New Senate Roadblock To Obama Space Plans

Just need to be smarter than this NASA and the Administration. I feel that they will eventually see the light and start coming to their senses that the hardware is right in front of them...Shuttle heritage! And to those of you that think that the Russians have let there guard down and that the cold war is over....then think again....They got pissy when our American skater won the men's solo skate event at the Olympics....what might it take to piss them off to take over the ISS....Really not to far fetched ! Obama is trying to make all these prior foes our friends and quite frankly, theres been way to much water under the bridge and more to come. To have us rely on Russia and cede control of our national asset ISS is something I as a tax payer cannot fathom and not willing to try. I think our checks and balances are working just as they are suppose to work when we have leadership that wants to cram change in every arena down America's throat. Block that punt Congress !

All the Congresspeople care about is jobs and protecting the companies that lobby them with cash, trips, etc.

Most have no real clue what is involved and that there simply is not the technology to do extended trips to Mars or long stays on the moon. NASA has been and is still spending billions every year to go nowhere. Unfortunately, long term investment and a change to the status quo threatens the current financial picture and politicians these days are not good at long term vision and payoffs, especially past the next election cycle.

NASA facilities and technical capabilities are crumbling and long term investment is needed in technologies to travel farther in space. In the meantime let the robots, etc. do it and put some money back into the infrastructure and people that will be needed to do the long view exploration that everyone wants but few seem patient enough to wait for.

Also, stop asking for more money. It just is not there.

Please don't say "this NASA." Most of us hate the new so-called plan.

The physics of Ares-1 are broken. It will never get anyone to the moon, no matter how much money Congress wants to waste on it. But that won't stop Shelby & company from keeping it alive as a jobs program.

Too many people cannot get this supremacy thing out of their minds. If we go to space just to do it to show we can do it better then China or Russia is a very poor reason for doing it. Sure, drag on the legacy of Apollo, a magnificent accomplishment, that was really done for the wrong reason. The Russian program ended up a total flop and they gave up. Now they don't have the money to do much more than up and back to the station as far as their manned program is concerned. China currently puts two or three taikanauts(?) in space ever 18-24 months. The moon is at least 15 years away for them. If we are going to do it we don't need this supremacy thing driving us, kind of an immature reason.

Secondly, we are going to pay Russia to take us up and bring us back shuttle or not. Shuttle cannot stay up more than two weeks so if you want US astronauts aboard the station you need Soyuz at the this time. Therefor that rationale falls flat on its' face. And Orion is at least 6 years away under the POR. I am uncertain of commercial but given reasonable resources they can probably beat Orion.

And as for Shelby, how hypocritical can you be? If the guy was from New York he could care less. Just fill up Marshall's coffers with as much pork as they can handle. If that wasn't his underlying reason I might listen to him more. Same goes for almost all the others pushing so hard to continue the present course. Talk about government red ink.

While I am a long time space geek I have also matured my thinking over the years and realize NASA has to fit in the overall picture in a realistic manner. You can't just keep throwing money at it by having the government borrow more money. And although our government throws money at so many pork projects this is not a good rationale to spend more either. My biggest concern with the current direction is that it needs a more defined plan. HLV needs to be defined in the next one to two years, not five years out. An initial destination should be selected just a year after that. I do agree that some serious new technologies need to be developed before going to Mars, the trip is simply to long and dangerous with existing technologies. The space folks that are blinded to the realities of the federal budget need to consider these and not simply make irrational claims about how valuable and rewarding manned space flight is.

Thank goodness that some in Congress still see the value of Constellation, despite its funding issues, and more importantly the value of resuming lunar exploration that should never have been ended. Humans have only been to the equatorial regions, which hardly counts as "having been there before". We have not explored the polar regions, which several missions have shown to house water-ice in shadowed craters, crucial to sustaining a human presence. When Constellation was announced, I as a young person was thoroughly inspired. The concept of a lunar base similar to the South Pole station is completely awe-inspiring to me, more so than an asteroid flyby stunt. Regarding Mars, I think it is just something still decades away. Before landing on Mars, we need to understand how to live on another world -- and the most logical is the Moon.

It seems to me Obama just wants to put his stamp on the space program. All the backlash against the Obama plan, which pushes deep space exploration too far out (allowing other nations to leapfrog the US) at least shows our checks and balances in action. I am happy the Senators put the anti-cancellation language and hope it passes. At least there are politicians who still see lunar exploration as valuable.

It is unfortunate that Obama was poorly advised by scientists/engineers who lack real rocket development experience. My vote is for Constellation to continue, in a revised format if necessary, under available funding. The FY2011 Obama plan cuts too much from human exploration, and redirects it to stunts rather than permanence.

Obama is reaping what he sowed.

He has offered incredibly poor leadership.
Massively inept plans, introduced them in a most
arrogant and shocking way.

Ignored utterly that many congresses in strong bipartisan fashion had signed off on Constellation

Even if you disagree with the above.......

It is unquestionable he is failing to sell this plan to congress and to America.

When even Neil Armstrong is giving you a big thumbs down, you had better start rethinking your plans.

And no, Orion as escape pod isn't gonna cut it.

Constellation needs to be cancelled. Another instance of a politician trying to extend a program that is going to end up wasting taxpayer money to get a vehicle that simply doesn't measure up. Ares/Orion was supposed to get 6 astronauts to LEO, 4 to lunar. Now it can only get 4 to LEO, requiring 2 capsules and 2 launches and I doubt it will do much better than Apollo on lunar. The new commercial entrants like Space X might not do a whole lot better, but at least they're putting some skin in the game. Besides, considering NASA has already footed a substantial amount of the bill to design Ares, why don't ATK, Lockheed and Boeing complete it and compete it for ISS service?
HLV is going to be a critical need once Shuttle is retired and the sooner NASA gets working on it, the better. The language says to have a decision on HLV _by_ 2015 - it can come sooner if NASA and industry are up to the challenge. However, as Constellation has clearly shown, there is some tech development that needs to be done, even if you use heritage-based systems.
IMHO, the Administration's plan has more scientific knowledge capture (via robotic missions, research instruments, etc.) and exploration capability (via greater R&D and ISS utilization) for the buck than the POR. What NASA certainly does not need is to sacrifice any more of science and R&D simply for a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the moon. The sad reality is that Constellation might (barely) get you to the moon but that's about all it does. You'd need significantly MORE money for lunar surface exploration and habitation and getting to Mars would still be a pipe dream. Besides, my folks always told me "Son, shoot for Mars and the asteroid and if you miss, you might end up on the moon."

Well here's the crux of the issue, at least for me: Constellation is having infrastructure build and hardware fabricated. Obama's plan, meanwhile, promises many more years of studies, Computer Generated Art, and broad proclamations of where NASA will go one day.

I remember being in 8th grade, and seeing a rendering of the VentureStar in the science section of the Boston Globe. I was hooked. That was NASA's future! Linear Aerospike engines and Single Stage to Orbit sounded like a real step forward. But no: it ran into a hurdle and was canceled. From there, years more plans, CG art and promises. All of it leading to nothing.

With constellation, at least, for all its flaws. Something is being built now.

Fundamentally, for me, I have zero faith in NASA to execute even something remotely aggressive and bold, so I'll take what I can get as far as space programs go. For example, I can't understand for the life of me why you would be a the ISS, but not fly the already built habitation module. Or not fight to refund the Crew Return Vehicle years ago. Or utilize those abandoned newer-generation Solid Rocket Boosters from the late 1990s. Or follow through with Project Prometheus and JIMO.

That is why I support Constellation. Sure, I'd love a spacebourne ship in the 2030s that could get us to Mars in 45 days via Chang-Diaz VASIMR engines, but I just know that NASA will find some reason not to power it with such engines, just as they spent a dozen launches building the ISS's solar power system when one or two would have sufficed for a nuclear power solution. We could spend 10 years investing in Obama's vision, and come out of it with "interesting" technologies that will never be utilized for one reason or another. Ultimately, all the Obama plan could lead to is vehicles with better radiation-hardened electronics.

I would love for Chang-Diaz to succeed. I would love for such a vehicle to be built. But I just don't believe NASA or this country has the will to do it anymore. So I'll take what I can get with Constellation. It may be greatly flawed, and greatly behind schedule and we may have "been to the Moon" (ridiculous way to dismiss it). But it is better than what we have, and it is being built right now.

You show me iron clad-funding for a Heavy Lift Rocket, and iron-clad funding to put a VASIMR engine on a vehicle with people in it, and I'll change by tune. But I don't think the American people are invested enough nor NASA bold enough to do it.

FWIW, I think that Constellation should survive. It is only the Ares Launch System, a system so complex and expensive that, even if provided tomorrow by Divine Fiat, would be too expensive to operate, that needs to go. I would have no problem continuing with the Constellation plan of returning Man to the Moon and going on to visit other worlds so long as Ares-I and -V were not part of the plan.

Do it with DIRECT. Do it with Boeing's new vehicle. Do it with MSFC's Ares-I/DIRECT hybrid. Do it with EELVs and their evolutions. Do it with JSC's side-mount. Just admit that the single-stick SRM-based CLV is a roadblock and that the money simply does not exist to build a 10m-core multi-engine behemoth CaLV. In the current economic climate, if America and its leaders want space exploration, they are going to have to start with what they have and what they can quickly and reasonably inexpensively create in a fairly short time-frame.

This isn't so much a vote of confidence for Constellation as it is a attempt to to force the Obama Administration to obey the law of the land.

Obama can't cancel Constellation - pure and simple. That's Congress' job. He tried to do so by invoking the never before applied "Anti-Deficinecy Act" and force contractors to cough up "termination costs" from their current budget, essentially shutting down the Program. Congress is sayin "uh-uh, we've seen your plan - it's our job to decide whether to cancel Constellation or not".

"The physics of Ares-1 are broken".

Urban Myth and untrue. As long as you guys keep mindlessly parrotting what you read in blogs, I will continue to correct you.

Ares I has perfectlay adequate performance to orbit Orion with 4 OR even 6 crew. The recent Program PDR showed that Ares I performance reserves where exactly where industry practices say they should be - even with additional hardware to counteract the (probably non-existent) thrust oscillation.

The issue is Orion LANDING weight. The CM is still heavier than it should be for safe landing rates during launch aborts. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WOULD EXIST EVEN IF ORION WAS LAUNCHED ON A SATURN V!

As a contracting Officer for NASA, I find Shelby to be the biggest idiot in congress right now. We have not canceled any Constellation contracts..period..we have been tasked to carry on with whatever Constellation work we are doing until Sep 30, 2010. (still continuing to waste millions of dollars until that date).

Not suprised, The CxP ship is listing badly in corruption and pork barrel politics. This is typical of a well managed NASA program.

Some CxP efforts will be salvaged some will not.

have a wonderful CxP day

"If we are going to do it we don't need this supremacy thing driving us, kind of an immature reason."

Explain to me how being second or third or even fourth best at something is better? Shouldn't we as individuals, communities, states and a nation want to be the best at what we do? Achieving supremacy in any field isn't immature, it is a logical goal to ensure the success and even the survival of our friends and our families. Achieving supremacy doesn't mean we have to be arrogant about it or that we stop working with other nations who are our allies and share our values. But it should be our goal and our inspiration to work harder and achieve more. When you're the best nobody can threaten your freedom.

"And as for Shelby, how hypocritical can you be? If the guy was from New York he could care less. Just fill up Marshall's coffers with as much pork as they can handle"

No different from Obama threatening secured creditors of GM and Chrylser with governemnt harrasement if they didn't reliquish their rightful claims under bankruptcy law so he could give his buddies in the UAW a bigger slice of the new company then they deserved. All politics is about rewarding friends and punishing foes using or tax dollars. The only way you get rid of pork is to shrink the size of the piggy bank so that it isn't worth raiding anymore.

Requirements for LEO were changed from 6 to 4 because we only have a requirement to launch 4 crewmemebers for each ISS expedition crew rotation, not because of ARES performance issues. I very distinctly remember that decision being made by the ISS program, not the Orion program.

• There seems to be a misconception that under the Obama/Bolden HSF plan, namely that the HLV design would be picked in 2015. My understanding of the plan is that building of the HLV would begin in 2015. That means that the HLV Critical Design Review (CDR) would be finished by 2015. Backing up major activities that need to be complete before CDR can happen — Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposal (RFP), Contract Award, and Preliminary Design Review (PDR), it is clear that the process must begin immediately (and it has already begun, with the recent RFI announcement), and a contract award made by early next year at the latest. So, we will not just be hanging around until 2015 before making the HLV decision. If we follow the normal procurement process, the decision will be made well before 2015. All of this discussion about which HLV concept is "best" is useful, and can provide food for thought for companies responding to the RFP, but one expects that the final decision on HLV configuration will be made after review of the competing proposals. One hopes that NASA will refrain from putting low-level design requirements into the RFP, thereby eliminating many discriminants, and forcing a pre-determined design. Instead, let the companies respond with their own best designs: in-line, side mount, shuttle-derived, or whatever. If the process works as it should (devoid of politics, ideally), then the ultimate choice will reflect the best compromise between performance, cost, and schedule. It is entirely possible that a company that proposes shuttle derived hardware could actually beat the 2015 schedule.

Um, a heavy lift vehicle was already picked. It's called Ares 5 and they went thru this about 5 years ago.

Unless there are a bunch of new options for NASA with game changing technology there's no reason to start this process all over again and waste time and money on this.

It's not like the rocket choices are any different then 5 years ago in relation to technology available. This isn't a damn intel chip that doubles in speed every couple years.

It is what is was 5 years ago. SO DO IT!

in 1985, we were told we were "20 - 30 years from landing on Mars..."

in 1995, we were told we were "20 - 30 years from landing on Mars... and there are ideas about a moon base..."

in 2005, we were told we were "20 - 30 years from landing on Mars... but are returning to the moon sooner"

in 2010, we are being told we are "20 - 30 years from landing on Mars..."

This cycle has to end somehow.

@aquarious1

The idea that various companies can produce heavy lift propulsion systems is false, there are no such companies with the needed infrastructure, experience, and expertise. What do the SSME (Shuttle), RS-68 (Delta IV), RS-84, RS-27 (Delta II), RL-10 (Atlas), F-1 (Saturn), and J2-X (Ares) have in common?

In that case you had better start building an LHC; an OWL Telescope and an ITER. Some endeavours can only be achieved through cooperation. Like the United States of America. Ideally it saves money and the result is greater than the sum of it's parts.

The problem is after years of 'might makes right', 'market forces' and similar 'dog eat dog' rhetoric some Americans equate cooperative effort as "Filthy Commie Pinko Liberal Un-Americanism."

Symbiosis not Parasitism.

Besides you can't be first in everything. It ain't in the budget!

It's called "get ISS to change the requirement when you realize your vehicle simply won't make it". The decision to ramp down from 6 to 4 came well after it was apparent Orion was having mass and other issues. Why would we embark on a multi-billion dollar effort for a capsule that only carries one more than Apollo?!? Yes, regular rotation may only need to transport 4 but it makes it that much more expensive to evacuate the station in an emergency as you require 2 crafts instead of one.

For six or eight crew, you did not need an Orion the size of the vehicle they've had in work the last 4 years, so you certainly do not need it for four people.

Crew size of ISS has been planned for 7 for the last 15 years. Why would someone, just in the last year, come to the sudden realization that they only needed to carry 4 ?

Its too bad Orion did not do a serious trade on vehicle size, capacity, functionality, and capability of the launch vehicle(s).

Simple screw up of requirements and management processes is what its about. It sounds like you are now trying to make an excuse to cover for inexcusable management.

My apologies Jeremy. You are correct that the original crew size was 7 (I looked at the CRV requirements) but that was canceled shortly after I started working at NASA and the crew size goal for the last 10 years that we have worked towards has been 6 and I am not aware of any plan to go above that.

It wasn't a sudden realization. It was a question of what is required versus what is nice to have. Carrying six was a nice to have because you could fly two extra people for a short duration flight similar to what the Russians do with their space tourists. Four is the hard requirement since there will always be a Souyz docked to the station.

I am not trying to cover anything up since it wasn't my decision but I was around when the Orion requirements changed and it was based on a solid trade off of what was really required by ISS. It was not a major blow to Orion's functionality that so many try to portray it as.

It is much more expensive to require capability that isn't required. You will always have a Soyuz docked to station for the same reason we want our own rides to ISS, i.e. the Russians aren't going to be dependent on us or a US commercial provider to get their astronauts to the station. So you are going to have 2 vehicles and three of the crew already have a ride home paid for by Russia. So the other vehicle only needs to evacuate at most 4 and having the ability to evacuate te whole crew on one vehicle buys you next to nothing.