private space industry.

2. NASA should be like a venture capital source for high-tech propulsion, solar energy, life support, and ISRU technology companies.

Thanks! (ps I love that you paid homage to your Star Trek name on the show. :)

So as with health care.... Obama has no space plan! If there were an alternate vehicle in development it would make more sense to cancel Constellation. Or if the budget increase needed to complete Constellation was significant compared to all the other spending he is doing. ....or maybe if he chose an Augustine option. Experiencing layoffs and downsizing firsthand leaves me with little confidence in what he is doing. Our children and grandchildren will no longer have the pride of seeing an american astronaut in space or on the moon. Having met an astronaut that walked on the moon and many who have flown on Shuttle and ISS, I hoped the next generation might do the same. Congress needs to reject his plan.

One more:

Repeat Bolden's great line about there being six flags on the moon, all of them American. Congress needs to know that a Chinese flag on the Moon is no big deal.

My request for Miles would be the following:

"Human Space Flight is NOT defined by launching a rocket as soon and as often as possible. A nation...no, a species, does not truly become "space-faring" simply because we can launch a few humans into space each year.

It is when the extended presence of hundreds of thousands are beyond the bounds of our Earth becomes routine that we have truly achieved such a milestone.

The Space Shuttle Program, soon to be completed, was one of the major first steps in achieving this milestone, recently culminating in 13 people aboard the International Space Station simultaneously.

With that in mind, are we truly a "space-faring" species? In nearly 50 years of spaceflight, roughly 500 humans have flown in space.

Think about that, on a planet of 6.7 Billion, 500.

I mean not to degrade the accomplishments of those who have flown, nor do I say that every inhabitant of this Earth is capable or qualified of taking their place, but even after 50 years, to deem Humanity as a "space-faring" species I consider pre-mature.

We have much to accomplish. Not only in regards to cheap, safe, and efficient access to space, but also in the way we sustain life, generate propulsion, and establish a permanent presence in space for humanity, much like the ISS does today.

I would consider a mission to Moon, Mars, or any location beyond LEO to be the fruit of that labor, not the enabler."

~HotShotX

Ceding leadership in space exploration to the Chinese, or any country for that matter, is a "big deal".

Having grown up in the '60s I found NASA after Apollo to be the opposite of inspiring. Yes, we needed a shuttle and a station, but not the ones we got--stepping stones to nowhere. I find the new NASA direction a huge breath of fresh air. Finally a chance to get into space to stay, by developing sustainable, affordable technology before we dump a bunch of money into a few brief visits. And as to commercial involvement--the more people in space, the better for everyone.

The outline of Obama's plans for American spaceflight, and NASA's role in that plan, looks good so far.

The goal for the civil space program must be to open up the solar system for development and settlement. In short, the U.S. government shall expand the economic sphere of the United States beyond Earth orbit so that America can harness extra-terrestrial scientific and natural resources.

In contrast with Constellation's approach, the civil space program shall not just approach space as a domain only for a handful of civil servants to briefly travel to.

Rather, the space program shall blaze a trail with an open architecture that leverages and nurtures the key strengths of the commercial and educational space sectors so that some day soon average Americans can travel to, work in and benefit from affordable access to space.

I think Lori Garver and Charlie Bolden get that.

On a related note, I think it would be fantastic if Miles could interview Sean O'Keefe, Craig Steidle, and/or John Marburger, who were of course quite critical to the development and pre-Griffin/ESAS implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration. I suspect they would have some very interesting comments on NASA's new plan.

There are several points that people should realize regarding the new direction in human spaceflight.

1) Constellation was NOT a healthy program. It was underfunded relative to its original objectives, and the management was mediocre at best. It was years away from fielding an operational system, and I suspect that there were many unknowns that would have delayed Ares I deployment until the late 2010's, if at all.

2) NASA maintaining a lock-hold on U.S. access to space is downright un-American. This country is all about free enterprise, and it astounds me that people are opposed to this capability being shifted to the private sector. NASA needs to concentrate on deep space and exploring beyond Earth orbit. And who cares if it takes a little longer to establish this industry? It's much more important for the U.S. to lead the commercialization of space, rather than beating the Chinese out for the Silver Medal in returning to the Moon.

3) Future human exploration must focus on the synergistic application of humans and robotics. This idea that robots are an ancillary capability is old hat. The Flexible Path approach of performing extensive telerobotic exploration/infrastructure deployment on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars from orbit is a logical intermediate step. The insistence to send humans immediately to the Moon or Mars is a fool's errand, nothing more.

4) All exploration is human. Robots are merely tools. The argument should center on how we utilize remote systems and direct EVA operations to best accomplish the objectives of our space missions. Only at NASA do you find the silly argument of robots vs. humans taking place. (It actually sounds like something from a 1950's Asimov novel.)

Now, if you could demonstrate why China putting a flag on the moon constitutes "ceding leadership", the rest of us might agree with you

The "plan" the president and current NASA administration have proposed has yet to be defined and is not the right choice for America. All the big words and flashy phrases (e.g. "game-changing technologies") don't mean a thing without a plan to back it up. By plan I mean a real goal with real requirements, not a plan to just throw out a bunch of money to the private sector and say, "Let's see what they can do!"

It would appear that many people do not realize how much of our commercial space industry is already working with NASA. It's not like NASA does all their development in house and commercial companies aren't involved. Most of the work being done is contracted out to 50+ commercial companies throughout our nation. This new plan simply diverts money to other commercial companies, many of which are starter companies by rich tycoons. So in the end, there's no change. NASA is still basically in charge and the contractors are designing and building the spacecraft.

People seem to think that by turning over our space program to the "private sector", we will somehow suddenly have free access to space, to do with what we want. Suddenly, we are all living in a Jetsons world, taking a trip into space anytime we choose. But there will always be rules and regulations when it comes to access to space. There has to be for the safety and security of our nation. And the dream that the average american will now be able to go to space is just that - a dream. Only the wealthy will be able to afford to take those trips into space, if and when that ever happens. How is that supposed to inspire our youth? Instead of working hard in school and aspiring to be an astronaut, they can do whatever it takes to get rich, because that's the only way they'll ever get there. No, this new plan is not the way to go.

Keep the Constellation program alive and allow the private sector to continue funding their own programs.

I'd like to know why Orion was canceled. Everyone mentions the Constellation cancellation, but not as much about Orion which ends US human space flight.

I have a few questions that I feel have been left unanswered:

What is the incentive for private companies to pursue this endeavor? Will this become a vast drain on their R&D money to try to put humans into space? The so-called “space-tourism” will not foot the bill because it will cost billions of dollars for a private corporation to successfully design, construct, and test these vehicles before they can even be considered for human use. By the time these vehicles are ready for “tourists”, the money to be made will not cover the cost of years of development. So what is the incentive? Where will the profit – the primary concern of private corporations – come from?

So what will become of the NASA manned space flight programs? What is to prevent NASA from becoming an even more tempting multi-billion dollar target for future budget cutbacks? The total NASA budget is considerably small when compared to money spent across the board, coming in at 0.5% of the total annual budget, of which manned space flight is an even smaller portion. Privatizing space exploration is an exciting option, but is an abrupt cut of the NASA manned space flight program the best decision? With the cancellation of Constellation with no defined future plans, the United States will also be allowing Russia and China to pass us by in space exploration. And what will stop Russia from upping the price to take our astronauts to ISS?

Some of these concerns must be answered before I can get on board with this plan.

PS: What do you tell the people who are losing their jobs? Better yet, what do you tell the college students just graduating who are out looking for a job but now have over 7,000 engineers, scientists, and technicians with real-world experience to compete with in the job market? Good luck to them getting a job and getting ahead on their student loans. What will you say to Huntsville when these employees leave, taking their families and significantly decreasing the population over time since there may not be industry there? As the population decreases, the need for as many teachers, police officers, etc. decreases. What do you tell them?

I really need to hear more pros before I can get on board with this plan.

Orion is one part of the Constellation program, and they want to scrap it all. Human space flight is not over, but the next big step beyond ISS is.

The public knows more than "Obama killed NASA". That is an unfair assumption to make that all of the public is uninformed, because from those I have been speaking with, that is certainly not the case.

What is the incentive for private companies to pursue this endeavor? Will this become a vast drain on their R&D money to try to put humans into space? Which company is going to compete with China in this endeavor?

I am not sure that this will put us into space more quickly, on the contrary, I fear it will put us behind. You do not abruptly cut a program like this and push it off to the commercial sector. There needs to be transition.

Orion1 - there is a huge difference going from a contractor cost-plus model, to a commercial fixed price model. One will encourage private investment into space development & human spaceflight, and the other is the cost plus model.

Orion got canceled because the next ship NASA should work on is a dedicated spaceship, not a merged capsule that can do double duty as a deep spacecraft (barely)

Orion is one part of the Constellation program, and they want to scrap it all. Human space flight is not over, but the next big step beyond ISS is.

The new direction for NASA proposed by the Obama Administration is, in fact, directionless. Lacking clear goals and a time frame it is impossible to say if the plan is progressing on schedule and on budget or just running in place while burning taxpayer money.

People (and companies) perform far better when there are clearly articulated, well understood and precise goals. If the US is to place all of its reliance upon private industry, then it must also articulate clear goals and clear deadlines and be prepared to force companies to meet them starting with COTS. Otherwise this will just be a multi-billion dollar corporate welfare program.

So fatalistic...

It's just a delay, adjusted for available budgets.

kphili2,
The incentives are to make money. And there are a number of ways to make money. Concerning the need for transition - we've run out of time for a painless transition, thanks to Constellation.

And lets please stop with the "compete with China" meme. People seem to think that if China puts 1 person on the moon, suddenly they'll have total control of it. Lets have a real discussion about China & the moon.

Ferris, you need to check your facts on the cost plus issue... You are likely confused with the shuttle operational budget management. Not Ares or Orion.

Miles,

Please ask them one question. What is to come of the heavy lift manned space program. OK I agree we might can use the private sector for LEO taxi rides but what about our nation's ability to lead in technology and defense? You have to have a manned heavy lift vehicle to do that and "research and study" won't get you there. We need a specific mission and a specific vehicle otherwise we are toast. Simple question and I hope you get an answer that doesn't include the words "we are going to do lots of good research and study" because as you know - all that means is kill the program.

Thanks,

Space is 4 US to lead and unless we have a definitive plane we cede leadership. This would be unacceptable.

I certainly hope the cancellation of human space flight by NASA is short term. It's just that I don't believe it.

It's been over 40 years since we've been to the moon, and it may be another 40 before we get there again. The point being that the easiest place to go beyond LEO is the moon, once you can get there and safely back, there are other places you can consider further out.

But we do not have the technology to do it nor do we have the political will. And without the latter, we will never go anywhere.

It's just really depressing. Don't get me wrong I'm a robot hugger, I love Hubble, Spirit, et. al. but not to have a HSF option is depressing.

"PS: What do you tell the people who are losing their jobs? Better yet, what do you tell the college students just graduating who are out looking for a job but now have over 7,000 engineers, scientists, and technicians with real-world experience to compete with in the job market? Good luck to them getting a job and getting ahead on their student loans. What will you say to Huntsville when these employees leave, taking their families and significantly decreasing the population over time since there may not be industry there? As the population decreases, the need for as many teachers, police officers, etc. decreases. What do you tell them?"

The Mission is complete, it's time to move on. HSF shall not be forced to the Status Quo simply to preserve jobs for work that is no longer required.

Yes, there may not be any vehicle related work immediately, but HSF is not 100% vehicle work. R&D plays a very important role in humanity's expansion into space and it has been neglected for several years now.

PS: I am a Shuttle engineer losing my job following STS-134. Do I particularly enjoy this fact? No, but I understand the importance of it, and I am not so self-entitled to think that I deserve a paycheck when I am no longer required.

~HotShotX

I'm the resident space geek in my circle.
So I get pinged on a lot about space issues.
Everyone was shocked at Obama's announcement and I can assure few support it.
It's just not flying with the general public no matter what the spin.
The American people want a NASA that explores space. I know that sound nuts. As shuttle goes away... America will be looking for what's next.
We need goals, we need grand plans, we NEED NASA human spaceflight! Commercial can have some of the action, but Obama has gone too far. That perception is not going to change.

A Chinese flag may be nothing. But a Chinese base is something indeed. The Chinese are not going to just plant a flag. If that's all you think they are going to do then you need new eyeglasses.

If they can plant a flag on the moon, then they have the capability to kove beyond low earth orbit. We do not have that capability and now have nothing in the works to establish that capability. Thus, we have ceded our leadership to the Chinese. I assure you, they will not be throwing away their Saturn V system to let it rust in the Florida sun. The very symbol of our once robust system on it's side like a child's swingset at school.

Congress needs to know that the Obama plan is a big gamble with no assurances of avoid outcome. The very fact that it was left to the final moments of the budget formulation shows that NASA is on the lowest rung of the Administrations priorities. The fact that the Administrator did not know what was coming down the pipe shows that there is a paucity of real communcation between the Agency and the powers that be. If this plan fails then we will have surrendered our leadership in space to the Russians and Chinese. We need a backup LEO transportation system to ensure US primacy in space exploration and we need to regain access to beyond low earth orbit. This means extending the shuttle and developing a SDHLV. If the Chinese want to plant a flag on the moon, we should be the ones to bring them there.

As the Augustine Commission report says, "destinations should derive from goals." Not the other way around. The report also includes a rather audacious statement: "the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system." This goal implies two critical objectives for human space flight: it must be (1) physically sustainable, and (2) economically sustainable. These objectives should drive our thinking about destinations.

Physical sustainability requires development of closed-loop environmental systems to produce food and recycle waste, and development of in-situ extraction techniques to obtain water to drink and -- by splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen -- air to breath and rocket fuel to get from one place to another. This should drive us to think about Near Earth Objects (NEOs), the Moon and Mars where water is available. Of these three destinations, by far the most economical to reach are NEOs and the Moon.

Mars is far. NEOs are far less so, and many are easier to reach than the Moon, but require more time to get there. Mars and the Moon have deep gravity wells which require more fuel and more powerful rockets to get in-and-out-of than NEOs. These should all be key factors when considering destinations.

We should definitely NOT select Mars or the Moon as a destination just because our ancestors evolved on the surface of a planet and we are more comfortable knowing which way is up. Nor because we are influenced by images of the future envisioned in science fiction, with heros and attractive aliens having adventures on the surface of exotic planets. Mars is not exotic; it is a barren wasteland.

If physical sustainability is difficult, economic sustainability is even more so. The space tourism industry, driven by a few multi-millionaires with a death wish, probably won't do it. Helium-3 from the Moon is actually more difficult to burn in fusion reactions than deuterium-tritium and -- for the foreseeable future -- lacks a viable nuclear fusion industry to create any demand.

At present, the only feasible approaches with potential real economic return would seem to be (1) space-based solar and (2) mining NEOs or the Moon, and returning valuable metals and other materials to Earth. Both could clearly generate revenues, but neither are economically viable with current technology.

So, NASA's goal to develop enabling technologies for closed-loop enviromental systems, space habitats, in-space refueling, robotic "precursor missions" to NEOs and the Moon, "in-situ extraction technologies" and other bits of the new space policy are all on the right track. The lack of any mention of space-based solar demonstration projects is disappointing. Finding ways to make space pay for itself should drive the R&D agenda.

NASA's new direction to increase collaborate with other countries is also a good move. It will stretch our limited resources. But the agency would do well to reach out to mining and energy corporations as well (beyond the usual suspects in the aerospace industry). As NASA begins to realize what the flexible path and the Augustine Commission's recommendations really imply, I hope they will start to figure all this out.

Finally, it is worth reflecting on the history of exploration and colonization of North America. All such efforts in the 16th and 17th Centuries were fully underwritten by private investors in joint stock companies. People of modest means took risks to invest in the "adventure" for one reason: each company was given a royal patent promising exclusive rights to exploit whatever they discovered (a Northwest Passage, minerals and even -- unfortunately -- people).

If we want to follow a similar model today, the White House should direct the State Department to renegotiate the UN Outer Space Treaty. There really is a lot of real estate to go around up there. But this 1967 treaty, as written, makes it impossible for a corporation to own any part of it.

There is one additional lesson from early colonization efforts in North America, in particular the experience of Jamestown. Investors flocked to this adventure expecting to get rich by discovering a Northwest Passage, gold and precious gems. The colonists found none of these, and the experiment teetered on the brink of failure until one of the colonists found he could make a substantial profit selling tobacco back to England.

Tobacco made the colonization of North America profitable, and rest is history. Not one of the original investors in these early expeditions ever imagined this unknown weed would open the New World (the northern bit of it anyway). I'm not suggesting that a human presence in space will become profitable through the production of a harmful and addictive substance, but the lesson is that we must explore all possible means to make space pay for itself, with our eyes open for ideas we haven’t thought of yet.

Do we (USA, Russia and ESA) have enough upmass capability to support the ISS? This upmass would include station keeping fuel, supplies for the crew and ORUs (Orbital Replaceable Units) to account for random failure and end of life failures on ISS components. Of special concern would be life support systems, the power management and distribution system (PMAD), and station keeping/ navigation systems.

I would tell them that NASA can be as relevant or irrelevant as they like. It's up to them.

It's been almost a month now, is there a plan yet?
Time line and mile stones?
I mean if the Shuttle is really retired, which I expect, what's the plan to get back just to LEO?
(I mean there is some vague idea about Space X doing the manned LEO work, but if that does not work is there a Plan B?)
I know in the long run all this will have to be negotiated with Congress, but can't let things slip for too much longer , the gap just get's larger.
Sure there are generic plans, but some of the specifics should be making their appearance and soon!

Does NOAA have a plan? The Dept. of Energy? Is a destination necessary for NSF? As I see it, the new goal is to be a "New NACA": Making flight inexpensive, safe, & energy efficient, no matter where you want to go, be it Milwaukee or Mars.

R&D without a goal is unfocused and ineffective: total waste. I see that every day where I work. Even unmanned space has goals: destinations, proposed missions long before R&D and integration start. Obama killed NASA is very true.

"Orion got canceled because the next ship NASA should work on is a dedicated spaceship, not a merged capsule that can do double duty as a deep spacecraft"

So because Obama doesn't want a double duty spacecraft, we may have to wait 10 years before the US has HSF capability again? The fact that they didn't have a plan in place, just some ideas shows that this was poorly thought out. Also, Orion was a dedicated spaceship. One that has LEO and lunar or beyond capability is still a spaceship.

It seems that the US should continue Orion as proposed. Commercial companies won't want to develop a deep space spacecraft and the US could continue it as a backup for LEO when the commercial companies fall behind in their development.

That is completely true. Yes the Chinese have made some rather round about comments about landing men on the moon, but until I see it I have a hard time believing it. If the Chinese have men on the moon in 30 years I would be surprised. Much easier said then done. The Russians are a good example. While I was totally amazed and a firm believer in our original moon program, and would love to see us go there permanently asap, the original program was 90% politically driven. But the NASA of those days really could get things produced in reasonable time at more reasonable cost. Constellation was moving nowhere very quickly, constantly being redesigned and delayed. Hopefully this new program will allow NASA to get things done quickly with only the basic oversight necessary, not huge requirements documents and bloated bureaucracy. And when we do venture outward it will be driven by aspirations of knowledge and adventure and not primarily politics.

Fly the shuttle and fund space x so we don't have a gap. Go with Constellation as is or reconfigure it into a direct or shuttle c system. Fund at a level that puts human not avatar boots back on the moon by no later than 2020.

This is what needs to be done!

Nuff Said,

Carl (Surfduke) Hewlett

“We must go beyond textbooks, go out into the bypaths and untrodden depths of the wilderness and travel and explore and tell the world the glories of our journey.”
John Hope Franklin

I have several friends who live out in the "heartland" of America, far from any NASA or contractor facility, and they tell me the same story: none of the positive elements of the President's budget has penetrated out there, but the gloom and doom has, in spades. They don't read Avweek, Spacenews, or the federal budget. You can't expect people to support something if they don't know anything about it. Better education and outreach would address this.

esmithatty - first, the Chinese aren't even actively working on a Saturn V class Super-heavy. Second, they are still working on a Delta V Heavy class vehicle. Second, if you are concerned about the establishment of a Chinese base on the moon, then you should realize that a Constellation based architecture was never going to deliver a working base. Third, exactly what evidence do you have that they are actively working on a moonnbase, or expect to have one by 2030?

Adam K - No, I am not. Orion & Ares & Constellation were not firm fixed price contracts. They were cost plus contracts, that were going to be also have high operating costs ($1 Billion just to fly Ares I?!!). The only thing within Constellation that was firm fixed price was the COTS program

L1, Cis-lunar, Cis-Mars....Reusable interplanetary, no high speed earth re-entries. Commercial from Earth to LEO departure orbit. Surface presence developed when interplanetary transit exists.

Miles,

Supporters of Commercial Human Spaceflight have very short memories indeed.

Has everyone forgotten about the "Lockheed Martin X33 VentureStar", the McDonnell Douglass "Clipper", ROTON, National Aerospace Plane etc...

Has everyone forgotten NASA's incompetent and negligent oversight with the X33, and the "common cause" of Steve Cook to the failure of both X33 and Constellation?

I'm sorry to say this, but neither NASA, nor Commercial Industry has proven itself up to the task of developing an safe and cost effective vehicle.

Its time to wipe the slate clean and start over again.

Its time to give an entrepreneurial company a chance to prove itself.

Both COTS and C3PO procurement must be re-drafted to require that entrepreneurial entities shall be the "primes", and they can choose which U.S. based subcontractors (Boeing, Lockmart ATK, Honeywell, etc) they will partner with.

Give the task to the best and brightest that America has to offer!

Spacenerd99 - We were gonna have a long gap, because we were insisting on a double duty spacecraft (which, BTW, had no mechanism to go beyond LEO, and would've cost an arm and a leg. Tell me this - if there wasn't any interest in developing deep space ships, why is Bigelow Aerospace still developing the Sundancer & BA-330 modules? Don't you think that could act as the basis for a Beyond LEO vehicle? a much more capable Beyond LEO vehicle?

Frank Sietzen,

A question - given the hyper-partisan atmosphere, we currently have, do you think it will be much harder to for them to get & understand the benefits the Obama budget offers?

My comment to Miles would be this: right now a lot of space enthusiasts feel like we're stopping. We all expected the new plan to include the vehicle to come after Shuttle that would take people to space. Many are happy that Constellation is canceled for various reasons, but a good deal of the angst is about the fact that there was nothing to take it's place. We all want to go to space ourselves, and failing that, we want to see people like us go to space, and on something that feels like "our" rocket. Buying seats on Soyuz does not inspire, and feels very emasculating on a national level.

Some of the John Q Publice-type people that I've spoken to about this are as pissed as I am, but sadly they're only emotional when it looks like we're stopping, not when we're doing the impossible and making it look mundane.

I, and I think others, would be more on board the new Obama plan if it included some kind of concrete goal. It seems like we're on an open-ended hiatus right now, but if the President were to say that we'd launch a commercial crewed vehicle by 2018 or something I'd feel better. Give us a goal, and we'll meet it.

In this poisonous atmosphere just about everything is harder. But I think the best defense is a good offense-and gather together a new type of coalition, one that doesn't include the traditional, same players. If these new suborbital ships will be carrying researchers and their experiments, then every university in America will have a stake in this. ANd I'd also think of supporters by proxies-some real people who want to build or compliment their business with space services. If we literally think "outside the box", er beltway, I bet we could fire up some new interest. All of the research and testing called for in that budget will have to be done somewhere, I'd reckon. Each community that wants a piece of the pie (Chambers of Commerce, Optimist Clubs, science museums) could add their voices to the fray. Just a thought.

I respectfully disagre with Frank,

(1) The current plan keeps the U.S. limited to mostly public relations stunts to ISS under a tenuous justification of 'Earth Sciences' and 'serving the public'. Been there, seen that, with Skylab 3 where the public could pretty much care less, Mission to Planet Earth, sending John Glenn back to space 40 years after sending John Glenn to space, and absurd proposals like the women-only Shuttle mission that thank God never took place.

(2) The HLV program lacks credibility without a destination and, much less, a schedule and other supporting elements (Orion, lander, etc.). We'll just end up with a decade of endless studies, nice CGIs, and at best a launcher with enough capacity to only launch US replacement ISS modules after 2020. So forget Ares-4,5, Jupiter, or Direct and think more in terms of a marginally improved EELV.
The economics just isn't there and it won't take long for ULA's owners to realize they've been had. If Falcon-9 works (big if) it won't take long for the DoD to compare prices and let ULA launchers go the way of the F-22 program.

(3) Finally, just look a who's really 'excited' with the new plan ... Russia and Europe, both running state-owned launch corporations that already dominate the international commercial launch market. Despite all the talk of cooperation neither will never purchase services on Dragon/Falcon nor consider launching their modules on a U.S. vehicles (but they sure will be happy accepting U.S. missions for a fee, of course). If anything they'll continue to cooperate among themselves as they're already doing even allowing a new Soyuz launch pad at the European launch range in Kourou, French Guyana.

I very much doubt the new plan will last much beyond Nov. 2010 and of course Jan. 2013. My hunch is that after that we'll get an Ares-4, CxP returning to the 2 launcher option vs. 1.5, and refocusing on NEOs. That is, CxP minus the Moon and try help commecial human space through 2020 right until ISS starts shutting down modules at a higher rate than they can get replaced by international partners or U.S. commercial interests.

Miles, just mention to our leaders that Americans want to continue to have a strong and effective space program. Americans lead, not follow. A strong space program cannot exist on the "cheap". A strong space program needs the necessary annual funding to meets it goals. In short Miles, tell our leaders to "SHOW NASA THE MONEY, SHOW NASA THE MONEY".

The plan is to have a plan that everyone likes because they interpret it in their own way. Much like the presidential candidate himself. That means the old plan has to go away. All of it.

This mollifies the uninformed and disinterested parties. However, those in the know are justified in their uneasiness, given NASAs track record with past development efforts and their current obstructionist (middleman but authoritative subject matter expert) mentality.

The current budget gives everybody some play money to go rebuild their own empires. Few of those empires will contribute to the greater good because their is no real objective.

If there is anything that NASA is good at it's infighting.

The bizzare thing that I never saw coming is that the ISS is saving what will be left of HSF. Given the current "plan", I'm sure that it is doomed as well. Watch out Houston, your next on the list.

International cooperation is not going to materialize for a multitude of reasons. The top of the list is the current state of the global economy. If you think Americans are pissed off at all the money we "waste" in space, think about how Joe Quiche in France feels about it.

Investments in nationalism pay in the long term, however. The Chinese will realize that they can look good on the cheap in space and slowly capitalize on the American decline in the interest of using Chinese nationalism to keep their population satisfied with slavery.

The Russians will continue to be the enablers seeking out their next paycheck.

IMHO, This is all about the war on American Exceptionalism. Our current administration apparently doesn't have the stomach for it anymore.

What would I like to see? I do have a vision for the future but I don't think about it much. It's a waste of time. I'm not going to say what it is because it is not possible. NASA, unfortunately is here to stay.

As 1961 began, Arpa and the Air Force had three rocket engines under design and test- the M-1, F-1 and shortly thereafter the J-2. The Wernher Von Braun team at the Redstone Arsenal was developing the Saturn C-1 booster, using the H-1 engine. When Kennedy made his moon speech that spring, Von Braun had several engines to choose from. Neither those engines or the Saturn C-1 had a specific mission in mind (other than an Army fantasy of sending troops to the moon and building a fort there). The idea that lacking a specific destination or payload somehow invalidates the development of a heavy lift booster isn't borne out by recent history.

Obama made a huge mistake by selling this as "We're cutting NASA" rather than "We're sharpening the focus on manned exploration technologies and promoting private space companies." Heck, the first thing I heard about NASA's budget from the Obama administration was "We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon."

You'd think that someone as good at campaigning as Obama would be able to communicate his plans better than he did.

Real Education requires two things: structure and inspiration. The Dept of Ed provides the structure, but does nothing to inspire students to become the kind of scientists and engineers and researchers of which the country is in such desperate need. NASA can be that inspiration - we saw it during the Apollo period and even later in the early shuttle program. But let's take a bit of a look at the budgets: (2009 numbers from wikipedia)

Dept of Ed: $62.6B + ARRA $96.8B = $159.3B

NASA: $17.6B

Dept of Ed got more than 9 times NASA's budget in 2009!

How on earth do we expect to be able to inspire our students with that kind of disparity?

The cost of going to the moon is worth the price of admission just in the inspiration it would provide our future generation.

It's amazing that when asked for suggestions the number of people who choose to debate.

Miles, please tell our representatives in Congress that we welcome the energy and drive of the private market being applied to human space flight. Goals do need to be quantified and laid down, but these goals are not necessarily destinations. Personally, I would like to see a mechanism in place that would incent the private market to not only provide launch services to low earth orbit, but also to provide a manned capability to reach the Moon. New Space can not only put researchers on the Moon, but can do it cheaper and faster than Constellation would have.

Absolutely correct Frank! Capability will breed missions, you don't need a mission first.

"Build it and they will come" works PERFECTLY for space!

Highly suggested reading: "To the End of the Solar System" by James Dewar on the history of the nuclear rocket program.

We desperately need to re-start this research!

@neuronexmachina

'interview Sean O'Keefe, Craig Steidle, and/or John Marburger, who were of course quite critical to the development and pre-Griffin/ESAS implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration[VSE]'

You've got to be kidding. O'Keefe was a witless, incompetent, bean-counter who is likely the worst administrator NASA ever had.

And as for Steidle, I concede he's not in O'Keefe's class (it's awfully hard to match that), but... remind me again, exactly how far over budget and behind schedule is the Joint Strike Fighter (his last big pre-NASA program)? Then again, that might not be Steidle's fault - sometimes 's@#& happens', and advanced programs can hit unforseen snags that cost time and money. But since that's the stick that's being used to beat Constellation, it's only fair to apply it to JSF too.

@Pawn

'The plan is to have a plan that everyone likes because they interpret it in their own way. Much like the presidential candidate himself.'

Well, you know what Barnum said... :-)

'The current budget gives everybody some play money to go rebuild their own empires.'

Exactamundo...

'If there is anything that NASA is good at it's infighting.'

So is any large organization without strong leadership. You remember the old saw about how acadamic politics are so vicious, because the stakes are so small?

I'd like to see a worldwide symposium on the use of space and perhaps an international cooperative program to develop the resources of the Moon, asteroids and Mars.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask the next generation what their desires are, in relation to space exploration. What about an essay contest for elementary, middle, high school and college students asking for their visions of what the future would, could or should be.

I'd also like to see a study of the ISS, what it is, what it should be and what it could be. Such a huge facility; could it be moved beyond Earth orbit? Could it become an interplanetary laboratory?

I'm with Frank and all them.

If we could get private spaceflyers - including tourist and members of foreign agencies who would otherwise use Soyuz - to buy seats, that would subsidize our infrastructure. Even satellite launches on the same rockets we use for astronauts helps in the same way.

These forces don't need to be the sole, prime customer. But if throwing in with the same vehicles can get usage rates up enough to drop costs and get more spaceflyers, than this could be a huge win.

Obviously its a gamble, but if it works it will be a huge win and if it fails, well we're right back to government as the sole customer and opponents of commercial spaceflight have nothing to argue with that.

In the end, there are two main issues. The first is that, even if funded properly, the CxP architecture wasn't sustainable, and didn't provide for any effective lunar surface infrastructure. Indeed, for the last two years, even Altair development had slowed and then stopped. The second is that R&D in NASA had almost vanished (which was not how VSE started out). NASA seriously needs to be in the business of getting us out of a 1930s concept of spaceflight and launch mindset and finding the path to sustainable human exploration of Deep Space (beyond 1 million km). The new budget is brilliant, but we need a NASA roadmap to back it up.

Miles - In the interests of brevity, to date, Bigelow has spent some $170 million to build ground stations, an operations center, and to launch to orbit (on Russian rockets because cost-competitive US launchers were not available) two (count them -- two) working prototypes of inflatable habitat modules. Elon Musk has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of twice that amount (I don't have the most recent estimates) in building the first new US rocket engines in 30 years, going from company formation in 2002 to a successful commercial satellite launch in 2009, to two (count them, two) launch facilities (one on Kwajelein and one at Cape Canaveral), plus an extensive test facility in Texas, with a workforce of 900. That's seven years.

In 1984, then-President Reagan directed NASA to build a space station in low Earth orbit for $8 billion (that's billion with a B), and to do it within a decade. Here we sit, in 2010, a decade and a half behind the original schedule, watching NASA put the finishing touches on a $100 billion (that's still billion, with a B), unrepeatable space station that's only able to support a crew of six . . . and there is weeping and gnashing of teeth throughout the agency (and among representatives of particulay districts on Capitol Hill) because the NEXT multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar boondoggle is being taken away.

Someone needs to get the message out that some of us out here in the real world, who ARE informed about US space activities (and needs!) are "mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore! (To quote the now-famous line from "Network.") We bid good riddance to Constellation, and hope that a little true leadership will strike down any similar plan to put us on another ISS-like road to nowhere because it *promises* a return to the Moon or a trip to Mars without any groundwork of physical or economic sustainability.

Does the ISS have a zip code?

One of NASAs practical goals should be to protect the earth and its people. I know "Potentially Hazardous Asteroids" are a long shot, but eventually the earth will be hit again with a significant asteroid. This goal gives us at least three areas for further research and development.
1. Another (or several more) asteroid hunters like the one recently launched.
2. More missions to asteroids and comets to study their structure.
3. Some R&D for how to deflect asteroids. This might even require a manned mission to move an asteroid.

We have a fragile network of satellites. How about a program to protect them from collisions with derelict satellites and the thousands of other man made pieces of space junk in low earth orbit and even in geo orbits? The capture or deflection of these objects would be good practice if we ever have to move an asteroid.

Also to help protect people, we need more study of the sun. We need to be able to predict CMEs and flares to help protect our electric transmission grid and our fragile network of satellites.

If there were an alternate vehicle in development it would make more sense to cancel Constellation.
Falcon 9 Moves To The Pad For Checks.
So if it flies the first time with only minor hiccups, does that mean you approve of canceling CxP? ;-)

All this abundant Faith in the private sector leaves me a little breathless. You guys must be forming a new Optimist Club. How anybody can look at the architect of this plan, John Holdren, and think that anything good for HSF is in the offing, is beyond me. Have any of you read with this guy has written? I still say, he has maneuvered you all into a very modest budget increase, most of which is going to instruments the look downward, not upward, and in the bargain he's managed to take the national flag off the project.

Frank, I respect and share your enthusiasm for space exploration, but I must say your faith is misplaced. You really believe that private corporations, in a search for profit, are going to expand the human frontiers in space? I don't think history bears your vision out. Once the English government put settlers in the new world (a place where they could breathe the air & drink the water, I might add) they were barely able to scratch out a living, and eventually over decades begin to prosper. At great human cost I might add. A more appropriate example can be found in David McCullough's The Path between the Seas. It demonstrated what a corporation could do when trying to think long term, over decades, poorly funded, for a profit motive, and with a grand project. They fell on there butt, that's what happened. It was left the United States Government to build the Panama Canal; and to build the great dams; and the Interstate Highway System; and the atomic bomb; and go to the moon. But all of a sudden we believe corporate America can do it better and smarter? My God, it took Nabisco 60 years to figure out you could put something besides figs inside the newton! And how long has GM been working on "game changing technologies"in cars?

I think these guys are just trying to baffle the rubes with BS. Can you see them giving real money to the NERVA project? I want to be a fly on the wall when Henry Waxman gets a hold of that one! If the president gets his way, and why shouldn't he, he is the president, this is all going to die over time by neglect. Everybody expressing themselves on this blog will be long dead before another American gets his boots dirty on another world.
Did anyone ever think that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps, if America's not willing to spend at least 1% of its budget on opening up the new frontier, maybe we don't deserve to go. Let's see, $6 billion over 5 years. Hmmm.. I think that's $1.2 billion per year. After earth science, planetary science, public outreach, ISS, and the South African get their cut, I wonder how much will be left to tinker around with for research into on orbit fuel depots, ion power, unobtainium, and warp drive? Oh boy, I'm thrilled right down to my toes!

Les:

"The machines I am developing will change transportation for the average businessman, you wait and see. It will create a whole new industry that will reach into every community in this country."

Elon Musk?
Charlie Bolden?

No, try Howard Hughes.He put his money where his mouth was, and did indeed helped to create a "whole new industry". What makes anyone think it can't happen again? And, oh BTW they said he was crazy, too.

Frank,
Commercial airlines are not exactly a flourishing industry - backdoor government bailouts & bankruptcies & disasters alll over the place.

Miles,

1. There's a post from Joshcryer & Spaceboy about building a bathroom that perfectly depicts the diff between naive HSF newbies and ivory tower PR think-too-muchers vs. the real NASA/contractor in-the-trenches-with-knowhow&spacesmarts folks that's worth another read:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/florida-does-no.html#comment-28569

Those diffs in thinking are exactly why CxP failed and why the Merchant7 will too.

2. Your own research with commercial airline carriers plus the latest from Toyota, etc. etc. should already be sufficient guidance as to what will ultimately doom the Merchant7's efforts, (whether sooner or later to be determined)

3. Coincidence? In the forward of Cox and Murray's 2004 reprint of their Apollo book, they refer to "the audacity of Apollo". Note that unlike the CxP gang, the Chinese seem to have done their homework on Apollo - apparently the authors did a book signing or something like that over there too. (it took more than a workable design to succeed)

As difficult as it was back then to learn and do the first time around with deep pockets, why exactly would it be cheaper-better-faster the 2nd time around (to LEO or the moon)? (and then there's the safety/quality thing).

CxP cancellation was the right thing to do, but talk to Gerst and Shannon for the what's the correct vehicle for NASA/contractors to deisng/develop via traditional mode. They do need to relearn the Moon thing and develop tech for farther to wherever that's up to HSF quality & safety practices Commercial can give it a go, but limit the flow - SpaceX has already flunked too much in my book - so make a 3 strikes and you're out plan or something for them.

If the administration is really committed to commercialize space transportation, they should give the Space Shuttles to United Space Alliance (USA) instead of mothballing them. USA has the capability to maintain and fly the shuttles. Instant Commercialization. USA already does most of that work anyway. USA could fly two flights a year for profit. USA got lean last year, cutting pensions, benefits, and employees; that got their cost structure down. Customers for shuttle services are Japan, Canada, Britain, Europe, and even the United States. USA can transport their scientist and mission specialist to the ISS along with luggage (cargo). Russia set the price of $51 million per astronaut. If USA carries 6-7 passengers plus some payload on each shuttle flight, they could operate at a profit. USA could hire some of the current astronauts. They would need two flight crews (commander,pilot) plus a backup crew. NASA pilots won't have anything to do for NASA anymore, so why not let them transition to private enterprise Everyone is so focused on Constellation (Obama plan vs Bush plan), they dont see the opportunity in front of them.

So what if the Chinese establish a base on the Moon. I'm sure they'd be willing to charge Americans who want to travel to the Moon a fair price if we want to travel on one of their rockets. Maybe they'll even give us a tour of Tranquility Base so we can learn how great a nation we use to be!

Just let China build everything for us and do everything forus and maybe even pick our politicians for us. I'm sure the ruling Oligarchy in China will be kind to us. Just look how kind they are to their own people-- as long as they obey!

Marcel F. Williams

Miles,

You may have read Harrison H. Schmitt’s “Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space”.

On January 28, 2010, the National Ignition Facility reported “Initial NIF experiments meet requirements for fusion ignition”.

Please ask Obama to push fusion research. If fusion is successfully demonstrated, there could be a very, very powerful business case for Helium-3 mining on the moon. All this bickering is insignificant beside what fusion could mean for humanity.

NASA wasted 35 years and more than $100 billion on an unreliable delivery truck and a useless astronaut hotel. Obama's plan is a long-overdue chance for a thoroughly reworked and reconstituted NASA to become what it should have been all along: an R&D organization developing new technologies, instead of the aerospace welfare program it became after Apollo.

Urh - if it becomes so important to go to the moon, and the Chinese somehow miraculously have developed a moon base there, why (in your thinking) would we have to go to their base? I think the moon is pretty big, right?

Your logic on the Chinese picking our politicians, on the other hand, is unquestionable...

Your insults to our nation's incredible Shuttle and ISS programs is reason alone for scrapping Obama's new plan. You obviously have no idea what space exploration is all about. You're giving the private sector a bad name.

Unfortunately, Obama plans to pump even more funds into the astronaut hotel with a budget increase of more than $3 billion a year for the ISS starting in 2013.

Marcel F. Williams

A few prescient souls on this site have made the argument...but I am amazed at how little it is championed (or even discussed, for that matter).

It is so simple, yet no one wants to seem to face the facts.

IF WE WANT TO LEAVE LEO, AND TRULY SEND MAN INTO INTERPLANETARY SPACE, we need Nuclear power to provide the energy source for the propulsion. Wether it takes the form of forming the power mechanism to sustain a plasma/ion engine (e.g. VASIMR), or used in a more direct manner (e.g. Nuclear Thermal propulsion), there is NO WAY of getting around it.

Chemical propulsion will not generate the necessary velocities and reduction in travel time to allow for safe, interplanetary flight. Nor will any conceivable form of "green" Solar Power give the requisite engergy density.

The very foundation of any plan to send humans our of LEO and embark on true interplanetary missions will necessitate the R & D and development of innovative, low weight nuclear power production and or propulsion. Why this is not discussed or recognized as a matter of vital National importance simply baffels me. How the hell can anyone really think we are going to get to Mars and beyond, unless an ultra-fast propulsion technology is pursued with the utmost vigor.

IMHO, it should be TOP PRIORITY...or at least the same priority as designing and building a Heavy Launch vehicle (which we will need to get the nuclear components of the drive up and out of Earth's gravity well).

Cheers,
John S

R&D without a goal is unfocused and ineffective: total waste.

Yeah but Flight Development managed incompetently is even worse. Constellation wasted much more money than several decades worth of "unfocused" R&D. Get a clue, mate!

"Urh - if it becomes so important to go to the moon, and the Chinese somehow miraculously have developed a moon base there, why (in your thinking) would we have to go to their base? I think the moon is pretty big, right?

Your logic on the Chinese picking our politicians, on the other hand, is unquestionable..."

Well, you have to have a Moon rocket in order to go to a Moon hotel. And we don't want to build one because its hard! Well, we use to be a country that could do things because they were hard.

We're struggling right now in the US just to build two new nuclear reactors in this country. China has 20 nuclear reactors currently under construction. China has built the fastest high speed trains on Earth. China will launch their first space station next year, without any international help. China is starting to do what the US use to do-- get things done.

Marcel F. Williams

The president is killing US leadership in Human Spaceflight, a leadership we have had for more than four decades. Worse yet, there is absolutely no plan on how we shall proceed forward with any US manned space flights, what vehicle, what goal, none.

I keep thinking that I might wake up from this nightmare. How can this happen?

I believe NASA should keep the Space Shuttle flying until there is another method for transporting US, Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts, as currently contracted by NASA, to the ISS, which itself should be extended to at least 2020.

I believe at some point there will be a major failure or problem on the ISS that will require the Space Shuttle's capabilities to repair or replace a major component should such a failure occur. Without the Space Shuttle such a problem will most probably make the ISS uninhabitable and will force a permanent evacuation far sooner than planned.

I believe it is naive to assume that private commercial space companies such as SpaceX will have 100% success developing a human rated spacecraft and rocket.

Ever since the initial thrust oscillation issues with Ares I and the down sizing of the Orion capsule to meet the insufficient lifting capacity of Ares I, I have been in favor of the cancellation of the Constellation Program. I believe the DIRECT/Jupiter vehicles were the better route to take.

As far as missions beyond LEO or landing humans back on the Moon or Mars, I firmly believe this endeavor must, like the ISS, be multi-national as the USA cannot afford to accomplish these missions on our own. However, I favor at least a doubling of NASA's budget. This may be accomplished by eliminating wasteful projects from the always over-budgeted Pentagon.
The Pentagon is spending a lot of money on "old Cold war" equipment such as the JSF 35 fighter. The Y-22 has yet to see any combat and we all know that having such high technology aircraft and naval vessels alone cannot in reality win a war, as proven in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's men/women on the ground that really counts. And I believe a lot of this "cold war" wasteful spending will be of no use against terrorists.

I say give much more money to NASA. Keep the jobs at KSC, JSC, MSFC, etc. and create new jobs necessary for future human and robotic exploration.

Abruptly ending the space shuttle program, like we did with Apollo, without an immediate replacement vehicle is the wrong decision. And I do not favor President Obama's dismantling of NASA centers, with all that has been invested in them, at least until private commercial spacecraft and rockets have proven themselves. There is a lot of hype about SpaceX, but their Falcon I rocket had three failures followed by two successes. That's just with five flights. The Falcon 9 and Dragon will probably eventually work out, but I believe it will take a lot longer than the "experts" think it will take.

If Obama's NASA budget and dismantling is approved by both house of Congress, this nation will be making a huge mistake that we will not recover from for at least a decade.

Miles,

If you get a chance to ask someone I would just like to know what's going on with this new hydrocarbon engine plan. Is this going to be developed for a NASA operated HLV or handed over to the commercial sector as the engine for a commercial HLV?

I honestly believe there is room for some sort of compromise here. Constellation was not going to take us anywhere. It was an unfunded mandate, as stated by John Glenn, and was doomed to fail. Having said that it seems the Orion was not a bad idea. The Ares was the major problem and it needed to be scrapped. I think the Jupiter concept is not a bad idea, IMO. Politically, it works. You keep Michoud facility open (bad idea to lose jobs in NO) and ATK wins. If their claims are correct, it would reduce the gap.

@sc220

'Constellation wasted much more money than several decades worth of "unfocused" R&D. Get a clue, mate!'

Huh? Total cost for Constellation is like $11B, and that includes a lot for pieces that are not Ares (everyone's favourite whipping boy), like that really cool lunar landing simulator that was done out in California. The program also includes a lot of pieces that may be salvaged, e.g. J-2X (cost well over $1B), so it's hard to say how much of that $11B was 'wasted'.

As for R+D, the X-33 cost $1.5B - and that was one R+D program (albeit a really big one). The X-38 was a good chunk of a billion $; the X-43 (canned by ya boys Steidle and O'Keefe) was like a quarter of a billion $, etc, etc. And that's just 3 R+D programs I happen to remember something about off the top of my head - I don't have time to list, and research the costs, of all the dozens of R+D programs NASA has done in the last 20 years.

So much for your claim... Seems like you're the one who needs to get a clue.

Miles, firstly your 'This Week In Space' show is excellent: concise and unbiased.

The new plan exhibits - out of the starting gate - a vague, but 'feel good' flavour. Not to mix metaphors, but it didn't burst into a race from the starting gate - it merely ambled. And was the lack of a concrete Moon/NEO/Phobos destination done to avoid sticker-shock or to avoid making promises that might not ever be kept?!

I believe it was Ares 1 & V that needed cancellation, NOT all of Constellation. Apart from the well-reported financial & technical concerns, cancelling the whole thing also seemed to smack of 'Not Invented Here' syndrome, which more than one new Administration has exercised in the past. Without the $70 billion+plus cost to develop Ares 1 & V there should have been plenty of funds to invest in Commercial transport to I.S.S. and future mission-enabling technology such as Propellant Depots, In-Situ Resource Utilization and nuclear power systems.

A former NASA Administrator missed a once-in-generation opportunity with the V.S.E: it enjoyed bi-partisan support that could have been leveraged into stunning achievements -- if only he had taken almost overwhelming advice to pragmatically alter Constellation. But thats water-under-the-bridge now, and other cliches. Administrators Bolden and Garver have a good chance to correct all this.

And as for Heavy-Lift: cancelling ANY Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift designs - be it Side-Mount or the Inline 'D-Word' kicks down the road by at least a decade most chances for America to field a 'good-enough' exploration booster. Unless a launcher with the minimum 'sweetspot' 50-ton-to-LEO class is developed, things may proceed on a decades-long 'Groundhog' treadmill that never seems to reach a goal.

50-ton class EELVs (including a Falcon derivative) or Shuttle-Derived launchers can be fielded reasonably quickly and 'cheaply'. After all, these were the findings of most pre-ESAS final trade study presentations, a few years back. Also, mission designs incorporating L-1 and L-2 were prominent in these studies. Those folk at Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin etc know their stuff. The New Plan must NOT waste the opportunities in the years ahead to make good. Otherwise, we'll be cursed with lots more PDFs, Powerpoints and Kool-Aid thinking. I think I speak for many when I say we've had quite enough of that!!

> The very foundation of any plan to send humans our of LEO and embark on true interplanetary missions will necessitate the R & D and development of innovative, low weight nuclear power production and or propulsion. Why this is not discussed or recognized as a matter of vital National importance simply baffels me.

Good news, Deuterium: The new budget specifically discusses nuclear technology for in-space propulsion as one of the technology demonstrator projects NASA will pursue. As I'm sure you know, this type of research (e.g. Project Prometheus) was cancelled when Constellation started going overbudget. From the budget details:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf
Advanced In-Space Propulsion: NASA will work with partners in industry as appropriate, to conduct foundational research to study the requirements and potential designs for advanced high-energy in-space propulsion systems to support deep-space human exploration, and to reduce travel time between Earth’s orbit and future destinations for human activity. These technologies could include nuclear thermal propulsion, solar and nuclear electric propulsion, plasma propulsion, and other high-energy and/or high-efficiency propulsion concepts. One or more concepts may mature to the level of a demonstration on a robotic precursor or Flagship mission.

The predict that the private manned spaceflight companies are going to have the same growing pains that NASA and Russia had. And there are going to be fatalities.

But I believe that they will be successful in the long run.

However, my concern is with the extreme anti-government hatred for NASA! NASA has been under funded since the end of the Apollo era, yet folks want to blame them because the President and the Congress has had us trapped at LEO for decades and won't give them enough funding for a beyond LEO program.

Sure the Ares architecture was overly expensive. But NASA had proposed much cheaper alternatives to get the job done. But this administration simply ignored them.

What a shame for the great folks at NASA and what a shame for our country!

Marcel F. Williams

Former President Bush's VSE provided NASA with a great Direction.

Sadly, CxP corrupted the implementation requiring more than $40B to develop Ares I, Orion prior to the first ISS mission and another $40B to develop Ares V and Altair prior to the first lunar mission. The Augustine commission noted that without massive additional funding ISS would retire in 2015, crew LEO access wouldn't occur prior to 2017, lunar missions would be delayed until the mid 2030's and Mars wouldn't happen at all.

President Obama's decision to scrap CxP was correct!

Having NASA partner with industry to provide affordable LEO crew access by utilizing existing rockets and affordable crew capsules is what this country needs. The Atlas V and Delta IV already have the safety required to reliably fly people. Boeing and others have proven their ability to support human capsule development. Focusing the bulk of NASA's investment on technology, especially propellant depots, will allow America to develop a flexible space transportation architecture that can take us anywhere in the inner-solar system.

In response to the airline references above-

Airlines are not a good model for the success of privatization, and they can be very frustrating places for engineers to work.

Many airlines outside of the US are publicly subsidized, and the big ones in the US are hostage to fuel prices. They go bankrupt frequently to stiff creditors and just came back again because no one can do anything about it.

If you work for one as an engineer, you are just the bringer of bad news and it's no fun at all. You can spend weeks or more on a problem and find a solution, only to have management shut it down because fixing a problem costs money.

You may have engines blowing up at $2M plus because someone missed an upgrade, but they won't fix the problem because it adds, for example, $50K per shop visit. Bean counters can be pretty stupid.

I would like to see a manned mission to Mars announced and a hard target date for its successful execution. Something on the order of "we will land an international team of humans on the Martian surface by the end of 2025 and return them safely to the Earth."

For Miles, on Obama's plan:

Good:
- Focus on "game changing" tech development and flight tests
- Push for private spaceflight and no cost-plus contracts
- Heavy ISS utilization
- Accountability for major Cx mgt problems (see GAO reports)

Bad:
- Total disregard for current shuttle stack hardware, infrastructure, workforce and some good bits of Cx. He's throwing out the baby with the bathwater, irrevocably. Agree NASA standing army costs should be drastically reduced, but in a more controlled way. Repurpose, don't eliminate, the workforce.
- ISS is at risk w/o Shuttle

Ugly:
- One year of uncertainty, followed by massive changes with NO clear destination or timeline. Did anyone even bother to read the CAIB?
- Horrific, possibly fatal, rollout of a potentially good plan.

Summary:
- A lot of exciting, necessary elements but some critical flaws as well.

Miles,
Poll each member in front of you at the hearing and ask who has seen a launch in person at the Cape? Remind them of the upcoming launch on April 5th and be sure to bring their kids and/or grand children alone to. Just curious, why hasn’t the President and his family attended a launch yet? Last but not least, Homeland Security and NASA need to open up the Cape for the these last schedule launches. It is the absolutely the best PR event for the program. Remember the car pass days before 9/11, the more people see/feel what their tax dollars are doing the more interested they are in it’s future.

NASA is similar to a manager that tells subordinates what to do with the hard cash provided by investers (Congress and the President). This manager is safety oriented and not very cost conscious.

What we are witnessing is the emergence of another NASA, i.e., another manager that tells subordinates what to do with the cash. This manager is cost conscious and not as safety oriented.

There always is a tradeoff between safety and profit. The old NASA now has competition from the new NASA to turn the dial away from safety and towards cost consciousness. You will therefore see them buying much cheaper rockets than those proposed in Constellation.

The new NASA is dead set on getting to a distant destination quicker and smarter than the current NASA and make a lot of money in the process. The current NASA has painted themselves in the corner with an 800,000 lb white elephant in low earth orbit that is going to be fed for at least another 10 years and quite possibly 20 years. So far, the white elephant has been fed with over a hundred rockets from all rocket producing companies all over the world, except China. It won't be long before they too will get in the mix. They are probably the cheapest of all rockets and cannot be ignored.

Hi Miles,

Here are some questions of interest:

1. Doesn't this seem like an odd time to kill jobs?  If the naysayers of NASA claim it is just a jobs program... isn't that what we need right now?
2. Besides building weapons, what else would a rocket scientist work on?  The DoD has that pretty well covered; shouldn't our society, our nation, perhaps put some of our effort into landing rockets without a destructive purpose?

3. What happens if a commercial interest fails? What if they all fail or decide to invest somewhere else?  What happens with manned space?

4. Is this a real market?  Obviously not as the only, the only, customer is the government.

5. When the government paid commercial interests to deliver mail, there was a need to deliver mail.  Is there a need, besides a fabricated one, for commercial to deliver ISS items?  Perhaps allowing NASA ability to build an HLV... so where's the plan to build the HLV?

6. Is space, to each of you, about jobs? Or about exploration, or about discovery, or bringing resources back after we've depleted them here?  Or is about simply expanding into the universe, as humans have done since our existence?  Can't it be all of them?

7. There are two races going on.  One to find the "age gene" that will allow is to live longer.  The longer we live the smaller the death/birth ratio closes.  Death is currently the only mechanism to keep our resource consumption in check, solving the "aging" problem will result in some serious issues.  The second race, to learn how to move out into the solar system and utilize foreign resources is one solution to the aging problem.  The other solutions are rather grim.  Which one would you prefer?

8. How can NASA help commercial interests without causing conflicts with the other companies?  Or resentment? That is the whole reason for prime contracting, to protect the company's proprietary interests.

9. Universities do research.  NASA performs missions with that research, which is transformed into the specific mission need, which in turn projects that capability into real world use, which then makes it's way back into society with augmentations for localized use.  Short-circuiting the NASA transform kills the benefit to society and leaves discoveries on the shelf.  How do you propose a path back to society without the mission component?

10. What is the threshold for success or failure with commercial entities?  Do they fail if they can't build the vehicle?  Or is this perpetual funding? 

Thanks and break a leg.

Try a readable version:

1. Doesn't this seem like an odd time to kill jobs?  If the naysayers of NASA claim it is just a jobs program... isn't that what we need right now?

2. Besides building weapons, what else would a rocket scientist work on?  The DoD has that pretty well covered; shouldn't our society, our nation, perhaps put some of our effort into landing rockets without a destructive purpose?

3. What happens if a commercial interest fails? What if they all fail or decide to invest somewhere else?  What happens with manned space?

4. Is this a real market?  Obviously not as the only, the only, customer is the government.

5. When the government paid commercial interests to deliver mail, there was a need to deliver mail.  Is there a need, besides a fabricated one, for commercial to deliver ISS items?  Perhaps allowing NASA ability to build an HLV... so where's the plan to build the HLV?

6. Is space, to each of you, about jobs? Or about exploration, or about discovery, or bringing resources back after we've depleted them here?  Or is about simply expanding into the universe, as humans have done since our existence?  Can't it be all of them?

7. There are two races going on.  One to find the "age gene" that will allow is to live longer.  The longer we live the smaller the death/birth ratio closes.  Death is currently the only mechanism to keep our resource consumption in check, solving the "aging" problem will result in some serious issues.  The second race, to learn how to move out into the solar system and utilize foreign resources is one solution to the aging problem.  The other solutions are rather grim.  Which one would you prefer?

8. How can NASA help commercial interests without causing conflicts with the other companies?  Or resentment? That is the whole reason for prime contracting, to protect the company's proprietary interests.

9. Universities do research.  NASA performs missions with that research, which is transformed into the specific mission need, which in turn projects that capability into real world use, which then makes it's way back into society with augmentations for localized use.  Short-circuiting the NASA transform kills the benefit to society and leaves discoveries on the shelf.  How do you propose a path back to society without the mission component?

10. What is the threshold for success or failure with commercial entities?  Do they fail if they can't build the vehicle?  Or is this perpetual funding? 

For Miles, on Obama's plan:

Good:

- Given expected budget profiles for the next 10-20 years, Constellation couldn't enable most of what people thought we would do on the Moon, so better to be honest and kill it now. (See Augustine report and meetings)

- Constellation appeared to make no advancements in technologies or ways of doing business that might lower the cost or increase capabilities, so better to kill it now. None of the dreams in HSF will happen without game changers.

- One of the most important aspects of encouraging commercialization of space is that it attracts more money into space (investors, other customers), thus increasing the total amount of money available to HSF. More customers also increases flight rates, one of the key elements of lowering per-launch costs.

- Killing Constellation increases the likelihood of private investors putting money into space (thus increasing the chance of it succeeding) because they won't see the government as a competitor but as a customer.

- NASA investment in new technologies is good. For example, Bigelow and Sierra Nevada Corp are both trying to use technology originally developed by NASA. Only through new technologies, and innovative use of those technologies, can we hope to significantly lower the costs and truly open space up.

- Commercialization of space by sub-orbitals, orbital launchers, and habitat developers opens the door for the rest of us to go into space.

Bad:

- The White House and NASA bungled the public relations in soooo many ways.

Deuterium, I saw NTR mentioned in the extended budget overview, and I almost crapped myself. I know guys who were on the fence before but because of that simple mention they've jumped right on the new budget. NEP/VASIMR isn't happening without extremely reduced mass for reactors. NTR is the way to go.

Miles, if you get the chance, ask some of the Republican congressmen what happened to their small-government, pro-business principles. Why are Shelby et al defending a huge, lumbering government bureaucracy against private enterprise?

(We know the answer of course, but I'd like to hear them defend themselves.)

"More customers also increases flight rates"

Show me one market plan that identifies the increase in flight rate that is anticipated just going to and from the station. Provide a list of all the researchers that are prepared to pay $20M a seat. Until that is defined this is just a myth.

"Killing Constellation increases the likelihood of private investors putting money into space"
Why is this? Private investors can put any money they want into space right now and they are not (Granted Bigelow and Musk are putting a lot of their own money forward but I don't see a big outpuring of other investors.)

"Because they won't see the government as a competitor"
Huh? The government is not going after commercial profit, how can they be a competitor in the market?

"opens the door for the rest of us to go into space"
I can honestly say that, in my lifetime, I will never have enough money to pay for a joyride in space, will you?

The continuation fo NASA promoting the "commercial space" path will really be their demise. If NASA wants to contract for a safe, reliable crew vehicle, I am good with that, but the way they are doing it is wrong. BTW, a commercial contractor already competed and won the contract for the Orion crew vehicle. It sounds to me like the new NASA budget is just a way for the others to just say "we didn't win, therefore, kill that, waste money so I can try to win again."

I don't really mind subsidizing the commercial space industry. Give them tax breaks or anything else you want out of another bucket of money. But for NASA to depend on subsidies as the sole future of US access to LEO is completely wrong.

There is a future for humanity in space, and there is a future for NASA, but they do not necessarily overlap. If we're going to really get off this planet, the private sector will take us there. We don't drive across the country in government cars, and we don't fly to other countries on government airlines. The American space industry can be huge if it can (literally) get off the ground, starting with NASA contracts to get cargo and people to the ISS. This is absolutely the right thing to do. Like it or not, profit has driven much of our progress over the last couple centuries. Let NASA work on the technology and the vision, and let the private sector really make it happen long term. Let NASA inspire the next generation of rocket scientists with a mission to Phobos, and let the next Americans to make it to the Moon do it with a private company. If that's how they get there, we probably won't lose another generation before people get to do it again.

"The Atlas V and Delta IV already have the safety required to reliably fly people. Boeing and others have proven their ability to support human capsule development."

what a crock-o-BS!

-if that was so, then why did ULA get bucks for some new emergency system??? even that won't really be enough, but please - get real, pr schmoozin doesn't cut it in here (for long).

-oh I dunno, they've proven the ability to support 3-count-em-3 failed parachute tests - and gosh, how long have those companies been in the spacebiz that they can't even conduct a basic test correctly??? (is it really incompetance or just milking the cost-plus?)

"-oh I dunno, they've proven the ability to support 3-count-em-3 failed parachute tests - and gosh, how long have those companies been in the spacebiz that they can't even conduct a basic test correctly??? (is it really incompetance or just milking the cost-plus?)

And you are backing CxP? You just shot yourself in the foot.

The parachute tests are done by NASA and not LM. The parachutes are GFE to LM.