What the media is saying isn't the whole story, from what it looks like right now. Our manned space program is not ending.

What Obama is supposedly doing (although he has not spoken publicly on it, and the budget request doesn't come out until tomorrow) is canceling Constellation - namely the Ares rockets and the moon landing.

However, this is not necessarily a bad thing - it's been coming for awhile now. The moon landing wasn't happening regardless, not under the plan that was in place. The lander was defunded months ago to free up extra money for Ares I and the Ares V, the heavy-lift vehicle required to get there, wouldn't even start development until after Ares I flies - which is at least 7 years and 15 billion more dollars in the future. Without a heavy lift, we're not going to the moon.

Ares I needed to be canceled. It was inevitable. It was such a poor rocket that it was behind schedule and way over budget - so much so that it was taking away from other programs. It's already cost 9 billion but it could cost 15 billion more before it's over. If we stuck to Ares I, it would be 2017 at the earliest before we could get it flying - thus we'll spend the next seven years developing a launch system to low earth orbit that is less capable than what we have now. Especially since Ares I keeps showing more and more underperformance - thus can carry payload weight - forcing the Orion capsule to keep getting stripped down. I wouldn't call that progress.

What seems to be happening now is a shift of programs to the development of a shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle (HLV). The idea is almost exactly one of the rockets proposed by the DIRECT team (a "hobbyist" group of engineers that led an effort on their own), and bears resemblance to an earlier Ares V concept. Essentially, it will be taking a shuttle external tank, lengthening it and adding a skirt with engines on the bottom, adding the SRB's to the sides, and putting the payload on top. This vehicle will not only have the capability to launch somewhere in the range of 100 tons to orbit, it will reuse the existing shuttle infrastructure - thus allowing it to be developed faster and cheaper.

Many space enthusiasts are excited about this - what NASA really needs right now is a heavy lifter. We're not getting anywhere outside of low earth orbit without one. Under this plan, we can actually develop a HLV much sooner than we would under Constellation. Right now they're looking to have the first test flight in late 2012 - that's not even three years away.

Meanwhile, the plan seems as if it will call for use of commercial services to reach the ISS. That seems fair enough - it will likely be cheaper and available faster. SpaceX's Falcon launcher and Dragon spacecraft will be ready to fly in a few years - long before the Ares I ever would be. It will nicely satisfy our needs for getting to the ISS and other low earth orbit destinations while we develop the HLV to take us further.

This launch architecture enables us to take a "Flexible Path" aim, meaning it's capable of going to many destinations. Plans for visiting an asteroid and Phobos (moon of Mars) are being looked at. In the future, it can be expanded to include things like lunar landings. While it is disappointing to see the moon wiped off the table as a destination right now, in reality we knew it wasn't going to happen anyway. Right now I'd rather have the architecture without the destination rather than the destination without the architecture. At least we're going somewhere.

So I don't buy "Obama wants to kill spaceflight." That's the media writing a story without sufficient information. I wouldn't trust anything from Mike Griffin - he's one of the biggest Ares proponents and got us into this mess in the first place. While I obviously wish the president would do more to support space exploration (and this could be said of almost every president since Johnson), I'm pleased with this decision.

I just did some reading on this for the first time, and so far, I don't see it as such a horrible thing.

The plans appears to be one that will accelerate the United States in other areas in terms of space technology by nixing a trip to the moon, which we've already done, and planning our next big leap.

It also provides funds to observe the earth in more detail in terms of evolution, growth, and climate change.

I just don't see how this is such a terrible thing, from what I've read so far.

_________________
Wheelhouse

It isn't. It is partisanship. If Obama had fully funded the Constellation program we would be here discussing his fiscal irresponsibility in spending money on going to the moon while we have 10% unemployment.

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

I'm not sure what to think yet.

Canceling Constellation was a good thing.

I'm not sure about the future plans, well moreso the lack thereof.

Constellation needed to be canceled - it wasn't going to work under reasonable circumstances. It would take years and years to accomplish what should have been done much quicker and cheaper.

We'll see how commercial works out. If the last 5 years have taught us anything, it is that NASA should not be building the launcher. I still thought they should have control of the spacecraft and integration, but it's very plausible that it can be done better commercially.

What worries me right now is the lack of a plan. There's been numerous references to designing an HLV - at this point not shuttle derived - but no real specifics and no destination. That is worrisome.

The next few months will be interesting for sure.

I may be mistaken, but I remember Bushy being the one talking about going to the moon and Mars. By default any idea that was Bushy's is a bad idea anyways. Some people have applied this theory to Obama prematurely, even though he has yet to have a good idea that the Repubs will play ball with. I don't see them going along with him anytime soon either, because bi-partisan is always talk, and talk is cheap. If the right agrees that the left has a good idea it makes them look bad. Politics is now an adversarial process, and that's bad for the people.

I'll try and sum this up for everyone real simple:

Left(liberal) is for progressive change.
Right(conservative) is for status quo.

You need both parties to make a change, therefore if there is no agreement, the right wins by default. It's like they play chess to get a stalemate, not a win. Zilla's damned if ya do or don't applies here quite well also.

I can understand the desire for a HLV, but is it too unconceivable to launch multiple shuttles at once, and put some shit together IN space? I mean, it sort of worked for the ISS

_________________

Depends on the scenario.

To assemble things in space? No. Like you said, we did it with the ISS, the Russians did it with Mir, etc.

To launch multiple shuttles (as in the actual space shuttle)? Not possible - the infrastructure is not in place to do so. The flight rate was originally supposed to be much greater but it never became feasible (or safe) to launch once more than every two months or so.

Multiple spacecraft? We'll see. I never could see Ares V launching within a few days after Ares I launched Orion - too many things could go wrong. With some existing rockets? Maybe. The range doesn't support it and the infrastructure isn't in place but it's always a possibility.

It does complicate things, however, as the more launches, the more things can go wrong.

But assembly in space will definitely be a requirement to go beyond earth orbit. Propellant depots at L2 would be a big development. But an HLV will be needed to make them feasible.

I would figure they'd do some sort of lessons learned thing after the fact, and build off that, making subsequent launches SAFER...

We've only been doing this for what, 40 years?

_________________