Obama to End NASA Constellation Program?

[ClearedHot]

When President Obama releases his budget on Monday, there may be a big hole where funding for NASA's Constellation program used to be.

When President Obama releases his budget on Monday, there may be a big hole where funding for NASA's Constellation program used to be. Constellation is the umbrella program that includes the Ares rocket -- the replacement for the aging space shuttles.

According to a report in the Orlando Sentinel, the forthcoming budget -- which the president will announce in detail during Wednesday night's State of the Union address -- will include no funding for lunar landers, no moon bases, and no Constellation program at all. Instead, NASA will outsource space flight to other governments (such as the Russians) and private companies.

NASA's Constellation program aims to create a new generation of spacecraft for human spaceflight, consisting primarily of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, the Orion crew capsule and the Altair Lunar Lander. These spacecraft will be capable of performing a variety of missions, from International Space Station resupply to lunar landings.

SLIDESHOW: The Ares Rocket

But according to the Sentinel, White House insiders and agency officials say NASA will eventually look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit years in the future -- and possibly even decades or more.

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 solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis, reports the Sentinel. These companies may 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.

NASA's budget, just over $18.7 billion this year, is still expected to rise again in 2011, reports Space.com, though by much less than the $1 billion increase NASA and its contractors have been privately anticipating since mid-December. A White House-appointed panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, urged these changes on the administration in December.

The panel also said a worthwhile manned space exploration program would require Obama to budget about $55 billion for human spaceflight over the next five years, some $11 billion more than he included in the 2011-2015 forecast he sent Congress last spring.

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, calling for swift action on lagging bills providing tax cuts for job creation, new equipment purchases and the elimination of capital gains for small businesses.

[Breckey]

I highly doubt that Obama will kill Constellation all together. There are too many jobs at stake in key states for him to take that kind of political risk. Yes the retirement of STS will cause job losses around the Cape but not to the extent of killing off the entire manned US space program.

Ares I is out and has been since the Augustine Report came out, but Orion will remain with a different launcher. Ares I was and always has been a dud.

Also I wouldn't totally trust the Orlando Sentinel for NASA news, they are like Fox News vs Democrats.

[FlyingBull]

Constellation is just going through transition. The plan that came out under Griffin was never going to be affordable. What is likely now is that a smaller version of Ares V will be built and instead of going back to the moon NASA will go with a "Flexible Path" architecture that will include things like visiting asteroids and possible the moons of Mars.

[busdriver]

Although this could be a boon for those small little private space flight companies out west.

[Guest kork13]

Although this could be a boon for those small little private space flight companies out west.

That's the only place human space flight belongs, IMO. Private companies, spending private money.

I've been a 'space geek' since I was a little kid, and studied it in college. I've worked with NASA, and attended conferences on space technologies and utilization. However, I've never understood the desperate need for manned spaceflight, much less the gaping black hole of a public-money pit that it is. I reject the "human destiny" argument as irrational, which only leaves human curiosity. If we're going to spend millions and millions of public dollars on a curiosity, why not put it toward medical research or something that will actually provide a real, tangible benefit. Otherwise, drop it entirely and put it towards reducing the annually-inflating budget deficit.

I see great value in scientific and other unmanned uses of space, but not the $200k per pound that we're currently paying to launch humans to orbit. If mankind is "destined" to go to other planets, let a private company (or partnered companies) do it for a profit.

Edited January 28, 2010 by kork13

[tripilot]

Constellation is just going through transition. The plan that came out under Griffin was never going to be affordable. What is likely now is that a smaller version of Ares V will be built and instead of going back to the moon NASA will go with a "Flexible Path" architecture that will include things like visiting asteroids and possible the moons of Mars.

I agree with this statement. And anyone who read the Augustine Commission report would likely come to the same conclusion.

That said, I work at NASA currently, and a lot of people are firmly convinced that with the new funding profile, Constellation is indeed going to grind to a halt entirely. Paranoia? I don't know. I've been arguing about it for 2 days now and frankly am I bit fed up with the speculation. We'll see what the actual budget looks like on Monday (not in the State of the Union, as the Sentinel rather daftly put it). Even then, though, it may be hard to say exactly what will happen with NASA internally.

[Guest CA]

That's the only place human space flight belongs, IMO. Private companies, spending private money.

I've been a 'space geek' since I was a little kid, and studied it in college. I've worked with NASA, and attended conferences on space technologies and utilization. However, I've never understood the desperate need for manned spaceflight, much less the gaping black hole of a public-money pit that it is. I reject the "human destiny" argument as irrational, which only leaves human curiosity. If we're going to spend millions and millions of public dollars on a curiosity, why not put it toward medical research or something that will actually provide a real, tangible benefit. Otherwise, drop it entirely and put it towards reducing the annually-inflating budget deficit.

I see great value in scientific and other unmanned uses of space, but not the $200k per pound that we're currently paying to launch humans to orbit. If mankind is "destined" to go to other planets, let a private company (or partnered companies) do it for a profit.

I'm with Kork. I see little benefit to us going to the Moon or other planets. It's not financially or technically feasible in our near future to populate or mine a foreign planet. While the thought of going to the moon or mars is awesome and I'd volunteer in a heart beat, it's not something we should be spending our gov't money on anymore. IMO we're never going to leave Earth so instead of trying to find a new place to live, lets find ways to make the one we live on now more sustainable.

[fire4effect]

I bet cancelling the Constellation program gets a second look when someone in the current administration remembers how many electoral votes are in Florida and Texas combined. IMHO

[Timbonez]

That's the only place human space flight belongs, IMO. Private companies, spending private money.

I've been a 'space geek' since I was a little kid, and studied it in college. I've worked with NASA, and attended conferences on space technologies and utilization. However, I've never understood the desperate need for manned spaceflight, much less the gaping black hole of a public-money pit that it is. I reject the "human destiny" argument as irrational, which only leaves human curiosity. If we're going to spend millions and millions of public dollars on a curiosity, why not put it toward medical research or something that will actually provide a real, tangible benefit. Otherwise, drop it entirely and put it towards reducing the annually-inflating budget deficit.

I see great value in scientific and other unmanned uses of space, but not the $200k per pound that we're currently paying to launch humans to orbit. If mankind is "destined" to go to other planets, let a private company (or partnered companies) do it for a profit.

If everyone thought this way we wouldn't have ships, cars, airplanes, etc. Human destiny and human curiosity go hand in hand. Just because YOU can't see any tangible benefit doesn't mean there isn't one. Since you've worked with NASA, I would think the technologies created because of space travel would be more apparent to you... NASA Spinoff. Most of those are directly pulled from putting man into space.

[sky_king]

I agree with some of you that the government has no place spending its people's money going into space. As much as I'd like to keep paying for the awesomeness of space, I feel companies that work for a profit could do it better. You can't say that velcro came from a government run space program, therefore we'd never have velcro if the government wasn't dumping money into the space program. A civilian program would have likely come up with something similar (and for a cheaper price tag no doubt).

Somebody please tell me anything that any goverment does better than a civilian contracter would do with some proper competition.

[Timbonez]

I agree with some of you that the government has no place spending its people's money going into space. As much as I'd like to keep paying for the awesomeness of space, I feel companies that work for a profit could do it better. You can't say that velcro came from a government run space program, therefore we'd never have velcro if the government wasn't dumping money into the space program. A civilian program would have likely come up with something similar (and for a cheaper price tag no doubt).

Somebody please tell me anything that any goverment does better than a civilian contracter would do with some proper competition.

I disagree. The civil sector may not have necessarily needed any of those things, but once they saw their benefits they wanted it. Necessity is the mother of invention. It was a matter of need for the government/space program, and I would bet that a lot of those things that are commonplace to us due to the space program wouldn't be here because their wasn't a need in the civil sector.

[FlyingBull]

Looks like NASA is going the commercial route. Until now they have designed their own vehicles, now it looks like they will operate like the DoD. Instead of having their own rocket scientists/engineers/production facilities they will go to industry and as for something that does "whatever". Companies will come back with proposals, NASA will pick, and off to the races....er ISS they go.

Here is a good article about the big changes:

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-budget-moon-future-100201.html