Lunar News Network

U.S. To End Moon Program

It's all over. The U.S. is getting out of the manned space exploration business. The Obama Administration has decided not to fund the Constellation program. NASA will not return to the Moon and go on to Mars and beyond. The dream is dead. From the AP:

The money in the president's budget is not enough to follow through with NASA's Constellation moon landing plan initiated by President George W. Bush. An aide to an elected official who was told of Obama's plans, but who asked that his name not be used because of the sensitivity of the discussions, said Obama is effectively ending the return-to-the-moon effort, something that has already cost $9.1 billion. [...] Obama is adopting the preferred option of a White House-appointed outside panel of experts last year. That concept includes reliance on a commercial spaceship, a space station that functions for five more years than planned, and a "flexible path" for human space exploration. That might mean trips to a nearby asteroid, a Martian moon or a brief visit to the moon, instead of the Bush plan for a moon base by the end of the decade. [...] So far NASA has spent $3.5 billion on Ares I and $3.7 billion on Orion and nearly $2 billion on other moon mission work.

I'm deeply disappointed that a president who finds billions of dollars for trains in California, Illinois and Florida (trains!) can't find billions for the U.S. space program, a proven investment. At a time when other countries have announced (and funded) ambitious manned space programs (and Moon programs) the U.S. is leaving the field. Quitting the game. Didn't Obama just say yesterday that he wasn't a quitter? What a difference a day makes.

Post-Apollo Blues

 

I've been doing a bit of traveling, so I apologize for the lack of posts. It's not due to a lack of interest, just a lack of time. I was actually out of the country last month during the anniversary of the Apollo landing and I really regretted that at the time. I say "at the time" because I'm not really sure I would have wanted to witness the media overload on all things Apollo when we are apparently at a moment when our country is about to turn against the ambitious plan George W. Bush put into place to return us to the Moon and then go on to Mars. Instead of signing on to this plan and providing for it in the budget (which would have been by far the easiest thing to do in political terms), President Obama created a non-partisan committee to provide recommendations on how NASA should go forward. Early indications are that this panel is charting a course away from the Moon, Mars and Beyond vision, at least according to this report in The New York Times:

A panel examining the future of the United States' human spaceflight program will suggest that the Obama administration may want to skip the part about landing on other worlds. That could, panel members said Thursday, enable the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to send astronauts to more corners of the solar system more quickly while keeping within a limited budget. But it would also eliminate the possibility of astronauts leaving new iconic footprints on the Moon or Mars for a couple of decades.

I can't deny that it makes sense for a new president to ask for an impartial assessment and to carefully examine options before going forward, but students of politics and history know that presidents create special committes and commissions when they need political cover to make unpopular decisions. And since there was little need for political cover to continue with the Vision as originally outlined, I can only conclude that massive changes are afoot and that Change Has Come to NASA, but it won't be anything like we expected. Do I sound pessimistic? I am. I think the writing is on the wall, and the likelihood of Americans standing on the Moon or Mars in the next 20 years has greatly diminished. I'd like very much to be wrong and for the committee to conclude that an ambitious and vigorous human space exploration program is warranted, but I don't see that as the likely outcome. Why can't we just fund the Vision for Space Exploration and call it a bailout? After all, it's worth far more to us in the long-term than cash-for-clunkers.

NASA Budget Announced

The budget news out of Washington is not good. President Obama's budget proposal has put the entire Constellation program and the Vision for Space Exploration - Moon, Mars & Beyond - on hold. They plan to fund current operations and the development costs for Ares and Orion, but the project review suggests that the future of the program may be in doubt. According to CNET News:

The Obama administration's fiscal 2010 NASA budget request includes $630 million in additional near-term funding for development of follow-on rockets and spacecraft needed for the agency's post-shuttle moon program, officials said Thursday. But most of the increase is from the administration's economic stimulus package, and projections through 2013 show a $3.1 billion reduction in overall funding for the program compared with 2009 projections. Unveiling NASA's $18.7 billion 2010 budget on Thursday, acting Administrator Chris Scolese said the Obama administration had ordered an independent review of NASA's plans to replace the space shuttle with a combination of manned and unmanned Ares rockets, Apollo-style Orion capsules, and lunar landers needed to establish research stations on the moon by the early 2020s. The new rockets are the central elements of what NASA calls the Constellation program.

This suggests to me that President Obama has not prioritized space exploration and that the ambitious program to return to the Moon and go on to Mars may be dramatically scaled back or even eliminated. Is it possible that the U.S. will no longer have a shuttle program or a next generation spacecraft ready to follow the shuttle? In this budgetary environment, I guess anything is possible.

NASA Budget Increases, Mission Unclear

 
I had a great deal of trepidation about the fate of the NASA budget leading up to the release of Obama's proposed federal budget last month. After all, in a time of great economic crisis and financial hardship, could the U.S. really afford to launch a major new initiative to return to the Moon and go on to Mars? As this report from New Scientist makes clear, Obama said yes, and refused to back away from Bush's ambitious Vision for Space Exploration:

NASA will stay on track to return humans to the Moon by 2020, according to an overview of President Obama's 2010 budget request released on Thursday. [...] But the budget request backs a plan developed under the Bush administration to retire the space shuttle by 2010 and develop a system to return humans to the Moon by 2020. [...] Under the proposed budget, the agency would receive $18.7 billion in 2010. Combined with $1 billion in funding provided in an economic stimulus package signed into law last week, NASA would get $2.4 billion more than it did in 2008. [...]The budget would also likely be a boost over 2009 funding levels. The agency's 2009 budget has not yet been settled. NASA has been operating at 2008 funding levels under a continuing resolution since October 2008.

In hindsight, I wonder if my trepidations was warranted? After all, dramatic cutbacks at NASA at a time when the shuttle fleet is being phased out would mean that the U.S., a leading spacefaring nation, would have to rely on other countries for access to space. That would have been untenable for national security reasons, to say nothing of national pride. Still, as this report from today's LA Times notes, the NASA budget increase does not mean that Obama has given NASA a new mandate and a clear focus:

During an interview, Obama said the first priority of a new agency administrator -- whom he promised to appoint soon -- would be "to think through what NASA's core mission is and what the next great adventures and discoveries are under the NASA banner." Until that happens, he said, the White House would delay any major policy decisions about the agency.

It would appear that the good news on the NASA budget has been overshadowed by Obama's reluctance to quickly appoint a new administrator, decide the fate of the shuttle program, and to commit to the Constellation program. I'm not sure what to make of it other than to note that my initial optimism based on the increased budget has now evaporated.

McCain Supports Space Program

Senator McCain has promised more funding for NASA and expressed support for the manned space program (Wall Street Journal - McCain Promises $2 Billion to Help NASA):

Sen. John McCain came to the space coast today and promised $2 billion to help NASA transition from the space shuttle to a new space vehicle. “I’ve always been a strong supporter of manned space flight and NASA,” he said in a community that is home to many in the field. “If I’m elected president I won’t cut NASA funds like Sen. Obama.” McCain aides noted that Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, had promised to pay for education programs by delaying the Constellation space program, which is meant to fill the gap to the next space vehicle, only to backtrack later. “My friends, we just saw the Chinese. We saw them in space,” McCain told an afternoon rally of about 2,000 people. “We’ve got competition. We’ve got to stay ahead. We will be the first nation to Mars.”

This report notes that McCain didn't mention how this would work with the across-the-board funding freeze he has also proposed. Still, the report is very encouraging, as is their evenhanded acknowledgment that Obama has promised $2 billion for the Constellation program. Could it be that both candidates will be kind to NASA?

NASA Budget News

The NASA budget made the USA Today newspaper today (NASA moon capsule plagued by budget problems):

Money problems will likely force NASA to abandon its ambitious internal goal of having a new moon spaceship ready by 2013, a top space agency official told The Associated Press Wednesday. The agency should still be able to meet its public commitment to test launch astronauts in the first Orion capsule by March 2015, the official said, unless national budget stalemates continue.

While I'm glad that USA Today is covering NASA, it's a shame that it's because of budget woes. At least the report is kind to NASA, the don't blame the space agency, they blame the political budget process. It's time for that grassroots activism again, let your representatives know you support NASA funding.

NASA Budget News

Some good news on the NASA budget (Space Ref - House Overwhelmingly Approves NASA Reauthorization Act) and funding for Ares and Orion:

Of the total amount, the baseline authorization of $19.21 billion will go to support science, aeronautics, exploration, education, space operations, inspector general, and cross-agency support. The baseline authorization represents only an inflationary increase of 2.8 percent over the FY 2008 authorization enacted in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The additional $1 billon is to accelerate the development of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), which will replace the current Space Shuttle. The additional funding will help narrow the projected five-year gap in the ability of the U.S. to get its astronauts into space after the Shuttle is retired.

Orion & Ares Delayed

Here is some unfortunate news to report (Space.com - NASA Chief: Budget Issues Delay Next Spaceship to 2015):

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told a Senate panel Wednesday that development of Orion crew spacecraft and the Ares launch vehicle will be delayed four to six months, pushing the first operational flight of the new system into 2015. Griffin said the slip is unavoidable in the face of a flat 2007 budget that denies NASA's exploration program about half of the more than $900 million increase it was seeking.

I'm worried that if these kinds of delays are happening now under Bush's "Vision-friendly" budget, what would happen under a McCain or Obama budget? If Orion and Ares get delayed farther into the future, say 2020 or 2030, then the U.S. space program would lose far more than just launch capacity, we would lose generations of technicians and engineers, to say nothing of our continued reliance on the goodwill of other nations to get to the space station we helped build.

NASA Spin-Offs

The Political Action For Space blog notes a new feature on the NASA website which highlights all the spin-off benefits that we have earned over the years by funding NASA. So, the next time someone asks what we get out of funding space exploration, you will have a ready answer.

International Space Spending

It will not come as a surprise to most of you to learn that many countries have ambitious space programs. This report (Guardian - Global space spending up 11 pct to $251 billion) follows the money and finds that the U.S. enjoys a sizable lead:

Revenues from worldwide government and private spending on space projects rose to $251 billion last year, up 11 percent from 2006 despite slowing growth in many countries, an analysis released on Tuesday said. [...]Combined U.S. defense-related spending totaled $45 billion, or 71 percent of U.S. government space spending. [...] China's civilian space spending may have totaled $1.5 billion in 2007, the Space Foundation said, calling this a conservative estimate. [...] Russian space spending rose 49 percent to $1.32 billion in 2007 from a year earlier, driven largely by increased investment in Russia's GLONASS global navigation satellite system, the analysis said.

Blitzing Politicians

In the latest edition of The Space Review Alex Kirk provides an overview (Blitzing Capitol Hill) of last week's effort by space activists who came to Washington to lobby members of Congress to support the NASA budget at this critical time:

If NASA and its budget—which represents roughly one half of one percent of all federal spending, and little more than 10 percent of the recent hastily-passed economic stimulus package—are to survive the next administration, Congressional support will be critical.

I really think those stats are the key to building and maintaining public support for NASA funding, as I doubt very much that most people are aware of just how small a percentage of the federal budget is devoted to NASA. If you ask people what percentage of the federal government is devoted to NASA and they tell you it's probably around 5%, this provides an opportunity to shock them with the "less than 1%" figure and then you can ask them if they would support a funding increase.

NASA Budget News

Some good news on the budget front: (Wired News - 2009 NASA Budget: Moon Missions on Track with Science and Climate Change Thrown In)

Yesterday, the White House released their 2009 NASA budget that Congress will amend, rework and hopefully pass by the end of the 2008 fiscal year. You can see some responsiveness to the science and environmental communities with increased dollars for the science directorate and two additional climate change monitoring missions added in. [...] Funding for the human lunar missions, the COTS program (which invests lightly in alternative commercial paths to Low Earth Orbit), and fulfilling our international commitments remained intact.

Narrowing the Gap

Here is a news report about the NASA budget, it also addresses the gap issue as well as growing international competition (Houston Chronicle - Refueling NASA):

Despite Congress' rejection of a billion-dollar funding increase for NASA next year, Texas lawmakers haven't given up the fight to increase the agency's budget. In a tour of the development lab for the Orion crew exploration vehicle at the Johnson Space Center, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, a Democrat, called for an additional $2 billion to speed up construction of the Orion and the Ares rocket system to launch it into space.

The NASA budget approved by Congress is just over $17.3 billion. The added funding is needed to shorten a dangerous 5-year gap between the decommissioning of the three aging space shuttles in 2010 and the first scheduled flight of Orion in 2015. During that time, the United States would have to pay Russia to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station using disposable Soyuz space capsules.

In laying out an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon and then voyage to Mars, the Bush administration ignores the risk of leaving the manned space program grounded at a time when China is gearing up for its own efforts to go to the moon.

NASA Funding News

Space.com has more details on the NASA budget situation (Senator Calls for White House Summit on NASA Budget):

Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), chair of the Senate subcommittee responsible for NASA funding, formally pledged Thursday to again work with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to increase NASA funding by $1 billion. Mikulski also called for a space summit with the White House to ensure NASA gets the support and funding it needs.

NASA Funding News

"The chairman of the U.S. House science committee said Thursday that NASA is headed for 'a train wreck' if the space agency isn't better funded to finish building the international space station and develop the next-generation spacecraft," reports the Associated Press (NewsMax - 'NASA Is Headed for a Train Wreck': Rep. Gordon). "The White House has cut NASA's five-year budget plan by almost $2.26-billion in the three years since U.S. President George W. Bush announced the 'Vision for Space Exploration' plan to develop new spacecraft to go back to the moon and then to Mars, said U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn. Gordon, chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, spoke at a hearing in Washington on NASA's 2008 budget request."