Well for those of you who are interested in taking an impartial look, the Constellation program was under funded and behind the time line that the Bush administration had set out in it's plan for getting back to the moon. At the current level of funding, estimates put it at 2020-2030 before we would get back into space on our own. The current administration was given a report that stated all this, and possible options for changing the direction of NASA. The current option will hopefully stop there from being a period of 10-20 years that the United States cannot get into space on it's own (for lack of a vessel to carry astronauts) and give us the ability to get to space for less than it costs right now through private options. It also extends the lifetime of the international space station(which was set to run out of US funding by around 2015). As far as I see it, getting into space in a less than ideal option and continuing to be able to amazing research is better than not getting into space for 10-20-30 years while every other country goes there. You can be upset at the administration for changing the direction of NASA or you can realize that the last administration has left NASA somewhat nonfunctional after the retirement of the current fleet of space shuttles, and this proposal is meant to correct that.
@Joe the Plumber You're certainly right about the age and condition of the shuttles, but I'm pretty sure that's what the Constellation program was designed to rectify. That aside, it's more the issue of redirecting NASA away from space exploration and pointing them to "global warm..." wow, couldn't even finish typing it without laughing.
@droberts A jab, maybe, but its freaking true. Bush is the one that came in mandated shuttle retirement and the development of a new launch vehicle and then didn't fund it (although he isn't the first to do that to NASA). Without a temporary, though drastic, increase in budget, there could never be parallel development of a new launch system while the current vehicle flew out its manifest.
Presidents from Nixon on are to blame for where NASA is today. The Shuttle was never supposed to be the whole manned space flight program... it was supposed to be the LEO part with the descendants of Apollo continuing the exploration portion of the program.
In comparison, the SpaceX Falcon 9 and unmanned Dragon capsule are slated for launch THIS year, the manned Dragon space capsule next year, and the Falcon 9 Heavy (comparable to the Ares I in lift capability) in the next two or three years. All for 1/10 the projected cost of the Ares.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets may never take us back to the moon the way the Ares V might have, but for short-term heavy lift capability, they're much closer than Constellation was.
@Joe the Plumber You'd think that they already have schematics and manuals and everything by now and all they neede is to manufacture all the mental parts. I guess all those high-paid Solitarie players need to get off their asses and take more initiatives.
So the new plan is to rely on unproven technology, run by unproven companies in the somewhat new private space sector. Brilliant!
NASA is meant for exploration and discovery. Republicans and Democrats alike should leave it the hell alone and stop using it for political gain. All it is doing is damaging innovation in this country by significantly hindering our long term goals.
I'm all for private companies working at it too, but I would like public money to be spent on space exploration as well. Who knows, they could even (gasp!) learn from each other.
It's my understanding that the US is spending more than $700 billion on 'defense,' otherwise known as military. With the Iraq War scheduled to be completed by August, why wouldn't Obama just divert a fraction of the money that has been going to that war to the space program? He would have saved at least $3 billion in the process.
Once a nation begins to fall behind in science, it begins to fall behind in everything else. I learned that from Sid Meyer's Civilization :P
Obama should recommend to Congress that some of the money that has been going towards the Iraq war be sent to NASA, WITHOUT NASA's current plans being changed.
The shuttles would retire in late 2010 (possibly mid 2011). And its replacement for getting US astronauts to the ISS would only be around 3 years later. During which time we would use Russian Soyuz to get up there. While I HATE the idea of needing the Russians to get use there...it is the best option.
And we would be back on the moon by 2020-2025.
But now, thanks to the great black savior, The US will continue to spin its wheels in LEO.....Its a sad day for space enthusiasts like me.
I hear ya. I wasn't trying to suggest there is no value in having the private sector involved, in fact most of the work is farmed out already. I'm just saying it's a bit frightening to suggest we simply rely on them to get the job done with little to no proof they are capable of the task.
I know if I started building model cars this year and GM came to me and said hey, could you maybe build our cars for us pretty please? We want to still sell them but don't want to pay all these people to do it anymore.... I'm not sure I'd feel real good about that plan. I sure love cars but I've never driven one I built around the block successfully... (ps I've never built a car)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Well for those of you who are interested in taking an impartial look, the Constellation program was under funded and behind the time line that the Bush administration had set out in it's plan for getting back to the moon. At the current level of funding, estimates put it at 2020-2030 before we would get back into space on our own. The current administration was given a report that stated all this, and possible options for changing the direction of NASA. The current option will hopefully stop there from being a period of 10-20 years that the United States cannot get into space on it's own (for lack of a vessel to carry astronauts) and give us the ability to get to space for less than it costs right now through private options. It also extends the lifetime of the international space station(which was set to run out of US funding by around 2015). As far as I see it, getting into space in a less than ideal option and continuing to be able to amazing research is better than not getting into space for 10-20-30 years while every other country goes there. You can be upset at the administration for changing the direction of NASA or you can realize that the last administration has left NASA somewhat nonfunctional after the retirement of the current fleet of space shuttles, and this proposal is meant to correct that.
@Joe the Plumber
Impartial? Nice jab at Bush there at the end?
@Joe the Plumber
Thank you for the post of reason and logic, but others rather see the end result and not what got us to the mess that we are in now.
Once again, Obama is left cleaning up the mess of the previous administration, and he ends up looking like the bad guy.
@Joe the Plumber
Right... so re-purposing NASA to do the exact same job that NOAA does is "Cleaning up the mess"
@Joe the Plumber You're certainly right about the age and condition of the shuttles, but I'm pretty sure that's what the Constellation program was designed to rectify. That aside, it's more the issue of redirecting NASA away from space exploration and pointing them to "global warm..." wow, couldn't even finish typing it without laughing.
@Hazdaz
You are such a tool and you don't even see it.
@droberts A jab, maybe, but its freaking true. Bush is the one that came in mandated shuttle retirement and the development of a new launch vehicle and then didn't fund it (although he isn't the first to do that to NASA). Without a temporary, though drastic, increase in budget, there could never be parallel development of a new launch system while the current vehicle flew out its manifest.
Presidents from Nixon on are to blame for where NASA is today. The Shuttle was never supposed to be the whole manned space flight program... it was supposed to be the LEO part with the descendants of Apollo continuing the exploration portion of the program.
@TMoney2007
The first phase of Constellation was LEO and it was suppose to be ready by 2012/2013.
If they would have held fast we were only going to be 3 years without Heavy Lift LEO capability.
@Critic2029:
"The first phase of Constellation was LEO and it was suppose to be ready by 2012/2013.
If they would have held fast we were only going to be 3 years without Heavy Lift LEO capability."
Actually, the next SUB-orbital test flight for the Ares I would've been in 2012, and the first manned orbital flight would've been in 2015 if everything had gone on schedule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Constellation_missions
In comparison, the SpaceX Falcon 9 and unmanned Dragon capsule are slated for launch THIS year, the manned Dragon space capsule next year, and the Falcon 9 Heavy (comparable to the Ares I in lift capability) in the next two or three years. All for 1/10 the projected cost of the Ares.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets may never take us back to the moon the way the Ares V might have, but for short-term heavy lift capability, they're much closer than Constellation was.
@Joe the Plumber
You'd think that they already have schematics and manuals and everything by now and all they neede is to manufacture all the mental parts.
I guess all those high-paid Solitarie players need to get off their asses and take more initiatives.
@Hazdaz
So the new plan is to rely on unproven technology, run by unproven companies in the somewhat new private space sector. Brilliant!
NASA is meant for exploration and discovery. Republicans and Democrats alike should leave it the hell alone and stop using it for political gain. All it is doing is damaging innovation in this country by significantly hindering our long term goals.
@moneymark
I'm all for private companies working at it too, but I would like public money to be spent on space exploration as well. Who knows, they could even (gasp!) learn from each other.
@Joe the Plumber
It's my understanding that the US is spending more than $700 billion on 'defense,' otherwise known as military. With the Iraq War scheduled to be completed by August, why wouldn't Obama just divert a fraction of the money that has been going to that war to the space program? He would have saved at least $3 billion in the process.
Once a nation begins to fall behind in science, it begins to fall behind in everything else. I learned that from Sid Meyer's Civilization :P
Clarification on my previous post:
Obama should recommend to Congress that some of the money that has been going towards the Iraq war be sent to NASA, WITHOUT NASA's current plans being changed.
@Joe the Plumber
Your facts are mind bogglingly wrong.
The shuttles would retire in late 2010 (possibly mid 2011). And its replacement for getting US astronauts to the ISS would only be around 3 years later. During which time we would use Russian Soyuz to get up there. While I HATE the idea of needing the Russians to get use there...it is the best option.
And we would be back on the moon by 2020-2025.
But now, thanks to the great black savior, The US will continue to spin its wheels in LEO.....Its a sad day for space enthusiasts like me.
@Abe
I hear ya. I wasn't trying to suggest there is no value in having the private sector involved, in fact most of the work is farmed out already. I'm just saying it's a bit frightening to suggest we simply rely on them to get the job done with little to no proof they are capable of the task.
I know if I started building model cars this year and GM came to me and said hey, could you maybe build our cars for us pretty please? We want to still sell them but don't want to pay all these people to do it anymore.... I'm not sure I'd feel real good about that plan. I sure love cars but I've never driven one I built around the block successfully... (ps I've never built a car)