Welcome to Gaia! ::

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/01/national/w131129S58.DTL&type=science

Quote:
President Barack Obama is redirecting America's space program, killing NASA's $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon and using much of that money for new rocket technology research.

The moon plan, which NASA had already spent $9.1 billion on, was based on old technology and revisiting old places astronauts had already been, officials said. The previous NASA chief, in selling the old moon plan, had even called it "Apollo on steroids." The rockets were based on space shuttle boosters.

"Simply put, we're putting the science back into the rocket science at NASA," White House science adviser John Holdren said at a budget briefing Monday.

The $4 billion that NASA spends yearly on human space exploration will now be used for what NASA and White House officials called dramatic changes in rocketry, including in-orbit fueling. They said eventually those new technologies would be used to send astronauts to a nearby asteroid, a brief foray back to the moon, or the Martian moons.

The White House plan was short on details, such as where astronauts would fly next, on what type of rocketship, or when. However, officials were quick to point out the failures of the Bush administration's moon program, called Constellation. It included the construction of two types of rockets, Ares I and Ares V, and an Orion crew capsule. All were canceled. Shutting down the program will cost about $2.5 billion, NASA said.

Former President George W. Bush proposed the moon mission after the Feb. 1, 2003, space shuttle Columbia disaster that claimed seven lives — exactly seven years ago Monday.

Besides redirecting money to new technologies, NASA is getting an extra $6 billion over five years to encourage companies to build private spaceships that NASA could rent. Many of those companies are run by Internet pioneers. The companies included in the pilot project include Blue Origin, which is run by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Another firm already building private rockets is run by PayPal founder Elon Musk.

NASA will also spend an additional $2.5 billion over five years for more research on how global warming is affecting Earth, including replacing a carbon dioxide monitoring satellite that crashed last year. NASA will also extend the life by several years of the International Space Station, which had been slated for retirement in 2016. NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.

NASA said if the private companies work well on their unproven spaceships, astronauts could fly in them to the space station as soon as 2016. After the next five space shuttle flights, NASA will have to hitch rides to the space station on Russian rockets.

"The truth is we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a telephone conference call. "We were neglecting investments in key technologies."

Congressional officials howled over lost programs and jobs, but it is hard for Congress to save such a large program that is being cut with redistributed money.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., called the cancellation of the moon program the "death march for the future of U.S. human space flight."
I'm... not sure what to think of this...
Katyusha Rockets's avatar
  • 100
  • 0
  • 100
In b4 Hawkings-rage.
I mean, it's not like there's anything valuable on the moon. After all, we don't have a use for Helium-3!

Oh wait...
I'm not surprised. in fact I was expecting it. he has to cut funding and spending. Right now the moon is the least of Americas problems. he warned in his address to the nation that he was going to have to make some uncomfortable changes to reduce the deficit. I can see military spending being cut in the future as well. if it isn't then he's up to something because that is a logical step in his presumed plan. Cut funding to unessential services. Raise taxes, cut government spending ect. basically everything and anything to prevent the economy from collapsing. he never said it would be pleasant. stare
Quote:
NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.


Defense budget : $534 billion + a good chunk of the discretionary spending + new debt
Still though, it's not a bad thing since they'll be looking into new propulsion systems, chemical rocket are pretty much the lowest of the low.

Oh, and this

Quote:
NASA will also extend the life by several years of the International Space Station, which had been slated for retirement in 2016.


is very important, but they should make a new one since that one doesn't even have one of those spinning things and is cramped as hell, it's the year 2010, come on NASA
Amongst_many
Quote:
NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.


Defense budget : $534 billion + a good chunk of the discretionary spending + new debt
he can't reduce the military's budget until America is no longer at war. And he has to make sure they aren't going to make themselves look weak by doing it. it's risky business. I don't know if you noticed but America isn't too popular right now. You have to look at it from a global scale. As much as people want peace with other countries they are only doing so because they are looking in their own countries best interest. It's a dog eat dog world out there. If he shows weakness in Americas current state he's making them a target. he has to reestablish America position in the global entity before he can do that, give them some support from other global entities first. or America will be ripped apart in a frenzy. stare
wildblackfire
Amongst_many
Quote:
NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.


Defense budget : $534 billion + a good chunk of the discretionary spending + new debt
he can't reduce the military's budget until America is no longer at war. And he has to make sure they aren't going to make themselves look weak by doing it. it's risky business. I don't know if you noticed but America isn't too popular right now. You have to look at it from a global scale. As much as people want peace with other countries they are only doing so because they are looking in their own countries best interest. It's a dog eat dog world out there. If he shows weakness in Americas current state he's making them a target. he has to reestablish America position in the global entity before he can do that, give them some support from other global entities first. or America will be ripped apart in a frenzy. stare

Is a strong military really only meassured in how much money you can throw at it?
Just a thought.
On the one hand, this makes me sad. Space is awesome.

On the other hand, can't blame him. Bush's "Mars in 20whatever" was pure fantasy.
antaine
wildblackfire
Amongst_many
Quote:
NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.


Defense budget : $534 billion + a good chunk of the discretionary spending + new debt
he can't reduce the military's budget until America is no longer at war. And he has to make sure they aren't going to make themselves look weak by doing it. it's risky business. I don't know if you noticed but America isn't too popular right now. You have to look at it from a global scale. As much as people want peace with other countries they are only doing so because they are looking in their own countries best interest. It's a dog eat dog world out there. If he shows weakness in Americas current state he's making them a target. he has to reestablish America position in the global entity before he can do that, give them some support from other global entities first. or America will be ripped apart in a frenzy. stare

Is a strong military really only meassured in how much money you can throw at it?
Just a thought.
no, but realistically nobody can tell how strong your military is without going to war with it. people don't want to do that without at least a vague idea of what they're dealing with. Money means better equipment, more people, more training, more funding towards research for new weaponry. ect. It's the name of the game. you never let someone you're playing against see you're hand. only the raw you're putting into it. So they can't know exactly what they are getting into. It's a great deterrence for war. does it work? well has America been attacked? stare
Lieutenant_Charon
On the one hand, this makes me sad. Space is awesome.

On the other hand, can't blame him. Bush's "Mars in 20whatever" was pure fantasy.
I agree it is sad. But inevitable. sweatdrop
Damnit, Obama went down a few points in my book.
LightWarrior's avatar
  • 100
  • 50
  • 100
wildblackfire
Lieutenant_Charon
On the one hand, this makes me sad. Space is awesome.

On the other hand, can't blame him. Bush's "Mars in 20whatever" was pure fantasy.
I agree it is sad. But inevitable. sweatdrop


It's also probably inevitable we'll get to space and the moon some day.

I'm frustrated as hell with this...but on the other hand...we do need to get past chemical rockets eventually and find safer ways to get out of earth's atmosphere.

I'm sure Obama's a tad disappointed in doing this as well since it might slow the process of science and I know Obama seems to put an importance on education and the youth.
wildblackfire
Amongst_many
Quote:
NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.


Defense budget : $534 billion + a good chunk of the discretionary spending + new debt
he can't reduce the military's budget until America is no longer at war. And he has to make sure they aren't going to make themselves look weak by doing it. it's risky business. I don't know if you noticed but America isn't too popular right now.

Remember why we're not too popular right now? It's because we started two ******** wars. I think we'd actually win popularity by pulling out ASAP. In fact, I'm pretty sure we continue to lose popularity the longer we stay there.

wildblackfire
If he shows weakness in Americas current state he's making them a target.

We. Have. NUKES. We could take out every goddamn capital in the country right now if we wanted.

Believe me, nobody thinks we're weak.

Also:
wildblackfire
It's a great deterrence for war. does it work? well has America been attacked? stare

Well, do you SEE any tigers? It's all because of this magical rock I have.[/simpsons]

Also, yeah.
LightWarrior
wildblackfire
Lieutenant_Charon
On the one hand, this makes me sad. Space is awesome.

On the other hand, can't blame him. Bush's "Mars in 20whatever" was pure fantasy.
I agree it is sad. But inevitable. sweatdrop


It's also probably inevitable we'll get to space and the moon some day.

I'm frustrated as hell with this...but on the other hand...we do need to get past chemical rockets eventually and find safer ways to get out of earth's atmosphere.

I'm sure Obama's a tad disappointed in doing this as well since it might slow the process of science and I know Obama seems to put an importance on education and the youth.
See, if this is about "protecting our planet" when it comes to space exploration, I'll be pissed twice as much. Especially since Obama probably isn't going to be funding NASA to find a new alternative to it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff