Neil Armstrong Blasts Obama's Space Plan

The Orion portion of the project has, in fact, been revived. Presumably the US will (eventually) have the means to get to the ISS without hitching a ride in someone else's vehicle. The hysteria can die down a bit now.

As for more grandiose manned space exploration - I've learned that's a hot-button issue on CR4.

How many capsules will they really need?

One for the space station. One as a backup. And one for the Smithsonian Museum.

This will change again in 3 years.

"Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity."

I have been of the opinion that Americans have been striving with supreme tenacity and unprecedented effort to achieve that glorious goal of MEDIOCRITY for some time now. It thus seems logical for me that current political philosophy finds such heroic efforts as the space program to be redundant...

Americans lacked rocket thrust capacity and resorted to miniaturisation, while the Russians excelled in thrust capability. But for the animosity between the two super powers, the world at large, nay humanity itself, would have benefited from a marriage of the two capabilities. The human race itself would have been able to explore deep space in a much greater measure years ago compared to the feeble and futile rivalry as of now.Besides waste of precious earthly resources using immature technologies at the cost of depriving 70% of humanity of basic necessities of food and shelter, both the super powers are guilty of not utilising the tremendous "Brain" power of the rest of humanity!! It is only the "hungry" creature that uses its limited resources in the most cost-effective manner, rather than a "super satiated" creature, which may only want to pamper itself.

Obama is right in trying to get the "over paid" and "Super satiated" scientists to come up with more bang for the buck. Americans and the Russians will do well to rope in talent from the rest of humanity by sharing their problems and seeking solutions from the whole of humanity instead of arrogating themselves as repositories of technical prowess.

Nay, for the rest of humanity and the welfare of America and Russia also!!----if only they'll learn to listen.

The only problem with the Obama budget is that it leaves the technical decisions up to the leadership at NASA. And there is none.

NASA has been doing the shuttle for 30 years, and the ISS for 15 and is used to being told what to do and how to do it. Now that the president has given us this incredible opportunity (a $100 billion windfall from the cancellation of Constellation to put to use in developing new engineering and technology) no one has the balls or brains to come up with a plan.

My humble argument is that there's no plan because...well...there is no viable plan to be had.

That's the crux of the problem. We can wave our little flags and slap ourselves on the backs and say "We're going to MARS!" all we like. But the grim reality is that we're not quite there technologically and we're certainly not there financially. And for a variety of reasons, we're not there politically. It seems likely this would increasingly become (as it already has, apparently) yet another manufactured wedge issue between ideologues.

Until proven otherwise, I see this latest speech as just political fanfare designed to take the edge off of serious criticism directed at President Obama's cancelation of the Constellation program.

The reason is just what you cited. It contains no plan, we are just smoking "hope".

The people criticizing the cancellation of Constellation are the ones smoking "hope". Anyone familiar with Ares I knows the problems with that program. It had turned into a black hole sucking resources from everywhere, including Ares V and Altair.

Engineers are a conservative lot who

1) don't like change, and

2) don't like democrats

I wonder, if Bush had asked the community 8 years ago, would you rather

a) spend $100 billion to go to LEO and back to the moon using Apollo and shuttle technology from 30-40 years ago, or

b) spend $100 billion on developing new space technologies that can take us to Mars and beyond

what would the community have said to that? Bush would have been hailed as a visionary. Instead we got an underfunded vision for an unexecutable mission.

Where was Armstrong when the shuttle was canceled? Where was Armstrong when the funding for Altair was lost? Where was Armstrong when the Ares V was delayed year after year? Where was Armstrong when program after program was canceled to to keep Ares I afloat?

All good points.

However, we see a lot of start - stop - start - stop activities at NASA and NASA just keeps getting blown around in the political wind.

This latest cancellation is just more of the same. What a waste. I would have been a little more impressed if there was actually an open and comprehensive debate or study brought forward on the subject with the goal of building a tangible plan for the future.

Then again, that's the difference between a manager and a leader. Managers spend most of their time trying to determine the best way to execute to plan. Leaders are driven by vision and good leaders know how to rally others around that vision.

Community organizers ... I won't go there.

I think the public and the government leaders have just become bored with space and are happy only when it is a convenient political football that can be kicked around.

Right now, national pride seems to be a taboo thing, so it is going to be very difficult for us to take the lead on anything.

The biggest problem is not the lack of a plan, but that we get a new plan every year. Apollo had the advantage of being a 10 year plan. As soon as we hit the moon, we reverted to year by year planning which lead to the cancellation of Apollo and the hobbling of the shuttle.

But you make a good point. The X-38 was a crew rescue vehicle - exactly the same mission as the "Orion-lite" is supposed to fulfill.

I wish we could have a plan outside of control of Congress, with a multi-year budget allocation. Congress would do us a huge favor if they would just say "Mars in 2030, budget to stay at the current % of the federal budget". And then go away and leave us alone.

We're not there yet technically, which is why we need a plan. We need the administrator to come up a few dozen technology development projects that will allow us to create the next generation of space craft. A quick list would include:

ion propulsion

VASIMR propulsion

nuclear power generation

in situ resource

telerobotics

autonomous rendezvous and docking

on orbit vehicle assembly

greenhouse / food production

spacesuit design

inter-planet internet / communications

ground vehicle development

mars lander / mars flier

inflatable habitats

etc etc

Some of these are already being planned, and I expect that many more will be. I just wish some of the space center directors would step up to the plate instead of wringing their hands and looking lost.

"My humble argument is that there's no plan because...well...there is no viable plan to be had".

I see the primary obstacle more as a lack of commitment than lack of a plan. When JFK made his announcement for a manned moon effort in 1961(?), there wasn't much of a plan and the technology was sorely lacking. And there was plenty of political debate over spending so much capital on space travel.

In the end, we got there because of a commitment. The plan and technology followed.

Maybe a better word is "goal".

Yes, I agree - lack of a "goal".

Leads me to wonder where this privatization scheme can lead to, since the primary goal of a corporation is to generate profit rather than to expand human frontiers.

I don't understand. Private industry put man into space and on the Moon. It was all done with private enterprise working under the direction of NASA. So what has changed? Is Obama saying that NASA is no longer in charge? Everything will change again after the next presidential election anyway.

The only difference is that the COTS companies are running on private cash plus NASA cash, instead of just NASA cash. The COTS companies are also designing to their own spec, not simply implementing a NASA design, as has always been done in the past.

Don't expect the COTS program to change. By 2012 they will have either shown their capability or failed miserably, or both. COTS was begun under the last admin, and will carry on under the next.

The administration has failed to communicate, to my knowledge, what is meant by "commercialization of space exploration" and I too am confused as to what will be done differently. Since NASA has recently awarded development money to several private space ventures, I speculate that more of the R&D will be turned over to industry with less direction from NASA.

For lack of better information, I am drawing parallels to development in the alternative energy arena. A slow process led by private enterprise (in the US). Maybe more is to be gleaned from NASA public information?