So after the big hubbub about Obama changing a bunch of priorities for NASA, apparently today brought a partial about-face:

Obama revives capsule from canceled program
Modified Orion vehicle and heavy-lift rocket on the way, officials say
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36484353/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Quote :

"President Barack Obama is reviving the NASA crew capsule concept that he had canceled with the rest of the moon program earlier this year, in a move that will mean more jobs and less reliance on the Russians, officials said Tuesday. The space capsule, called Orion, still won't go to the moon. It will go unmanned to the International Space Station to stand by as an emergency vehicle to return astronauts home, officials told The Associated Press. Administration officials also said NASA will speed up development of a massive rocket. It would have the power to blast crew and cargo far from Earth, although no destination has been chosen yet. The rocket would be ready to launch several years earlier than under the old moon plan. Officials pointed out that Obama's budget plans would boost NASA spending by $6 billion over the next five years, potentially creating 2,500 jobs in Florida. "This new strategy means more money for NASA, more jobs for the country, more astronaut time in space and more investments in innovation," Reuters quoted a senior White House official as saying."

Roughly translated, "ok, shit, we realize we screwed up, so mea culpa, space technologies community. Also, we're really, really not going to the moon, so shut up already."


Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan are not pleased: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Quote :

"Armstrong and his colleagues complained that the cancellation would amount to wasting the roughly $10 billion that has been allocated to Constellation over the past five years. "Equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to re-create the equivalent of what we will have discarded," they wrote. "For the United States, the leading spacefaring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature," they said in the letter."

4/13/2010 11:08:11 PM

Quote :

"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science-space/"

after reading your tech talk thread and then coming here I knew you would have linked to that

4/13/2010 11:15:59 PM

yeah, first one, then the other.

still, Obama fucked this one up.

4/13/2010 11:21:58 PM

Good thing we have all this surplus money to spend.

4/14/2010 12:51:56 AM

Quote :

""Armstrong and his colleagues complained that the cancellation would amount to wasting the roughly $10 billion that has been allocated to Constellation over the past five years."

sell every last bit of it until there's nothing left but a few bucks in my pocket for a change.

4/14/2010 1:12:51 AM

Quote :

"Good thing we have all this surplus money to spend. "

Seriously, he shows the restraint of a 10 yr old. What a joke

But remember, we cant spend money like its monopoly money. LOL

4/14/2010 9:40:31 AM

Well I'm glad that Obama finally listened to someone about the direction of the space program, it seems like except for the NASA administrator, everyone else involved including most of congress and various other agencies were totally opposed. I'm still pretty skeptical about all of it, but that's just my personal opinion.

Everything still seems a little vague to me though, although I've read a few reports and there should be more details released to the public on the 15th.


(FYI this is all personal opinion. None of the above comments represent the official policies and opinions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : disclaimer]

4/14/2010 9:56:08 AM

BREAKING NEWS:
NASA Insider describes new Obama space policy as "vague".
More at 11:00

4/14/2010 10:21:32 AM

I really don't understand all of this opposition to the space program. Do you think that China, Russia, the EU, or other countries with developing space programs are going to stop their development because we do? The space program has been one of the things that let America have a sense of pride during the Cold War. I'm not sure why we're so willing to give it up, even if it's no longer about us vs. the Russians.

4/14/2010 12:30:00 PM

The Space Age is over. The next one won't start in our lifetime.

4/14/2010 12:40:01 PM

Im glad they arnt wasting all that money but still would like to go to the moon.

4/14/2010 12:43:21 PM

It's all about health these days. The public cares more about health than space, and research dollars have been going this way.

I'd love to see more focus put on a moon base though. And i'm glad the ISS has its life extended.

The Constellation project was never fully funded though, and it would have been a fight to get the full funding it needed in today's climate anyway.

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2010 12:45:23 PM

Just to put things in perspective as far as how money is spent, FY10:



NASA is one of the thin slivers up there at the top getting 0.53%. For some reason, most people think NASA gets a lot more money than it actually does.

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM. Reason : $$$]

4/14/2010 1:40:30 PM

Quote :

"Armstrong and his colleagues complained that the cancellation would amount to wasting the roughly $10 billion that has been allocated to Constellation over the past five years."

sunk cost fallacy

4/14/2010 2:24:21 PM

^^ you have to look at discretionary spending



What do you suggest we cut to triple NASA's budget?

4/14/2010 2:55:12 PM

social security.

4/14/2010 2:59:39 PM

make social security and medicare means-tested, and all the government's financial troubles go away. We could invade and conquer China with all the money we would save...on second thought, maybe it is a good thing the government is broke...

4/14/2010 4:26:46 PM

I'm not suggesting we cut anything. I'm just pointing out that a lot of people have a misconstrued idea of how much of the budget NASA gets.

4/14/2010 5:00:42 PM

Waste is waste, no matter how few tens of billions it is.

4/14/2010 5:03:10 PM

^ There are other things wasting far more money than NASA. If you want cost savings, you should start by looking at the Pentagon.

4/14/2010 5:13:54 PM

it's virtually impossible to cut defense spending.

just remember back to how difficult it was to cut the presidential helo program (which isn't really even gone) and F-22.

4/14/2010 5:28:53 PM

It got accomplished in the 90s with the BRAC process. Although I'll agree that it was painful to the communities that were impacted. Still, the military is by far one of the worst offenders when it comes to lack of cost controls and accountability. They have more waste in their budget than NASA has for funding key projects.

For those that are going to parse my language, please note I said "one of."

4/14/2010 5:44:26 PM

Quote :

"Just to put things in perspective as far as how money is spent"

Why? Did Bernie Madoff say "look at my theft compared to the GDP of the US, I'm a petty thief".

.53% of our national budget is a HUGE amount of money.

The moon could be made of gold, gas, and Ipads and it still wouldn't justify going there.

We spent billions of dollars figuring out that there's nothing in space worth getting, you guys really think we should spend more just to sight-see the nothingness that's out there?

We should invest money on technologies that help us here on earth, then if we ever do need to go to space, we'll have the money and the technology to do it right.

4/14/2010 6:07:29 PM

I, too, enjoy staying in the trees. . . .

4/14/2010 6:42:21 PM

Right...because any and all scientific advancement must involve the moon!

4/14/2010 7:29:40 PM

Quote :

"^ There are other things wasting far more money than NASA. If you want cost savings, you should start by looking at the Pentagon. "

This is very true. But imagine the shitstorm that would happen when our socialist muslim president tries to dial back our defenses. It would certainly be his ploy to let the terrorists win.

4/14/2010 7:39:49 PM

Quote :

"Right...because any and all scientific advancement must involve the moon!"

The last time we went to the moon, it generated all sorts of scientific and engineering advancement. You doubt that it would happen here? Progress sometimes needs a tangible goal, and for the life of me, I don't know why the fuck you folks act like going back to the moon isn't a big deal. We don't have the capability to do anything close to it right now, and for damn sure if we don't, someone else is going to.

4/14/2010 8:03:36 PM

The moon is a dead rock in the sky.

Sending people there was only for show. When people stopped being impressed or threatened by it, they canceled Apollo.

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2010 8:15:30 PM

And yet we keep going back and learning more and more all the time. People used to think a lot of things about it that have since been proven wrong. Look, it's pithy to call it a dead rock, but that frankly ignores reality. If we want to do manned scientific discovery on Mars or any other planet, we have to test out our methods and tools first. It's far easier to reach the moon if something goes wrong than Mars.

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2010 8:19:52 PM

No! We haven't been back! We've sent robots, because that makes more sense!

4/14/2010 8:37:52 PM

Why the fuck would we go to mars? It's fucking red rocks.

We had some scientific advancement after spending billions, but we would have if our goal was to make biggest rice crispy treat. Think if we had spent that money on trying to live forever.

4/15/2010 12:12:27 AM

No, you're right. As stupid and immature as humanity continues to show itself to be it's probably better that we do all we can not to contaminate the rest of the universe with our taint. . .

Extraplanetary colonization would be a triumph for human civilization given the social, financial and technological advancement and cooperation required for such an endeavor. But hey, feel free to continue living in your closet.

4/15/2010 12:40:23 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/04/14/us.space.program/index.html?hpt=T1

Quote :

"The president's plans would shift some funding away from NASA's costly human space flight program to NASA's scientific programs, including robotic missions to other planets. During a briefing in early April, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden praised the new future being charted for the agency. "This budget provides an increase to NASA at a time when funding is scarce," Bolden said. "It will enable us to accomplish inspiring exploration, science and (research and development), the kinds of things the agency has been known for throughout its history.""

I reminded of this quote:

Solinari

Quote :

"And yea, the russian migs could eat the F-22 lunch in a dogfight. They are far more maneuverable. But it doesn't matter either way. Even if the F-22 was the baddest fighter out there, its still dumb. Drones are cheaper, better, and show much more potential for improvement than a multi-billion dollar airplane whose wings have literally been clipped to accommodate the human frailty of the pilot"

Returning to the moon isn't the immediate future of space exploration. Personally I lean more to the side of favoring exploring the new frontiers even when it hurts the bottom line. But in a tough economy we've got a middle-ground approach that isn't going to create a dramatic shift in jobs in an area that depends on space jobs, isn't going to cut funding as much as it could, and isn't going to increase funding as much as some people desire. I can understand how both the pro-NASA and anti-NASA people have some criticisms of this, but this is overall a pretty reasoned and measured middle-ground compromise that I can't get outraged over even if I'd like to see more support for NASA.

4/15/2010 1:00:19 AM

Quote :

"Extraplanetary colonization would be a triumph for human civilization given the social, financial and technological advancement and cooperation required for such an endeavor."

So would a lot of things. Perhaps we should focus on beating death, or understanding our brains, or any number of other things that have more benefits than going out and looking at space rocks.

4/15/2010 6:27:05 PM

It seems that based on our capability for actual space travel we should focus on trying to make contact from the comfort of earth, then worry about getting out there.

All the while spending the money on stuff like that ^, which would also be triumphs for human civilization. And maintaining our Low Earth Orbit functions.

4/16/2010 12:52:14 AM

Let's go ahead and beat death. A bunch of people over 65 who never die will do wonders for the national debt.

4/16/2010 1:28:51 AM

he's killing our future

I hope someone somewhere figures out a way to fix this...

4/16/2010 1:47:26 AM

I heard this yesterday and while it certainly doesn't absolve the president's actions it does give a bit more insight into why things are happening the way they are and who all bears a piece of the responsibility.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-15/future-nasa-and-us-space-exploration

4/16/2010 6:48:06 AM

Brilliant. cure death, and pass a law that anyone proven to take advantage of the cure be denied all future government benefits.

4/16/2010 11:08:35 AM

It's ok. We'll elect somebody competent next time.

4/16/2010 11:11:19 AM

i've seen enough movies to know that when aliens want us to travel through space they will give us the technology to do so.

4/16/2010 12:01:11 PM

http://mediasite.online.ncsu.edu/online/Viewer/?peid=38d970d3f0724ee188c274afaf299a1d

[Edited on April 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2010 12:05:47 PM

Quote :

"Let's go ahead and beat death. A bunch of people over 65 who never die will do wonders for the national debt."

They would, with their extra years they could start working, with all the extra experience they have, they would be great for our economy.

Quote :

"he's killing our future"

The future that we need to be concerned about is here on earth. Maybe one day we will find some place that is actually worth going, then we can start thinking about trying to get there, but right now space travel is just a sci-fi nerd's wet dream.

4/16/2010 4:54:03 PM

Quote :

"Maybe one day we will find some place that is actually worth going, then we can start thinking about trying to get there"

Two problems:

1. You don't know where to go if you don't look. And robotic probes can only do but so much.

2. You don't wait to figure out how to get somewhere after you find it. There's plenty of research and testing to be done NOW in support of those future missions.


Also, that point about "worth going" is entirely subjective. What's valuable to the human race as a whole may not matter worth a damn to you. That's not a reason to not try.

4/16/2010 4:59:37 PM

Quote :

" You don't know where to go if you don't look. And robotic probes can only do but so much."

We've got telescopes and satelites and all kinds of shit that do that.

Quote :

"Also, that point about "worth going" is entirely subjective."

No it's not. Cost of going versus cost of not going. Right now it costs billions to go out there, if we start focusing on getting better at making stuff and having more people to do stuff, etc. That cost will go down.

4/16/2010 5:40:01 PM

Telescopes and satellites, again, can only do but so much. Ground-based telescopes are inferior to space-based ones, and yet there was a major brouhaha about continuing the lifespan of the Hubble.

To extend your logic about cost, it costs millions of dollars to build and operate any military aircraft currently in service. It costs billions to build and operate any modern battleship. By your logic, shouldn't we be spending that money on "other things" that help people?

4/16/2010 8:18:16 PM

we don't operate modern battleship

replace with carrier

it's what you meant anyways

4/17/2010 4:55:17 PM

^^^

man, seriously, fuck what what you think your ideology puts forth and where these dollars should or should not be spent.

fundamental space activities (manned and unmanned) are SO important that its hard to even begin to put a simple argument about it... literally it boils down to what the opposing astronauts have said... slow march to mediocrity

it's important to push the limits ALL THE TIME

now as far as money goes... why don't you put foward the idea of stealing money from the defense sector and putting it towards NASA

we don't have to steal it from the suffering masses

doesn't that sound smooth?

I would go along with that 100%

4/17/2010 5:12:09 PM

Quote :

"undamental space activities (manned and unmanned) are SO important that its hard to even begin to put a simple argument about it"

OH SHIT! We should stop everything and start going into space then am i rite?

Cavemen didn't spend their days trying to get to space. They spend their days figuring shit out so in the future we could be as advanced as we are today. In the same way, we can focus on figuring shit out here and solve the problems we actually face rather than just making one up. Then one day we will be advanced enough to develop space travel easily.

Quote :

"now as far as money goes... why don't you put foward the idea of stealing money from the defense sector and putting it towards NASA we don't have to steal it from the suffering masses doesn't that sound smooth? I would go along with that 100%"

I'll readily admit that our defense budget is far too large, but two wrongs don't make a right. We should be investing that money into medical, technology and energy research, not building big missiles.

4/17/2010 6:29:45 PM

^ you're aware that NASA has made massive contributions in those fields, right? I love how you're drawing distinctions when they don't exist so rigidly.

Also, cavemen? Seriously? Thst point lacked even basic logic. Cavemen didn't spend their time on space because they didn't know they could go there. Also they lived with the dinosaurs, so they didn't have fossil fuels for their primitive cave-rockets.

4/17/2010 6:49:44 PM