Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

[Coyote]

VASIMIR has a power source, it's just one that is not politically acceptable. Nuclear reactors are a good idea, but the nervous-ninny public who still thinks a nuclear power station will "melt down then blow up with the force of eleventy skillion Hiroshimas, etc etc) makes putting nuclear reactors in space a non-starter. (Yeah, I know: " ")

Also, as an aside... not too long ago I recall there was an experiment where someone was trying to make anti-radiation shielding by creating a portable magnetosphere machine of some sort. "Portable" was relative; it was the size of a car or something-- does any one else remember something like that? Or the name of it?

[MKSheppard]

Going to the NASA Budget Documents for the past couple of years is interesting reading:

FY 2009 (Multi-Megs!!!)

FY 2010 (This one is like 10~ MB!)

You can see how in FY2009, Bush's plan was:

Ares I (Crew Launch Vehicle): to rise from $880 million in FY07 to $1.4+ billion by FY13.

Ares V (Cargo Launch Vehicle): From a start of $35.7 million seed money in FY2008's budget, it would grow grow to $1.2 billion by FY13.

But when you consult the FY10 request; Barack Obama's first Budget as President -- it's a totally different look.

Ares I (Crew) funding in FY09 was $1 billion, and was expected to rise to $1.9 billion by FY13; and $2 billion by FY14.

Ares V (Cargo) funding was $30 million in FY09, and it was not to rise above $25 million even out to FY14.

What's also interesting is that Commercial Cargo funding was to be zeroed out over FY10 to FY11.

Very interesting looking at those budgets.

Obama zeroed out funding on Ares V, changing it from a program that was about to spin up, to just a bunch of guys sitting around with 3D renders; increased funding to Ares I, and then was going to kill COTS.

Then a year later, he kills off the Constellation program, and increases the funding for COTS to $800 million in FY11, to grow to $1.2 billion by FY15.

If there's one thing that's going to kill us; it's this damned inconsistency year to year -- we not only need a cohesive space plan, but the will to stick to it through multiple administrations, rather than starting-stopping-starting through multiple programs which never get anywhere before they're cancelled in favor of a "newer" approach which will in turn, get cancelled a couple years down the line.

[Temujin]

Quick post as I run out the door for work.

As it was inspired by this thread, I thought about submitting an op-ed on this subject. I feel its close to finished, but could use some polishing. So I'm sticking my neck out here and asking for editorial critique. Please be gentle.

The recent furor over President Obama’s alteration of NASA’s future plans for manned space flight has exposed the gulf that exists between ideological nostalgia for past glories and unrealistic dreams of the future. Manned spaceflight is an expensive and risky endeavor, especially missions beyond low Earth orbit, which has not been attempted since the early 1970s. Yet despite the rhetoric and the rage, there are certain truths that must be acknowledged in the formulation of any future manned space program.

For those who say that we should ignore the Moon because we’ve already been there, or because other nations may get there before we have a chance to return, they are ignoring the facts that:
1. We wouldn't just be going back just to visit, we would be going back to establish a permanent presence.
2. The Moon is a great local source of many of the resources we will need to establish a permanent presence in space.
3. Scientifically speaking, there is so much more for us to potentially learn from the Moon.
4. The far side of the Moon provides a great location for astronomical observatories (both optical and radio).
5. The Moon is a perfect training environment for future manned space exploration as it is closer, and thus less resource intensive, as well as close enough to facilitate a potential rescue in the case of an emergency. This is especially true as we haven't really done anything like Apollo since Apollo.

And while we certainly should plan on going to Mars (we should also plan on exploring the Lagrange points and near Earth asteroids), when we do go, like our return to the Moon, it shouldn't just be because we can, it should be because we're going to establish a permanent presence there. A trip to Mars, in the vein of the Apollo Program, simply to plant a flag and perform scientific research more easily done by robots, and not establish a permanent, sustainable infrastructure would just be a colossal waste of the time, effort, and resources expended, not to mention the risks involved, to get there. The public would quickly adopt a “been there, done that” attitude, much like what happened after the initial Apollo landings, and support would dry up.

And in the case that something goes wrong and disaster strikes, both the public and the media will decry the dangers involved in manned spaceflight, questioning the continued wisdom of risking lives, just as was done after both the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

Finally, we desperately need to get out of the mindset of the 1960s. It is not important for us as a nation to be some independent space exploration superpower. Space exploration is not a trivial or inexpensive undertaking. It’s a luxury few nations can afford to do at all, and those that can, certainly can’t conquer space alone. Only by working together as a species will we make any meaningful inroads into space.