Obama Planning to Scrap Shuttle Replacement, Says NASA

[WeDidIt]

Obama Planning to Scrap Shuttle Replacement, Says NASA

President-elect's transition team planning to use decades-old military rockets instead, say insiders.


President-Elect Obama's transition team is planning to scrap NASA's Ares program, the successor to the Space Shuttle, say NASA advisors. The transition team is demanding deep cuts from the agency, and is investigating whether old military rockets such as the Delta IV and Atlas V could be used in place of Ares.

NASA plans a permanent moon base by 2020, followed by a manned mission to Mars; plans which the agency says require Ares.

The Space Shuttle is due to make its last flight in 2010. Without a replacement, NASA may be without a manned space capability entirely, for the first time since the 1960s, a gap that NASA says would destroy the U.S.'s primacy in space technology.

<snip>

Daily Tech Blog Link

If true, it would be a huge mistake, IMO.

[tabatha]

1. Global warming is more important.

[WeDidIt]

2. NASA has always given back more than it has received

Our technological prowess is dependent upon NASA.

We should never move backward on NASA.

Never.

[jberryhill]

23. The shuttle program was a step in the wrong direction to begin with

Longtime space junkie here. I wouldn't have gotten advanced degrees in engineering without NASA.

That said, the shuttle was a vehicle in search of a mission from day one.

Aside from the fact that it was a kludge in the 1970's, this is 2008.

Keeping dad's '39 Ford running is a fun hobby - it is not progress toward anything.

[WeDidIt]

55. Did you read the article?

They're talking about scrapping the shuttle's REPLACEMENT.

[jberryhill]

73. Good

The shuttle program is a white elephant.

If it were up to me, I'd quadruple NASA's budget and still scrap the shuttle program.

[Duppers]

57. darn right you are. There was a study....

A few yrs ago a study determined that for ever $1 spent on NASA research, the U.S. economy gained $7 in return from NASA's developed technologies (Tech Utilization in general use with the public). I think that's a great return on our investment.

No other agency, company, or institution has given us more technologies than NASA!

[DuaneBidoux]

66. The technology and abilities of NASA have been absolutely crucial to even understanding global...

warming. 80% of the evidence used to support the case for global warming has come from NASA and the ability to track how we are doing is also dependent upon NASA.

Your comment is a little like the remark Palin made about the government funding fruit fly experiments when fruit fly experiments has been the number one way we have gained insight into genetics and its causes in diseases.

[Posteritatis]

70. Ouch! Nice comparison (nt)

[Posteritatis]

69. And space science has contributed nothing to our knowledge of that, right?

Heaven protect us from the ignorant Luddites.

[liberal N proud]

3. Wouldn't be retro to Obama's jobs creation strategy?

[scheming daemons]

4. I'm conflicted about this

The shuttle program has cost 10 times the amount of what it should have, and the benefits have not been nearly what we were led to believe when the program started.


We *DO* need a manned space capability.... but we need something better than the shuttle program has been.

[Duppers]

58. same thoughts here.

Operative word is 'MANNED' ...at the time, no. When the economy has recovered, yes.

[csziggy]

96. Without manned space capability we would not have Hubble working

Among other projects.

I do agree for the near future unmanned exploration beyond near Earth orbit is the better route. But for Earth orbit I believe we need to keep the ability to send and maintain humans in space for at lest some length of time. It breaks my heart - as a science fiction junkie who matured along with the space race I always thought I would see a colony on the Moon or Mars by the time I died. I doubt we will get back to the Moon or to Mars at all in my lifetime.

We've learned a lot about closed environmental systems - even if we have not truly achieved one. And compact renewable energy generation. And many other technologies that we would not have the incentive to develop without putting humans in space.

Aside from that, the inspiration that the possibility of a career in or associated with space gives young people to get into technological and scientific fields of study should not be underestimated in a time when the US is failing to train enough engineers and scientists. My nephew is majoring in materials science with the hope he can work for NASA eventually. That is a field where we need more people to develop alternatives to the materials currently derived from oil so I am cheering him on!

[Lerkfish]

5. curious: why would it be a mistake?

AFAIK the shuttle was never meant to be the sole method of space exploration, and was only settled on due to previous cost cutting measures. The name itself "shuttle" should give you the truth of how the vehicle was intended.
In fact, the shuttle is incapable of traveling any further than earth orbit, so its self-limiting to space exploration .
The only reason it has survived as a conveyance thus far is because it excels at placing military spy satellites and weaponry, and not much else, which is all that NASA is REALLY used for at this point.

IMHO, it time to move beyond the shuttle and if that means taking a step back and regrouping, I'm all for it.

[Lex]

6. We need to concentrate time and money on Energy Independence with renewable sources

way more than we need a "permanent moon base."

[sofa king]

92. How do you power a "permanent moon base"?

How do you build a solar/battery system which can reliably store power for two weeks without a recharge?

How do you recycle water in a remote location with infrequent replenishment?

How do you maintain air quality in the presence of dust and rising carbon dioxide levels?

The answers to all of those questions have considerable relevance to your concerns.

[Lex]

94. Right. Let's figure this out for Earth. Then the Moon will be all set

to power up.

[IndianaGreen]

7. We should put our money on scientific robotic missions

and put some real effort in identifying Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that can pose a threat to our planet. There are very few observation posts in the Southern Hemisphere.

[Dennis Donovan]

8. There's no "space-race" anymore...

As much as I support manned space flight, I hate to say we have much bigger fish to fry now. There's little reason, from a defense or scientific standpoint, to continue the Ares program - at least for the foreseeable future.

[WeDidIt]

10. I beg to differ

Both China and India would be able to surpass the United States in technology if we were to hault manned space flight.

[Dennis Donovan]

11. What technology HAVEN'T we mastered as of 2008...

...that other countries can?:shrug:

[WeDidIt]

14. None

But we cannot allow ourselves to fall behind in manned space exploration.

Space is perhaps the single best platform for military supremacy and allowing the Chinese to leapfrog ahead of us there is asking for trouble we do not want.

[Dennis Donovan]

15. I don't think China can mount a manned mission to Mars yet..

..or anytime in the foreseeable future. That's the only manned mission I can think of that we haven't achieved.

I don't see a problem with using Apollo technology (of course, with updated avionics;)) for our short jaunts to the ISS.

[WeDidIt]

22. Acheivement is insufficient

We must maintain supremacy.

I can see huge problems with using Apollo technology, not the leat of which being that it is far too dangerous. econd is, it's too costly. Ares is what the shuttle should ahve been.

No, this would eb a foolish move which is why I suspect this is disinformation being spread by a disgruntled NASA administrator.

[Connie_Corleone]

9. I'll wait and hear it from the Obama team directly.

Wasn't there a report of NASA not giving information to the transition team?

[WeDidIt]

13. That's why I included "if this is true".

It could be disinformation from disgruntled NASA administrators.

[thewiseguy]

12. So does he plan to cut military spending?

Or would it just be NASA? :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

21. no of course not. silly you.

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

49. Most NASA spending IS military spending

The percentage of the NASA budget that goes to actual science is notably smaller than that going as largess to Boeing and their ilk.

The underlying issue is that there is no real difference between missile technology and orbital launcher technology. It's just more appealing to build a Delta IV and say it's for weather sats as opposed to spy sats using the exact same tech.

[Buzz Clik]

16. This is a work in progress. NASA is making a pre-emptive news leak to save a program.

In reality, it may not be threatened, but they want public sentiment to oppose all cuts.

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

17. I've been a NASA junkie since the mid-60s

I got them to send me freeze dried food samples for my grade school science fair. I got up at odd hours of the night for blastoffs and splashdowns.

I nevertheless think NASA needs to be retooled, maybe rebuilt from scratch. It's too close to the heart of the MI complex. Give the actual science functions to NSF or Energy or Transportation, let the military do their own dirty work, and see if any NASA remains. While the romance of space is still there for me, manned travel outside cislunar space really has no urgency right now. Robots can do planetary science cheaper and therefore better.

[Phoonzang]

18. This is bullshit.

I was worried he'd do this, but I had a hope that someone who promotes science as one of their primary goals wouldn't tear up our space agency. I wouldn't mind scrapping Ares I, but Ares V is necessary to continue manned space flight.

[WeDidIt]

24. IT might not be true

It may be a disgruntled NASA administrator making a pre-emptive strike.

[Phoonzang]

28. Yeah....I'm hoping that's what it is.

I've been with Obama through all the crap of the last few months, but scrapping manned space exploration efforts may be the thing that makes me severely pissed with him.

[Recursion]

19. Lots of engineers were always skeptical about the reusable vehicle idea

Until we make a space elevator work, I wouldn't mind seeing us stick with rocketry.

[Canuckistanian]

81. The Russians toyed with a shuttle for a while

Buran, the Russian Shuttle


But they ultimately rejected it because of cost, technological problems and the Columbia disaster.

Not to mention the astronomical cost of refurbishing an extremely complex craft vs. the disposable Progress unmanned transporters.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. The reality of a bankrupt empire.

We are trapped by our own follies of the last 30 years. Yes sure we need to be top dog in everything, after all we are Exceptional Americans, but the reality is that we are Exceptionally Bankrupt. We are spending more than half a trillion dollars a year to maintain our global empire. The accidental strategy that bankrupted the soviet union also bankrupted us, it just took our fabulous financial system 15 years longer to notice that it was dead. While we were gloating in Great Reagan's Triumph, we were bleeding out from the bottom up.

Quite frankly I don't give a damn about the shuttle or the ISS - they were both poorly thought out vastly overpriced status items. We can afford to continue our excellent robotics program, world class it is, and we should do so. Moon base to lob rocks down on other tribes? no thanks. Resurrect the capsule program for anything that really needs humans.

[jberryhill]

25. "NASA" > "The Shuttle Program"

This just in:

"Ford to discontinue Model-T"

[S_E_Fudd]

26. Very bad move if true...however....

It seems "inside sources" are wrong more often than right...

So I will reserve judgment

[alwysdrunk]

27. Huh! Like we have the money for this right now!

It's a shame, but of all the things that need funding, manned space flight has GOT to be low on the list. I don't like the fact that they are acting like we can't take a break and pick up where we left off.

[thewiseguy]

31. We blew 150 billion on AIG but we do not have 17 billion for NASA?

This is just painful.

I bet you the military spending will increase under Obama.

[alwysdrunk]

38. We didn't have that money either

That was damn near a heist carried out in broad daylight. Military spending will decrease if for nothing other that Iraq.

[Democrats_win]

29. NASA & Obama have been having a brouhaha. is bush's NASA corrupt?

If you've followed the news, you know they had a little fight the other day. So we need to take this article with a grain of salt.

Remember the first bush's super collider in Texas? The contractors were so corrupt that the Democratic congress canned it. Is history repeating itself? Is the bush NASA Orion project a big money pit of corruption? If so, Obama is obligated to cancel it.

[Seen the light]

30. Wait what?

Is this a joke?

[dorkulon]

32. I think we're too focused on putting humans into space.

The real future of space exploration will be robotic IMHO. There's really no point in putting a man on Mars when you can send robots to gather and transmit the info.

[GarbagemanLB]

33. Until we develop AI, and likely even then, human explorers will be far superior to robots.

[Phoonzang]

34. Indeed, a human could do in a day what it has taken

all the robots we've sent to Mars in the last 40 years to do.

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

37. If you don't count the expense, yes.

But you have to. So, no. You could do 60 Mars Rovers (820 million each) or more for the cost of one "low cost" Mars-Direct style Mars shot (55 billion, VERY optimistically).

I would rather that kind of money went to new technologies for power transmission, cheaper wind farms, improved solar PV and thermal projects, et al--and coincidentally, many of the same high-powered engineering minds could work there as well as on Mars or some such. Mars won't go anywhere in the meantime.

Let's get our infrastructure and economy squarely into the 21st century first.

[Runcible Spoon]

35. I wish Obama would demand deep cuts from the military budget..

then there would be plenty of money for everything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. That's good news.

The Shuttle was a boondoggle, and so is this Ares program.

[Horselover Fat]

39. the Turd who ran NASA for Bush is trying to extort Obama via leaks

He has been a real pain in the ass for the Transition team because he wants all his pet projects to remain active.

All the while, he allowed his own scientists to be censored by the Bush Admin.

He's more interested in cash dealings than science.

[Renew Deal]

40. I hope this isn't true.

NASA is one of those things that should never be touched. They do amazing work for science and education.

[GarbagemanLB]

41. Before he touches NASA he better cut military spending. Fuck this.

This better not be true.

[izzybeans]

42. Why feed and clothe our children when we can send robots to space?

[GarbagemanLB]

43. Why fund science when we already lag behind other developed nations? Look at NASA's budget compared

to almost any other agency budget, look at what NASA does with that money, and then try and come back and honestly say cutting funding to NASA is a good idea.

[izzybeans]

44. where did I speak of science?

This article was about a new space shuttle program.

[Forkboy]

46. If the money saved would actually be spent on food and clothes you'd have a point.

But we already have plenty of money to do just that. It's not a lack of funds, it's a lack of willpower. Taking it on the space program is silly.

[izzybeans]

50. I don't believe Obama would actually cut funding to NASA.

My guess is he'd redirect the funds within NASA - especially if this Shuttle program is operating on shaky grounds (i.e. through nepotism and graft building contracts - like every other Bush appointee led program).

[Posteritatis]

Because it's a one-or-the-other decision, right?

God, people on this site need to take a basic logic course. Or have the first clue about NASA's funding.

[GreenInNC]

45. NASA is a waste of money

We have far bigger needs that the space program.

[Vinca]

47. If NASA thinks their programs are so important, it would be nice

if they could tell us why. Especially why they're more important than health care, shelter, jobs and food. It seems the shuttle goes up, spends a great deal of time checking for damage to the craft, then turns around and comes back. Whoop-de-doo.

[Bill McBlueState]

51. NASA spends a lot of effort on public outreach

Here's a good place for you to start: http://hubblesite.org/

[Runcible Spoon]

52. I think it's sad that the American people don't value scientific enquiry and discovery anymore

It's a cancer that is infecting schools and universities, too. Our public education system is nothing more than an extended assembly line to create good little worker bees as the expense of intellectual development, critical thinking, creativity, and curiosity. Anything that doesn't have an immediate practical application, especially if it doesn't somehow benefit corporate interests, is thrown aside as some sort of indulgence and waste of money. This is tragic, and as someone who works in social science I have seen budgets slashed and entire fields deemed as having no viability or worth because of this attitude.

[Posteritatis]

60. At least try to have a clue about NASA before you bash it (nt)

[Vinca]

72. I didn't bash it. In fact, FYI, I've always been a space junkie.

My point is the average American doesn't have a clue what NASA does other than send shuttles up and send shuttles down. There's rarely anything in the news - print or television - about what they do. They might have a wonderful outreach program, but the point is to reach out to people not inclined to go searching for information and capture their imagination.

[Posteritatis]

74. Ahhh, okay

Fair enough, and I apologize for snapping.

I just have little patience for NASA-bashing around here and couldn't tell whether that was your perspective or (as you imply now) your take on the public's; discussions of it on this site and elsewhere always frustrate me.

I do think they could do a better job at reaching people, but I also have a little despair problem at times seeing so many people who are actively unwilling to be reached, who've decided that NASA Is Bad, build a quasi-religious certainty around that, and move the goalposts enough so that they don't need to examine why they're wrong. I try my best to reach the other ones when they start questioning it, but it seems that half the time I run into people who are unwilling, indeed fanatically unwilling, to consider that they're wrong, even when they start doing things like claiming NASA's budget is in the hundreds of billions or that it's only about weapons.

Sigh.

[backscatter712]

48. Perhaps this is a good idea.

Delta and Atlas have flown for decades, they've been incrementally improved over the years. Maybe it would be more cost-effective to build a new revision of them that is man-rated, then design an Apollo or Soyuz-style capsule for them.

Ares has had some engineering problems - they were worried about vibrations ripping the rocket apart, and exhaust blast from the rocket destroying the launch tower, or the rocket even crashing into the launch tower.

Take something that works and modify it for a new mission.

[rug]

53. One month in Iraq will pay for the Ares program.

Get the hell out now before they cut other programs.

[MadHound]

54. If true, this is another dumb Obama move

Sadly, it seems that those are becoming an almost daily occurrence.

[Joe the Revelator]

61. Why?

[MadHound]

63. Well, this seems like another way of trying to kill NASA,

Yet NASA has always more than paid for itself via benefits to our economy, our base of scientific knowledge, our society in general. It would be a shame to kill it at this point when we seem to be on the verge of doing some really interesting things.

As to why Obama is wanting to kill NASA(and yes, killing to Ares program would kill NASA), I don't know, perhaps he's listening to those anti-science folks, or those short sighted economic folks who hate NASA.

As to why Obama seems to be pulling off a bone-headed move almost every day, I don't know why either, perhaps we should ask him.

[Joe the Revelator]

65. I agree with your first point, disagree with your other two

I don't believe Obama wants to kill NASA. If I remember right I think we all thought that Bush's proposal to go back to the moon was kind of silly given the deficits we're working with. I think Obama is looking for a cost effective way to continue to progress.

[Thrill]

56. Hmmmm.Just last week there were reports NASA wasn't cooperating with the Obama transition

Now all of a sudden we have these so called NASA insiders claiming they know what Obama's plans are.

Sounds like more bullshit from the guys over there

[WeDidIt]

62. It could be true

or it could be that Obama's transition team has conferred with the actual scientists and engineers involved and have come up with a better solution than the currently planned replacement, too.

[boppers]

80. In a nutshell:

There are valid technical arguments to be made, and reasonable engineers can differ.

If NASA was managed in such a way that every new administration brought in a differing wave of scientists and engineers and decision-makers, we'd be re-starting things every 4 years, and that plain just doesn't work in the field.

So, there's a balance to be struck between making continual progress... and continuing down a dead-end road. Ares has problems (big ones), and valid arguments can be made from a number of perspectives on "changing solutions", or "fixing the problem".

Where there is a problematic culture clash is that Obama's style is to bring in voices, and build consensus. In fields like science and engineering, consensus is hard.

[suston96]

59. Adventures in space versus victory in Afghanistan? I can understand Obama's dilemma........nt

[Clio the Leo]

64. Are you afraid that the Ruskies are gonna beat us? :-) NT

[WeDidIt]

71. I'm more concerned about China and India surpassing our

technological capabilities.

From an economic standpoint, we need the advances NASA brings to our nation.

[countingbluecars]

67. I am OK with this for now as long

as Obama's team focuses on other areas of science. I think the money should go to working on global climate change and environmental science. As it stands right now we know more about space than we do about our oceans.

[zulchzulu]

68. I want a space program that can spy on what I had for lunch

Is Ares the "future"?

But from what I've heard, a lot of space launches are satellite programs sponsored by communications interests. Add that the Ares rocket systems crash a lot under computer simulations in fairly light winds... maybe it's a shitty design?

The Orlando Sentinel and various Web sites also have reported on low morale among engineers working on Ares and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The newspaper reported in its Oct. 26 story that during Ares' preliminary design review NASA "had to quell near-revolts by astronauts and scientists" concerned about some of the decisions being made by the program.

http://www.space.com/news/081029-ares1-rocket-update.html

[ddeclue]

75. WTF: Delta IV as a replacement for Ares????

:shrug:

As the official DU Rocket Scientist... that's like comparing a yacht to a supertanker...

Ares is a HEAVY lift vehicle designed to lift on the order of the Shuttle or Saturn V. Delta is nowhere near that nor is Atlas... MAYBE one of the last versions of Titan comes within the same order of magnitude but even then not the same thing.

My argument is KEEP Shuttle going, bring up Ares, and come up with a much more robust shuttle orbiter that doesn't take the structural shortcuts of the existing orbiter such as using aluminum instead of titanium and inconel. A much more robust orbiter could be built that had an underlying structure and skin of titanium and/or inconel on top of which you put the tile and RCC based thermal protection system.

The biggest deficiencies of shuttle 1.0 are IMHO:

a) Aluminum structure. Aluminum turns to pudding at about 500 degrees structurally speaking. Titanium is good to about 4 times as much and would withstand a Columbia style accident scenario much better. Inconel is a refractory allow that can take even more heat than that.

b) External tank/SRB configuration instead of a two stage to orbit system with a flyback booster and a piggyback orbiter with all tanks internal.

c) Needs a secondary power source on orbit besides fuel cell, i.e. solar cell.

Ultimately Ares is STILL a step backwards into the 1950's but we need an interim vehicle while a shuttle 2.0 is brought on line. Ares is a step backwards because it is NOT reuseable and uses a ballistic re-entry vehicle modelled on Apollo rather than a winged vehicle with a great deal more manueverability and options for re-entry. Many people don't remember the huge logistical effort that was associated with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo recovery.

In any event, with jobs being scarce, it wouldn't hurt to spend the money on NASA to keep people employed and build up some capability that we don't have right now.

Existing orbiters need to be retired because of safety issues I agree but I don't think we should go back to the past with expensive expendable boosters and parachute landings. Keep shuttle flying until Ares is available, start working on shuttle 2.0 and relegate Ares to unmanned launch in 10 years.

Doug De Clue
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Tech

[boppers]

79. Yay, somebody who knows the issue(s)!

What I think the core problem is comes down to this: Ares smacks of being a pet project, and has been arguably managed as such, rather than as a massive engineering undertaking. As a result, some pretty questionable decisions have been made (That much solids? Really? Not that it's *always* a totally wrong direction, but lets make sure those numbers are crunched right).

As I see it, this isn't really a "NASA funding Yes/No" issue, so much as a "Okay, we get it, the director loves solids, now lets see the engineering to justify the risk, or lets alter the current program(s) if, indeed, this was a case of bad decision making."

[ddeclue]

82. Solids are being used because they are cheaper than liquid rocket engines.

but Ares DOES have some problems that much is true.

[boppers]

85. One odd angle I heard:

That *increases* in budget, specifically for the purpose of not using solids, were also being frowned upon.

That leads me to wonder whether or not this is a monetary decision in the first place.

[ddeclue]

86. Of COURSE it was a monetary decision...

Booosh has been using all our money to fund tax cuts for the rich while fighting an optional war in Iraq. It's the same reason he didn't spend the money he should have on building up the NOLA levies prior to Katrina, etc., etc.

Doug D.

[boppers]

88. Point being:

Monetary decisions should have technical foundations and explanations.

For example:
"Reduced budgets mean that if we wish to continue manned missions, and use more solids, we will increase the estimated risk of death per mission by .1%"

That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is the following:
"We will increase the estimated risk of death per mission by .1%, regardless of current and future budgets, in order to use, and find solutions, for solids."

Obama's team asked for info on reduced budget, and expanded budget, solids, and other/new ideas, and met resistance for all options other than the currently existing plans. Maybe the current plans are good, maybe they aren't, but any engineer worth his salt should be able to open his work to critique, and be able to explain the decisions made and resulting trade-offs. NASA's apparently reluctant to do that, which doesn't make sense to me.

[ddeclue]

89. FACT based decisions from the Bush administration????

:rofl:

Really???

[boppers]

90. New sheriff in town.

:D

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

93. Delta IV Heavy...

Has a payload capacity of 25 metric tonnes or so, if memory serves. How many launches with a payload bigger than that are needed before the next gen shuttle? What are they for, if one isn't throwing money at a manned moon base or similar dog and pony expedition?

I think Ares is not only a step backward but a waste of resources, an unnecessary stopgap and sop to the defense contractors. A real 21st century shuttle is well and good for launching extremely large satellites and maintenance thereof, but the only reason I can see why Ares exists is for supporting manned projects that have no scientific purpose, but may have military intent.

[Blue_Tires]

95. great insights, ddeclue...

could you explain point B, please? i don't quite get it

[crimsonblue]

76. IMO, we should freeze NASA for 5-10 years

Don't get me wrong. I love NASA but we need to save the economy. NASA is not crucial to economic security. We need to stop playing in space until we can afford to. NASA is a luxury, not a necessity these days.

[thewiseguy]

77. NASA's budget equals 17 billion dollars

That is nothing comparing to how much we are spending in Iraq or on our military budget.

[ddeclue]

78. It's NOT playing...it's the kind of research and exploration we NEED to be doing

if we want to restore our competitiveness.

It's ALSO a way to keep people employed when there are otherwise no jobs.

Doug D.

[TheKentuckian]

83. Spaceflight, particularly MANNED spaceflight is probably

the best catalyst to most of our scientific development. Cutting funding to an already grossly underfunded NASA will put us further behind in our technological development. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for the returns the manned space program to our development. The same technology that will allow an astronaut to live on Mars, likely will help us clean our air or give us potable water where none is now. It will be the radiation shields that allow us to travel the solar system that may protect us one fine day from a gamma burst.
The rockets that can lift a payload to Mars may also allow us to redirect an asteroid that could wipe out life.

I support Obama going to an international model or nixing programs that just don't work but the truth is the space program is at least thirty years behind and cutting this meager budget would cost us 10 times what it saves in benefit to the economy. Whatever its failings NASA is the only net positive government program and I think it supremely stupid to do anything but to invest MORE into it.
Yes, we need orbiting habitats. Yes, we need to develop a base on the moon. Yes, fuck yes we need to carry our monkey asses to Mars ASAP. Doing these things would force us to invent to accomplish the goals and those inventions would propel us into a future greater than we can see from where we sit.

Sure, the whole shuttle plan was weak because of the waste involved and that it took the entire focus. Another Raygun hit job on what made America great. He was happy having something to put "Star Wars" up and scrapped the whole reason for the shuttle which was to support orbiting habitats and eventually launch points/docks for the next generation of manned exploration.

This was one of my larger concerns about Obama. Not once do I recall him speaking about our space program, I hope he is smart enough to understand that we must be one nation but one world is not enough for all of us. We need to spread out fast.

[ddeclue]

84. NOT to defend Ronny but...that's not an accurate reading of the space program in the 1980's..

The program under Reagan ran full tilt using the Shuttle to launch commercial payloads until Challenger in 1986 and Reagan called for a much larger space station than we have now but the Congress wouldn't fund it and kept downsizing it.

When Challenger happened, then the last 2 years of Reagan's administration were basically "spaceless" as the Shuttle was grounded. When it came back up, it came back up at a much slower pace and commercial payloads had shifted to expendable rockets with the Shuttle reserved for scientific and military payloads only.

[TheKentuckian]

87. Ok that's fair. I felt like he let it go and mostly wanted to ferry military shit around

and after Challenger I never felt like he was pushing the program as much as he surely could have. He beat the crap out of Congress and commanded the bully pulpit. I've always felt if he wanted to reinvigorate it and make it grow then it would have happened but I might be projecting on to Saint Ronnie unfairly.

[davidpdx]

91. I hope it's not true

While I've never been a science geek, I have followed the launch of the Space Shuttle since the first flight. I remember when I was about 10, my mom and I would get up at 4 in the morning to watch the shuttle go up.