The agency's budget proposal faces a rough ride in congress.
Last
week, the White House Committee on Science and Technology held two hearings to discuss NASA's proposed
fiscal year 2011 budget. More details on the proposed spending were also released earlier in the week.
Some
congressional members are questioning NASA's new direction, which calls for the Constellation program and the development of the Ares I rocket to be canceled,
and for the agency to rely instead on commercial rockets to ferry astronauts into orbit. These
members argue that such drastic changes could threaten America's leadership, and
the very existence of the U.S. human spaceflight program.
NASA administrator, Charles Bolden Jr., has said that Mars remains the ultimate goal of human space exploration, and that the new program is designed to make it possible to send astronauts there sooner. But even with an "infinite pot of money", he said, humans could not reach Mars within ten years.
The
concerns discussed during the congressional meetings focused on the plans' lack of a clear
objective, and the assumption that a commercial rocket is better than a
government built system, according to Aviation Week.
Bart Gordon, the democrat representative from Tennessee and chairman of the House science panel,
said he fears that the companies that take over U.S. crew transport operations will
become "too important to fail," and could require government
bailouts, according to the Aviation Week report.
Antonio Elias, executive vice president and general manager for Advanced
Programs at Orbital Sciences, one of two private companies that currently has
an agreement with NASA to develop a capsule to carry cargo to the space station,
says there is misinformation about the commercial industry. "We have the
technical capability because [private industry] has been building spaceflight
systems for NASA since the agency's existence," he says.
Elias's company has
been working on the launch-abort system for the Orion capsule, the crew capsule
being developed under the Constellation program. But Elias adds that neither
the government nor the commercial space sector can do their job by themselves.
"The government has the crucial and key expertise for spaceflight, and the
building of these systems is done by the commercial sector."
Some
congressional members are frustrated with the administration for not making a
plan sooner and for not consulting more outside experts. According to FloridaToday.com
the committee's top Republican, Representative Ralph Hall of Texas, called the
budget "ill-conceived" and said it provoked reactions of surprise,
frustration, and anger among NASA supporters.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
the China's astronauts lunar landing could happen within 8 years and seen on standard and 3-D TV by over 6,000,000,000 people worldwide: http://bit.ly/9Wtqzr
--
however, the Constellation program is wrong, flawed and TOO expensive: http://bit.ly/aK4KA0
--
and the new "commercial space" is up to FIVE TIMES more expensive than the Space Shuttle: http://bit.ly/aP70mi
--
as a consequence, NASA and USA will face a deep DECLINE and, soon, will be no longer a space leader: http://bit.ly/dpkPas
--
I've seen SEVEN years LOST (2004-2010) and $12 billion BURNED for the Orion, Ares-1, LAS, 5-segments SRB, etc.
--
but also the next 5 years will be LOST due to: Shuttle retirement, very high priced COTS-CRS cargo, unknown, expensive and very late "commercial" crew vehicle, very expensive and useless new engine, etc.
--
80% of the "new" NASA plan is WRONG exactly like the older one and those who have "invented" it will lose their jobs as happened to Mike Griffin and the Ares-1 "fathers"
--
--
Some Random Mistakes: why the "new" NASA plan is WORSE than the old one
--
http://www.newspaceagency.com/articles/02randommistakes.html
--
--
It's NOT a Blue Origin idea! ... http://bit.ly/d1KINH
--
Gaetano Mara...
03/02/2010
Posts:233
in my first article about Space, published in September 15, 2005 on my website [ http://bit.ly/9Ujztd ] and discussed on several space forums and blogs, I've suggested to to keep the Space Shuttle fleet in service but modify it to fly (also) CREWLESS
--
well, now, also Buzz Aldrin AGREES WITH ME [ http://bit.ly/aGmOrf ] saying "I also call for not abandoning the technology we've derived over the past 30 years of shuttle operations -- the first shuttle, named Enterprise, rolled out in 1976! -- but evolve the shuttle into an unmanned heavy lift booster."
--
and this is confirmed by my comparison between the Space Shuttle and the "commercial space" http://bit.ly/aP70mi
--
Gaetano Mara...
03/03/2010
Posts:233
Of course all this is academic: NASA would be able to do all these things if the US wasn't wasting money on a two-front war in the Middle East (Afghanistan/Iraq). Walk away from those destructive activities then the US will have tons of money to do constructive activities.
(p.s. Budgetary deficits from the Vietnam War was the main reason for the death of Apollo)
neilrieck
03/02/2010
Posts:42
and overall pace of change that favors
fast track leading global society in
science, applied science and technology,
unavoidably tilts toward a burning need
for a Federal Government's
overhaul of NASA.
The management structure that propelled
competitive missions with former USSR,shortly after its inception and later years,has had
little, or no major transformation that compart
with complex dynamics of changing time.
Era of new competitors should compel a re-think
of strategized and most sophisticated
program design, development, exploitation and
exploration. New NASA emerging from a management
overhaul, must and should at all times, handle and address issues, not less than ten years ahead of other competitors and other industrialized society's programmed visions.
Existing management team,after genuine
pivotal structural change,should remain with
NASA,but serve and act in capacity role of advisors only.
Federal Government in collaboration with new
NASA team, should set achievable and reviewable
ten year objectives, at the end of which period, serious achievable accountability is presented to United States Congress and the American public.
Except comprehensive transformation is undertaken,that is essentially, in line
with 'ahead of time' visionary changing
trend,and not, simply, a recircle of
processes, America's leading edge in
Space and planetary invention,exploration
and exploitation, for the benefit
of mankind and our global planet,
will be colossally elusive.
The Federal Government must act,
and act decisively,now and not later,to
restore the dignity, integrity and
leadership role of NASA in our scientific
and intellectual community.
Otherwise,we will all sit and watch
this same leadership advantage, enjoyed
by the United States for years, shift to
China, or other obscured nations, in less
than three decades from now.
A stitch in time closes any loophole and
saves any future embarrassing shock.
Martin Atayo
Washington, DC 20013
martinaatayo
03/02/2010
Posts:67