		Site Map \| Contact Us \| Search:

JOIN

The Planetary Society Blog

By Emily Lakdawalla

Planetary Society Urges Congress to Endorse NASA Budget

Feb. 1, 2010 | 13:29 PST | 21:29 UTC

We need your help.
Please donate to support our blog, website, and podcast.

Weblog Archive

By Louis D. Friedman

The Planetary Society today issued a statement supporting the budget increase for NASA and the Administration's proposal to involve the commercial industry in human space flight. After reviewing the budget, we believe the new plan encouraging government, private, and international partnerships will allow humans to go back to and beyond the Moon faster and more realistically. We also were heartened by the strong support to Earth and space science in the new budget, including the authorization to re-fly the Orbiting Carbon Observatory and the full funding of the robotic Mars program. We will be calling on Members of The Planetary Society to urge Congress to support and appropriate the necessary funds for the new plan.

There is great deal of information (and misinformation) as well as political posturing going on with the announcement of the NASA budget and the new plans for human space flight. Members of The Planetary Society might like to watch the NASA Administrator's presentation at the National Press Club in Washington DC, live on NASA TV tomorrow, February 2, at 10 am Eastern Time. NASA TV is available online at nasa.gov/ntv and is carried on some cable services as well as on DirecTV and Dish.

Read The Planetary Society's full statement.

Post this page to:

Comments

What a breath of fresh air this is! To sort of quote Star Trek, NASA needs to again boldly go where no research has gone before, to improve the long-term sustainability of human space flight. What a relief, I am so happy!

#1 - Bob - 02/01/2010 - 14:02

The Society actually supports outsourcing our human spaceflight program to Russia (for now), and betting any future US capability on as-yet-nonexistent private sector rockets? I'm really surprised and confused by this.

#2 - Phil Mueller - 02/01/2010 - 14:09

I'm a bit ignorant of the American system here: is this one of those things that can be filibustered, or can it go through on 50 votes?

#3 - Surreyguy - 02/01/2010 - 14:16

Regarding Phil Mueller's comment, I'm not sure why you should be surprised or confused. TPS may be US based, but why should it be US centric when it has members from more than 125 countries? The Planetary Society is not about congressional pork or keeping Space Coast jobs... it's about engaging people of the world on space exploration.

#4 - Jorge - 02/01/2010 - 14:20

I am concerned that this is a lot of political double speak. There is no plan, no deadline and we are going to rely on non-existent commerial capablities. The HSFPC pointed out what we all knew that NASA is asked to do too much with too little. This is the wrong way to correct that. I am watching closely because I do value the Planetary Societies opinion but I fear this could be the begining of the end of U.S. human space flight.

#5 - KDH - 02/01/2010 - 14:26

Over the weekend I was concerned for what seemed like bad news for NASA and space exploration. Now after several hours after listening to the budget plan I do like the idea that the unmanned space craft and robotic missions will be a major concern and continue to grow. I am concerned with what will happen with the manned missions. With the programs going to commercial hands will it become a rich mans play area and after a few years what will happen with plans to go to the Moon and Mars. I also hope, in this case that the commercial ventures will sustain themselves and not have to be bailed out years from now.

#6 - Craig B Clark - 02/01/2010 - 14:40

great

Good to see the programs that deliver good science/$ are being prioritised over a wholly uninspiring, delayed, and over-budget Apollo re-hash. The commercial operators will be ready sooner than Constellation ever would have - and imagine the savings to be had from operating in the private sector!

#7 - Tim - 02/01/2010 - 15:11

As I undestand it, we have traded a concrete mission architecture for another debate about architecture. Constellation might have been over budget, but there is no guarantee that any future design will not exceed its budget. All that has happened is that the number of variables has increased; there are no guarantees at all that the private sector can come through. Unless Constellation represented bad engineering, it seems like it would have been cheaper to finish what we started.

As MSNBC put it, "Obama's budget promises a 'bold new course for human space flight,' but provides no details, such as where astronauts would go, in what ship or by when."

#8 - Michael Aidulis - 02/01/2010 - 15:16

Heavy LIft Capabiity Program -- Mixed Message

I can see a number of the trade-offs that fiscal constraints forced on this this budget. Some, like the continued emphasis on robotic misisons make a great deal of sense. Still, I'm confused about the direction of "heavy lift" programs. On the one hand some of the news outlets have been reporting the demise of the Ares rocket development, and on the other, NASA is talking about emphasizing heavy lift development.
Is this just a matter conflating the Ares with the Constellation program, or is something else going on?

#9 - mark edwards - 02/01/2010 - 15:34

For those worried about as-yet-developed commercial capabilities... none of the Constellation hardware exists either. There was the Ares I-X test, but it was so far from a full Ares I launch that it's not all that telling- though I was impressed by that step. Similarly, this spring, SpaceX should test their Falcon 9 rocket. They predict that they could astronauts into orbit before Constellation would have.

Regarding the heavy lift vehicle development, paired with commercial investment for crew launch, to me this budget amounts to a cancellation of Ares I. The new HLV would eventually replace Ares V, and be capable of getting us out of Earth orbit and to destinations beyond. But the new HLV program is not to rely too heavily on old technology. Why use 40 year old technology for a mission that won't happen for another 20?

#10 - Justin - 02/01/2010 - 16:53

Heavy-Lift follow-up

I echo Mark Edwards' confusion. NASA's overview calls for $3.1bn over 5 years for "Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D...R&D for new launch systems, propellants, materials, and combustion processes."

On the one hand, $3.1bn seems a lot for R&D without a product to show for it. Could this be a veiled reference to the "Ares V Lite" alternative mentioned in the Augustine report, or the human certification of existing lift vehicles mentioned in the budget report? It's just too hard to penetrate the political double-speak.

#11 - Michael Aidulis - 02/01/2010 - 16:57

Executive Director

To anyone who is confused by the American system -- we all are. But I imagine that can be said about all countries' decision making processes. Yes - Congress will have to act on this proposal and the outcome is not certain. To those who do not want change from the present Constellation program I think we must face facts that it has been judged unsustainable, and that is what not going to get any more money. It would not have had a rocket to get to the Internaitonal Space Station and its likely Moon landing would have been delayed beyond 2026. So the choice is not what we wished Constellation might have been or something new, but what Constellation had become or something new. The new plan puts more funding and more resources (commercial, international and technological) into human exploration beyond Earth orbit. Maybe it too will turn out to not fulfill its promises -- but it is our best shot, and I hope we can all get behind it.
Thanks to all those who comment -- there is a lot to think about and we appreciate your thoughts.

#12 - Louis Friedman - 02/01/2010 - 17:30

We must support space exploration. We gain knowledge and international cooperation.

#13 - Nader Ajluni - 02/01/2010 - 17:45

Are you out of your minds? This does nothing to sustain human spaceflight other than farm it out to others who have neither demonstrated any capability to perform or the inclination to do it safely. Cheaply, yes. Safely? Maybe. Doing this without giving the FAA/NTSB more bite is a recipe for disaster.

Earth science is fine, but why isn't NOAA conducting more Earth science, especially with regards to planetary climate change? Let NASA work on solving the scientific and technical challenges of living in space.

As far as robotic missions to Mars, how much more do we need to learn about it via robotic explorers? What mission would you send next? How many times can you sniff around the same dirt hoping to find signs of previous life? Unless you really step-up the scope of robotic explorations, and the frequency at which they occur, you're going to do nothing but put people to sleep.

It will take us 20 years to get to the point of sending astronauts anywhere but the space station, and it looks like we'll contract that out to the lowest bidder.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the most uninspired course ever set for NASA.

Guess the Planetary Society's goals and mine are different; maybe it's time to look at other organizations.

#14 - Maverick - 02/01/2010 - 18:04

Mars or Bust

The moon should not have been the target for NASA. Money can be spent on a manned Mars mission.

#15 - Kristina - 02/01/2010 - 18:48

A brave face?

It sounds like there is acknowledgement from the advocacy groups that the budget was a mixed blessing, but that any increase in the current economic climate is an achievement. What is missing from this makeover is the reason for the failure of Constellation to stay on track. Was it a victim of institutional bloating, and if so, is the FY2011 budget the shake-up that NASA has been requiring for decades? Ares I-X may have been a mere shell, but it was airborne. Much was hailed about its 10x increase in safety over STS. While the new budget stresses "NASA will ensure that all systems meet the agency’s stringent human-rating requirements", they don't say whether 10x is still desirable or attainable with current funds.

A lot now rests on the private sector. It sounds like they will be asked to extend their reach from sub-orbital tourism to astronaut orbital rendezvous. That is a gigantic leap to ask of any new company. There is some irony here, in that they originally took this route with the X-15, but it was supplanted by the realization that heavy-lift rockets were the only way the USA could reach the moon by 1969. I bet there are some retired X-15 test pilots giggling right now.

#16 - Michael Aidulis - 02/01/2010 - 18:52

Phil, you must be confused. US has current launch capability. How do you think mars rovers, and countless others satellites and probes got to where they are ?

#17 - kert - 02/01/2010 - 19:19

I'm disgusted by this weak body that has whined about Human Space Flight and is so desperate to see it end that they are willing to support an Obama plan that kills the NASA engineering program and hands over the crown to the Russians and Chinese. Hang your heads in shame...not that anyone cares what the PS think, and Congress will deal with Obama.

#18 - James Harris - 02/01/2010 - 19:32

I watched the PlanOrg movement on this from the release of its trendsetting document, over the Augustine Commission's work, to this happy conclusion. (Well, modulo the congress critters feeding cycle.)

Heartfelt congratulations, who knew grass roots could support this much positive change. Onwards and outwards!

#19 - Torbjörn Larsson, OM - 02/01/2010 - 22:49

My concern is that Constellation failed because it was too new and ambitious- 2 new launchers, 2 new solids, 3 new engines, and 3 new cryogenic stages plus a moon lander.

So now they come back with something that leverages existing assets and knowledge even less. It seems to me that a bunch of pie-in-the-sky high tech research projects are a recipe for cancellation when complications arise and budgets are exceeded.

#20 - Lab Lemming - 02/02/2010 - 01:36

I may be changing my mind. I would encourage everyone to read more about where the money is going. There are a lot of great programs that will get funded. And if the commercial sector does take off, this could be great in the end. NASA will have a lot more capability and many of us normal people will have a chance to go to orbit. However, if the commercial sector does not take off, this will be a train wreck.

#21 - KDH - 02/02/2010 - 08:43

It's a shame that we won't be directly involved in returning to the moon anytime soon, but Constellation just wasn't being cost-effective. I do, however, think that putting the challenge of ISS transit to the private sector is the best thing NASA can do - give business money and a reason to build rockets, and they will build rockets. Not only does that take the heat of success and failure away from government spending, but in a couple decades human spaceflight could become nearly common.

#22 - Greg Pretti - 02/02/2010 - 10:46

Human spaceflight deserves more than a tech study

After doing some background reading, I discovered how much the PS abhorred the VSE on the basis that it sacrificed several robot science missions to the goal of returning people to the moon. The salvos became personal, and perhaps that is as it should be, but now I understand why unmannedspaceflight.com have banned the debate entirely, and why Mike Griffin just closed his ears. After joining the PS on the assumption that it supported human spaceflight, I was disappointed to learn that the PS stated it would be better to defer human spaceflight to some future decade if it came down to a choice between missions like Cassini and humans to Mars or humans to anywhere.

I am dying to see what's inside Europa. I'd hate to make that choice. I would cut that last. I occupy the middle ground that accepts robots as better for some missions, and humans for others. But one human mission beyond Earth orbit is worth to me twenty robotic missions for its sheer life affirming significance, and yes, my vote goes to science as a byproduct of exploration. Science without exploration is merely interesting. It sells us short. 1972 was the year I was born, the year they grounded Apollo. I want science. We need science. But give me one human mission BEO. Show me just one.

#23 - Michael Aidulis - 02/02/2010 - 14:19

Very Disappointing

Obama's new budget effectively canceling the Constellation program is very disappointing. The fact that the Planetary Society supports it is even more so. The Constellation program was as necessary to further human exploration of the solar system as Gemini was to Apollo. Constantly switching directions has left NASA's human spaceflight program permanently stuck in Earth orbit for the past 38 years. We've since started programs like the Delta Clipper, VentureStar, and now Constellation, only to cancel each program as it neared any beginnings of maturity. If we cannot set a destination beyond Earth orbit, develop a program to reach that destination and stick to it, then we will surely go nowhere. I am now more pessimistic about the future of space exploration than I have ever been before.

#24 - Joe Brooks - 02/05/2010 - 12:57

I have a question here. I'm not American, but I love and have always followed all space related activities. NASA, the Space Shuttle, Orion, Apollo... those names mean more than just science and human exploration. It's the passion I still keep since my childhood. I feel sad for the cancellation of Orion and the fact that soon there will be the last flight of the Space Shuttle and I never had the chance to see it live. But I mean, this means NASA (actually America) will step aside and will lose a space vehicle and will have to use other nation's vehicles spending money for those flights. It's not a politica thing for me here, but America will lose for sure the possibility to go to the Moon before China, for example. I do understand, however, that the economic situation requieres some cuts as President Obama proposed. I only wish we all spent less on weapons and more on science.

#25 - Luis - 02/05/2010 - 22:00


Name

E-mail (Will not appear online)

Title

Comment


To prevent automated Bots form spamming, please enter the text you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

This comment form is powered by GentleSource Comment Script. It can be included in PHP or HTML files and allows visitors to leave comments on the website.

Emily's on Twitter! »