Obama to Cancel US Manned Space Program Cancelled - NASA to focus on Global Warming

[summit]

With the Space Shuttle poised on retirement, the Constellation Program was to replace it with the various Ares series of boosters. The program was to allow continued Earth Orbit manned space flight, a return to the Moon, and an eventual manned trip to Mars.

Obama's proposed budget cuts all funding to the program. This would be the end of the US manned space program, for at least a few decades, and we can forget about going to Mars anytime soon.

We can put 787 BILLION into paying for economic stimulus. We can put hundred billions into corporate handouts. We can pay billions to get people to scrap perfectly good cars. We want to spend TRILLIONS on healthcare reform. We are still spending BILLIONS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

But a program that expands the horizons of ALL HUMANITY and which creates massive return on investment for all through the development of new technologies... nooooooo no money for space! NASA was one half of one percent of the US budget, and Obama is ordering them to spend all their efforts on climate change because NASA's present efforts in addition to those of the NOAA, EPA, and DOE are not enough.

It's OK to spend hundreds of billions to keep bankers and auto union workers employed, but fuck those aerospace engineers... what have they ever done for our country?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...46,print.story

I predict that this flag will be the first to fly on Mars:

[Pow4Brains]

I get what you are saying but we do have robots that can check places without risking life, and in theory, do it cheaper.

[summit]

I get what you are saying but we do have robots that can check places without risking life, and in theory, do it cheaper.

Not all space exploration should be manned, but some of it should. For starters, it is hard to do space ROV's when there is an hours delay between sending an order and seeing a result. A lot of planetary experiments cannot be done best by robots. Similarly, not all orbital experiments can be done best by robots.

In the very long run, we will want manned exploration because we don't want all our eggs in one basket, and we will run out of resources on our current rock of residence. We'll need to exploit the resources of other worlds. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can reduce exploitation of our own.

Lastly, the technology that comes out of the manned space program repays the costs many times over. So you can have the spirit of exploration and the pride of humanity while expanding our understanding of the universe with a good ROI.

Or we can relegate ourselves to no further advancement and continue living on off our limited world resources, trying to squeeze the last mile out of everything while fighting amongst ourselves over the rights to these resources until we blow ourselves up or poison ourselves to death.

[deliberate]

thanks for posting this in the padded room, I wouldn't have seen it if it was in the poliasshat forum.

[OSECS]

Not all space exploration should be manned, but some of it should. For starters, it is hard to do space ROV's when there is an hours delay between sending an order and seeing a result. A lot of planetary experiments cannot be done best by robots. Similarly, not all orbital experiments can be done best by robots.

In the very long run, we will want manned exploration because we don't want all our eggs in one basket, and we will run out of resources on our current rock of residence. We'll need to exploit the resources of other worlds. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can reduce exploitation of our own.

Lastly, the technology that comes out of the manned space program repays the costs many times over. So you can have the spirit of exploration and the pride of humanity while expanding our understanding of the universe with a good ROI.

Or we can relegate ourselves to no further advancement and continue living on off our limited world resources, trying to squeeze the last mile out of everything while fighting amongst ourselves over the rights to these resources until we blow ourselves up or poison ourselves to death.

Bumped for truth and accuracy.

[mock vomit]

At this point, about zero of any science and/or scientific achievements coming from either space exploration or deep sea exploration comes from having flesh and blood humans along for the journey. I haven't read any more on this so won't comment regards any of the politics/deficit angles... that said, I like a robust space program and it's possible future contributions to humanity. And I don't think this stops our overall progress in a large detrimental way?

[Danno]

With the Space Shuttle poised on retirement, the Constellation Program was to replace it with the various Ares series of boosters. The program was to allow continued Earth Orbit manned space flight, a return to the Moon, and an eventual manned trip to Mars.

Obama's proposed budget cuts all funding to the program. This would be the end of the US manned space program, for at least a few decades, and we can forget about going to Mars anytime soon.

We can put 787 BILLION into paying for economic stimulus. We can put hundred billions into corporate handouts. We can pay billions to get people to scrap perfectly good cars. We want to spend TRILLIONS on healthcare reform. We are still spending BILLIONS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

But a program that expands the horizons of ALL HUMANITY and which creates massive return on investment for all through the development of new technologies... nooooooo no money for space! NASA was one half of one percent of the US budget, and Obama is ordering them to spend all their efforts on climate change because NASA's present efforts in addition to those of the NOAA, EPA, and DOE are not enough.

It's OK to spend hundreds of billions to keep bankers and auto union workers employed, but fuck those aerospace engineers... what have they ever done for our country?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...46,print.story

I predict that this flag will be the first to fly on Mars:

The truth is, the guy can't win. There are people pummeling him for everything. I agree with you in that I think money spent on the space program is, in the long run, money well spent. But I can't blame him for cutting something that doesn't have much virulent support (outside of you ). Though I now predict republicans will find a way to support the space program.

[OSECS]

I disagree Tim. Man will at some point be required to venture out into space. We need to know how to survive for long periods of time in such an environment. You can't just one day bolt a guy in a capsule, and send him out into the void.

[Crock]

what would happen if we shut Nasa down for 1 year, and put their budget into paying down the national debt?

[OSECS]

what would happen if we shut Nasa down for 1 year, and put their budget into paying down the national debt?

a months interest payment ??

[summit]

I should say, I didn't think the returning to the moon plan was really the best idea unless it was to establish a permanent base (that's where the money is). But a lunar research base/colony would be good. So would a manned mission to Mars, even if only to it's moons... or an asteroid (that's where the money is).

I like a robust space program and it's possible future contributions to humanity. And I don't think this stops our overall progress in a large detrimental way?

Yea... cuz who needs a heavy launch vehicle? Hopefully not us. Ares V would have given us 7x the payload capacity of anything around right now.

Maybe next I'll start a rant on the goodness of nuclear space propulsion.

[PNWbrit]

Where's the free market when you want it?

[summit]

what would happen if we shut Nasa down for 1 year, and put their budget into paying down the national debt?

You'd pay off 0.1% of the national debt while putting 20,000 people out of work directly and probably five times that many out of work indirectly not to mention some major satellite problems.

[Hugh Conway]

Who fucking cares? There wasn't enough work to support the few people we had currently

[Crock]

You'd pay off 0.1% of the national debt while putting 20,000 people out of work directly and probably five times that many out of work indirectly not to mention some major satellite problems.

Good call. Wasn't thinking about the jobs. I just dont see how everything they do is necessary/beneficial.

[Blurred]

If what Summit initially posted is 100% accurate, that makes me madder than I should ever get.

Global warming/climate change alarmists are the worst.

[doughboyshredder]

If what Summit initially posted is 100% accurate, that makes me madder than I should ever get.

Global warming/climate change alarmists are the worst.

Obama will be announcing 8 billion dollars to fund high speed rail tonight. Because, ya know, high speed rail fits in to their alarmist view point of global warming.

Obama is such a joke it's not even funny anymore. Nothing but a puppet and the strings are being pulled by morons.

[Lane Meyer]

If what Summit initially posted is 100% accurate...

I read the article he posted and came away with a totally different view - NASA is not canceling it's manned space program! It's canceling the Constellation program:

By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews

Orlando Sentinel

12:17 AM EST, January 27, 2010

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.

Robert Block, who reported from Cape Canaveral, can be reached at rblock@orlandosentinel.com or 321-639-0522. Mark K. Matthews, who reported from Washington, can be reached at mmatthews@

orlandosentinel.com or 202-824-8222.

Copyright © 2010, Orlando Sentinel

[kevok2]

As Summit said below...Constellation encompasses Aeres, which already had a successful launch of the 1-X last year.

As an Aerospace Engineering major, this really freaks me the fuck out. I can work interchangeably in mechanical fields, but the majority of aero spending is from the government, military and NASA in particular. As a political independent I haven't really been inflamed about Obama's policy with the exception of the healthcare disaster, but this I am pissed about. I am trying to get an internship with NASA this summer with the eventual goal of the manned astronautics program, and this, if true, will rain on my fucking party.

Edit: Reallocation of funding includes money to NASA for research towards the global warming whatever, but it still puts engineers out of business.

Reducing manned space flight is a step backwards. It's a big fucking universe and there's untracked powder out there somewhere. I believe Mars is more of an ego goal than anything else and agree with Summit on the more practical manned moon base, but regardless of goals, there is at least some usefulness in manned space flight. I understand the necessity to cut back government spending (NASA has a habit of creating jobs where there aren't any,) but it seems like they've once again tried to cut not only the pork but thrown the whole thing out. You don't throw a perfectly good steak out the window if there are a few fatty pieces on the edges.

/end rant

Edit: Mars is red, you won't be able to see that fucking Chinese flag anyway.

[sidewall]

The truth is, the guy can't win. There are people pummeling him for everything.

X2 to that. I think this is a really ballsy move on his part and really admire him for making it. There are so many causes/problems that need money and I don't think exploring space is one of them. Don't get me wrong, I think NASA is cool and love all the technology but don't see the need to put a man on the moon. It almost seems comical if you think about it.

[Lane Meyer]

HE IS NOT CANCELING THE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM OR ENDING SPACE EXPLORATION!!!

Read the fucking article!

[summit]

The Constellation program IS/WAS the future manned space program. It was supposed to replace the Space Shuttle which is being retired THIS YEAR.

Understand what the fuck you are talking about, then post.

[Patches]

Manned spacecraft are a colossal waste of money, unless I get to go.

[doughboyshredder]

It almost seems comical if you think about it.

Almost as comical as how small your brain is.

All of your questions were answered in the Bible, huh?

[Lane Meyer]

The Constellation program IS the manned space program. The crew vehicles are to be launched on the Ares booster that is part of the Constellation program.

Understand what the fuck you are talking about.

Oh shit, you're right! God I'm such an idiot.