Obama to axe Ares Rocket?

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.

"We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one administration official.

Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by the White House until the release of the budget.

But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget — possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.

They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said there would be an "attractive sum" of money — to be spent over several years — for private companies to make rockets to carry astronauts there.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program, NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from the space station.

Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.

Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.

In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations, some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed by the hobbyists.

Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a battle with Congress, Ares may survive.

"I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."

Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets, Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a fight.

The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

One administration official said the budget will send a message that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.

My initial gut reaction to Obama doing anything with NASA was "OMG, the marxist is stealing money from NASA to fund some looney socialist tripe."

I read the article and agreed with most of it, though.

NASA doesn't need to be in the space-taxi business.  Outsourcing this to build private space enterprise is a good move.

I disagree with abandoning the moon, though.  It's the ultimate sustainable high-ground from a military perspective, and an EXCELLENT choice for a place to build larger spacecraft.  I don't have visions of NCC-1701 in my lifetime, but I would like to see the Moon serve as a lighthouse of sorts, or perhaps an offshore oil platform that provides H2/O2 fuel and oxygen resupply.

Regardless, NASA needs to focus more on space, rather than low earth orbit.  LEO is now old-hat and can be serviced by private industry.

As far as the protectionism of congressional space-pork... A lot of this money will get shifted to California and Nevada businesses (Pelosi and Reid).  Just money moving from Republi-pork to Demi-swine.

[longeyes]

Yes, why reach for the stars when there is so much community organizing left to do?

"Social justice" = mediocrity.

[MechAg94]

Every time I think about whether the Feds should cut NASA loose, I remember that the amount of money at stake is pitifully small compared to all the real wasteful programs out there.  Leave it alone until all the other spending is brought under control.

[BrokenPaw]

My initial gut reaction to Obama doing anything with NASA was "OMG, the marxist is stealing money from NASA to fund some looney socialist tripe."

Like this part?

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change

Granted, I think that private enterprise can handle the NEO load better than a government project could.  I don't know whether private enterprise has the ability to absorb the up-front cost of a mission to the moon or beyond.  That's a heck of a monetary outlay, and there'd have to be tangible commercial returns on such a thing before anyone in the commercial realm would back it.

[alex_trebek]

The conservative in me is glad to see budgets cut from areas they are not necessarily needed.

However, I think to all the technological advances the space program encouraged, and wonder if the money is indeed better spent on these programs, due to the fringe benefits alone.

I would like to see deep sea projects. We understand more about the surface of mars, than we do the surface of the deepest oceans. If we could build subs that could take people to those pressures, that could result in a leap in technological progress. 

[Nitrogen]

I want to see us return to those projects once the economy starts to come around.  It's right to cut these things when we're in the bind we're in.

[HankB]

NASA's budget for 2009 was 17.2 billion dollars. At this level, the currently UNSPENT money from BHO's stimulus plan would fund NASA for about 30 years. Or the budget could be doubled through 2025.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change

This amounts to criminal misuse of a valuable resource even worse than previous administrations allowing the agency to be taken over by political brown-noses.   

[zahc]

Fine with me. There's basically no point to going back. There was a point at one time when we had a space race on, but that's over. There's really nothing there but a bunch of rocks; I don't see what the attraction is anyway.

[MechAg94]

NASA's budget for 2009 was 17.2 billion dollars. At this level, the currently UNSPENT money from BHO's stimulus plan would fund NASA for about 30 years. Or the budget could be doubled through 2025.

My thoughts exactly.  When you start making a list of all the spending to start cutting in the federal govt, NASA is way way down on the list.  To even mention it just means the Democrats are not at all serious about cutting spending.

[AZRedhawk44]

My thoughts exactly.  When you start making a list of all the spending to start cutting in the federal govt, NASA is way way down on the list.  To even mention it just means the Democrats are not at all serious about cutting spending.

To my knowledge, most programs are of similar relevance to the budget trimming process.

Aside from Social Security, Medicare and Defense, everything else in the budget is thousands upon thousands of $100 million, $10 million, $1.2 billion and similar small agency budgets.

Part of the tedium of actually balancing the budget is that it requires an audit of all of those little programs to find out HOW to cut their budgets in a manner consistent with their mission statements and goals for the next year.

And that's what protects them from budget reform entirely:  the difficulty and man-hours involved to accomplish that.

...Which is why we need to start slashing entire programs from the federal budget, rather than micromanaging each line item on the budget.

NASA is one of the largest of the small agency budgets, though.  As such, it gets targeted before the feces-as-art programs since those only get a paltry $500,000 budget.

[Balog]

It sounds less like "slashing spending" and more like "slashing semi-useful spending to fund more faked research into AGW."

[Northwoods]

Well, no wonder LockMart hasn't decided who to interview for that position that was starting to look good for me in Denver.  It would be working on the Orion crew capsule, and integral part of the Constellation program.

A senior administration official told Fox News that rather than space programs, the president plans to use the address to renew his focus on jobs

Hey Barry - Funding that program will produce jobs!  Namely one for me!  And one that'll produce plenty of tax revenue for you!

[MechAg94]

To my knowledge, most programs are of similar relevance to the budget trimming process.

Aside from Social Security, Medicare and Defense, everything else in the budget is thousands upon thousands of $100 million, $10 million, $1.2 billion and similar small agency budgets.

Part of the tedium of actually balancing the budget is that it requires an audit of all of those little programs to find out HOW to cut their budgets in a manner consistent with their mission statements and goals for the next year.

And that's what protects them from budget reform entirely:  the difficulty and man-hours involved to accomplish that.

...Which is why we need to start slashing entire programs from the federal budget, rather than micromanaging each line item on the budget.

NASA is one of the largest of the small agency budgets, though.  As such, it gets targeted before the feces-as-art programs since those only get a paltry $500,000 budget.

That is at least part of what I mean.  Those big programs like SS and Medicare and other entitlements get ignored because they are more difficult to touch than the annual appropriation items.  There are a lot of little items that shouldn't be there at all, but the big budget hitters are carried over automatically every year.  No one wants to do anything like freeze the funding levels on those programs or suggest some of the hundreds of SS executives or other administration be cut loose. 

[Bruce H]

Close the department of education.
Close health and human servaces.
Close TSA and let airlines be responsible for their security.
Close the DEA. Legalize it all. TAx it and control through USDA.
Move the food stamp program out in the open away from the USDA for all to see. Make it stand alone as a budget item.
Close military bases in places where we don't need them.

Cut everything, including government jobs by twenty five percent.

[taurusowner]

I would like to see deep sea projects. We understand more about the surface of mars, than we do the surface of the deepest oceans. If we could build subs that could take people to those pressures, that could result in a leap in technological progress.

Perhaps instead of an NCC-1701, we can have a Seaquest DSV? 

[SADShooter]

Without NIH funding, my job would disappear. If all the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric weren't just wind and cuts were meaningful in reducing the debt and drag on the economy, I'd say so be it.

[RocketMan]

"In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change." <> National Aeronautics and Space Administration

[Nitrogen]

"In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change." <> National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Yeah, that's NOAA, really.

[stevelyn]

I guess we'll be hitching rides with Russia, China and India from now on.

Fine with me. There's basically no point to going back. There was a point at one time when we had a space race on, but that's over. There's really nothing there but a bunch of rocks; I don't see what the attraction is anyway.

Eventually, survival of the human race is going to depnd on us getting off this rock. The pioneering has to start now.

[longeyes]

Cripple, divide, subvert.  Repeat until mission accomplished.

NASA is just a symbol to this President of an overweening America that needs humbling.

[HankB]

Eventually, survival of the human race is going to depnd on us getting off this rock. The pioneering has to start now.

Or at least we need to be able to project power off this rock. Tunguska was tiny . . . the rock that made Barringer Crater was maybe a bit more signifcant . . . but there's another Chicxulub-type event in Earth's future; maybe next week, maybe not for millenia . . . but it IS coming.

And if we can't do anything about it because we wasted effort on global warming scams or midnight basketball instead, we deserve what we get.

[AZRedhawk44]

"In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change." <> National Aeronautics and Space Administration

If NASA is given a free hand for scientific inquiry into this matter, I suspect that solar flare cycles will end up being given credit for a respectable portion of the zOMGGlobularWarmCooling and we can get past this crap.

If.

[erictank]

I guess we'll be hitching rides with Russia, China and India from now on.


Eventually, survival of the human race is going to depnd on us getting off this rock. The pioneering has to start now.

This.  Very MUCH this.  Sooner or later, via onplanet or offplanet natural events, to say nothing of the possibility of manmade accidental ("zOMGGlobularWarmCooling" - thanks for the tag, AZRH44!  ) or hostile actions ("Global Thermonuclear War"), something WILL happen to make this world quite unpleasant for advanced life as we know it.  If humanity is still locked onto the surface of Sol III when that happens, that's all she wrote for us, goodbye everyone and last one out turn off the lights before you freeze or starve to death, please. 

I think humanity, as a species, can do better than being killed by a big fast rock.  Luna is a BIG stepping stone on the way to getting all our eggs out of the single basket they're in now, and a nice close practice arena to gain experience in, as well.

[Scout26]

Which is why we need to start slashing entire programs departments from the federal budget, rather than micromanaging each line item on the budget.

FIFY....

[zahc]

Eventually, survival of the human race is going to depend on us getting off this rock.

We are screwed, then. The nearest livable exoplanet hasn't been discovered yet, and when it does, it will certainly be too many light-years away to be more than a curiosity. We cannot live on mars or the moon. So it might be claustrophobic to think that we are stuck on earth, but we are stuck on earth, and going to the moon to prance around on the regolith is not doing anything to help us. It's a waste of money that could be used for something better (like preventing the fiscal collapse of our country).