NASA Announces Innovation Initiatives With Fiscal Year 2011 Budget

[Moonwalker]

MEDIA ADVISORY : M10-017
 
 
NASA Announces Innovation Initiatives With Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
 
 
WASHINGTON -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will brief reporters about the agency's fiscal year 2011 budget at 3 p.m. EST on Monday, Feb. 1. The news conference will take place in the James E. Webb Memorial Auditorium at NASA Headquarters, located at 300 E St. S.W., in Washington.

NASA Chief Financial Officer Beth Robinson will join Bolden. The news conference will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency's Web site. Questions will be taken from media representatives at headquarters and participating field centers.

To watch the budget news conference online, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

NASA budget and supporting information will be available at 12:30 p.m., Feb. 1, at:

http://www.nasa.gov/budget


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_M10-017_Bolden_Budget_Rollout.html

[Admin]

I like that: "Innovation Initiatives" - >>> translation: "Let's pass the stick to entrepreneurs for LEO and Moon missions while NASA sends probes to Mars, Venus and Jupiter, and maybe a few more satellites on LEO or GEO"... LOL!

It will be a very cute press conference: NASA will probably describe this as it's OWN decision based on science, progress and future of the mankind, rather than a "suggestion" coming from the WH.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Yes. I think it is very likely that they will tell us that NASA won't build and operate manned spacecraft anymore, and instead, hand it over to commercial companies.

But it this really going to be good news or bad news?

Well, I had a few serious thoughts on it, and my conclusion is that we are actually going to witness a gain of great chances for the first time seriously. NASA has done great jobs in the past, but think about that this kind of big governmental monopoly prevented commercial space flight innnovation on the other hand. Many that left NASA disappointedly in the early 1970s due to the Apollo cut, including many Apollo astronauts, call for commercial space flight since then (some even founded companies). Because the Apollo cut was the first serious sign that it might not be the best idea to be dependant on politics. We all know that a government mostly isn't a good entrepreneur (not in socialism, not in communism, and not even in democratic systems). Just think about what civil Boeing and Airbus aircraft would have been without commercializing aviation, or rather would not have been...

NASA is doing wrong these days, well actually for decades already. And these days NASA definitely has entered a final deadlock. There is no way out obviously. The game is actually over already for years (to be precise: since STS-107). I think it is the smartest thing to renew or to actually restructure NASA. Let it support commercial companies, and let it work internationally like Obama obviously tends to favor. Why not? This will give us great chances to really innovate manned space flight and make it availabe for humankind in the long term. Because NASA wouldn't. It is just a big governmental body that eats lots of money and does prevent innovation outside. With the power NASA has, combined with several companeis and industries, manned space flight could become a lot more of what it is today, without the risk of governmental s****dity and program cuts.

After all, the cold war is over and we're now going to see a major shift in space flight anyway. Maybe we really have to go adrift a dead horse. Worrying about NASA might be like polishing the outer skin of the Titanic. Don't let politicians decide anymore whether humans should go to the moon or not. Let those decide who want this stuff: people, scientists, engineers and astronauts. Commercialization offers great chances. Politics just slaves scientists to budget and agendas...

[schmidtrock]

Here ya go Moonwalker.

"Obama also kills his predecessor's signature space program to return astronauts to the moon. NASA  had already spent $9.1 billion on the program, which was projected to cost $100 billion by 2020. Obama's new budget said NASA will be "launching a bold new effort" with an extra $1.2 billion annually for five years, money expected to be used to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecraft for the benefit of NASA and others. NASA would pay the private companies to carry U.S. astronauts. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_budget

[Moonwalker]

Yep. And the Fiscal Year 2011 budget report is available meanwhile, which says on page 18:

TERMINATION: CONSTELLATION SYSTEMS PROGRAM
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Administration proposes to cancel the Constellation Systems program intended to return astronauts
to the Moon by 2020 and replaces it with a bold new approach that embraces the commercial space industry,
forges international partnerships, and develops the game-changing technologies needed to set the stage for
a revitalized human space flight program and embark on a 21st Century program of space exploration.

Justification

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) initiated the Constellation Systems program
in 2005 to develop rockets, capsules and other systems to return astronauts to the Moon and eventually
send them to Mars and beyond. Initially, the first major elements of the program were planned to come
online no later than 2012. By early 2009, however, the program was behind schedule, could not achieve its
goals without multi-billion dollar budget increases, and was not clearly aimed at meeting today’s national
priorities. Costs for the program had grown by billions of dollars and the first elements of the system were
not projected to be available until 2015. In April, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that
NASA’s budget would need to be increased by about $2.5 billion per year to maintain current schedules,
and that even then the International Space Station -- scheduled for completion in 2010 -- would need to be
abandoned in 2016 to free up funding for Constellation.1

In May 2009, the Administration commissioned an independent blue-ribbon panel to review NASA’s
human spaceflight programs and plans. The review found that the Constellation program would not be
able to land astronauts on the Moon until well into the 2030s -- more than 10 years later than planned --
without large budget increases.2 The review also noted that investment in a well-designed and adequately
funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration, that increased international
cooperation could lead to substantial benefits, and that commercial services to launch astronauts to space
could potentially arrive sooner and be less expensive than Government-owned rockets.

In place of Constellation, the President’s Budget funds a redesigned and reinvigorated program that
focuses on leveraging advanced technology, international partnerships, and commercial capabilities to set
the stage for a revitalized human space flight program for the 21st Century. The President’s Budget will
also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work -- constrained for years due to the budget demands of
Constellation -- on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf

NASA will have to support commercial space flight in future indeed. And I don't think that this is entirely bad news

[schmidtrock]

Me either. I was excited about a return to the moon for nostalgic reasons linked to childhood memories. It will be interesting to watch the future unfold now though for sure. I just hope I'm around long enough to see something big happen.

[Moonwalker]

Well, having watched the State of the Union Address speech from Jan. 27, Obama said that he does "not accept a second place for the USA". This was related to economical, technological and ecological innovations.

To abandon Constellation and force commercial space flight innovations is part of his course. And meanwhile I think he is doing right, other than I tought still a few days ago. Constellation would have been the same, or an even worse millstone around NASAs neck than STS actually was (they already have spend more than 9 billion dollars on Constellation for almost nothing). And if you look at the NASA web page, they already have a new path which at least, sounds better than just to go to the Moon.

I can not wait to see the upcoming press conference...

[Moonwalker]

The statement of Charlie Bolden was done earlier than proposed on the NASA web page. So I guess most of us missed it. However, it is availiable as pdf:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011_Budget_Administrator_Remarks.pdf

Manned exploration is not dead at all. NASA gets more budget. And it indeed will be restructured and commercial space flight will be hugely supported. I think despite the bitter flavour of the Constellation cancelation, this is great news in the end. Compared to the course Obama puts NASA onto right now, Constellation was a dead horse.

Budget overview: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

[Dappa]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf

NASA will have to support commercial space flight in future indeed. And I don't think that this is entirely bad news

I don't think of it as bad news either, it is actually very good news. There will be some serious competition between companies for these commercial flights.

This probably gives us another space race, like 50 years ago but entirely different. It would involve parties competing for the best, cheapest and earliest solutions possible. It would involve a race to get out there and do it better than the others, like in the early sixties.
Unlike that time, we will most likely see more than two competitors, so a lot of designing and testing would have to be done by each competitor.
And the best part of all this? This time it would not be classified. This means we'll be watching everything from the front row. Some of us would be more in the front than others of course.

I would love to see a second space race.

[Huron_Serenity]

Apollo on Steroids has been replaced with a 21st Century Gemini on Steroids.

Assuming these initiatives develop the right skills, space exploration could be better off in the long-term.

[Moonwalker]

Apollo on Steroids has been replaced with a 21st Century Gemini on Steroids.

Nope. Instead, NASA gets the chance, for the very first time, to enter a real long-term path. We have to realize that those mega maverick projects like Apollo or STS do not work properly in the long term. We need way cheaper systems and steady innovation. Something that can be prerfectly achieved by commercial industries, combined with the highly skills of NASA and its requirements. It is a rather flexible path that is not bonded to a certain political agenda anymore. At the end, Constellation was based on the same political nonsense than Apollo.

[davidrobinsonjr]

As I said in my post on the "dead" thread. The whole thing is political. It will be even more so now. Companies will have to bid on government contracts. If you don't think that can be political, look at the replacement for the KC-135. How long has that been delayed. What do we do if the Chinese are the lowest bidders? Do we turn our technology over to them to build cheap rockets for us?
 There may be potential for good here but we are going to have to wait a very long while and hope things work out.

[spaceboy7441]

NASA is dead. My input
Still have the hope to god that Congress will save us

[Moonwalker]

NASA is dead.

People have to understand that manned space flight is a minor part of NASA. The major milestones of all the science NASA does (earth sciences, aeronautics, astronomy etc.) happens behind the big glamorous curtain of that few manned rocket launches. Rocket launches with men on top of it is not the be all and end all of space exploration. To cut a long story short: NASA is by no means "dead". Even without any manned operations, which won't be the case anyway.

We also have to keep in mind that a precise course of NASAs future manned operations still will be determined by Bolden, Obama and the congress. One thing is certain already: NASA will continue to be responsable for astronaut training and flight planning. Does it matter if NASA builds manned systems or if companies outside of the NASA network do so? No. "Not invented here" does not matter at all. The quality and standards still will be determined by those who train and send astronauts up: NASA.

People also have to understand that the science aboard the ISS also is minor, i.e. the scientific benefits, compared to the efforts of building and getting all the stuff into LEO. Most of the time up there is spend to keep the station up and running properly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

[Moonwalker]

By the way:

NASA is signing Space Act Agreements with the following companies under the Commercial Crew Development contest:

# Sierra Nevada Corp. of Louisville, Colo., will receive $20 million.

# Boeing Co. of Houston will receive $18 million.

# United Launch Alliance of Centennial, Colo., will receive $6.7 million.

# Blue Origin of Kent, Wash., will receive $3.7 million.

# Paragon Space Development Corp. of Tucson, Ariz., will receive $1.4 million

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/02ccdev/