Is Congress going to save NASA?

Letter From House of Representatives to NASA Administrator Bolden regarding Constellation contract Cancellation

www.spaceref.com

Dear Administrator Bolden:

We are writing to express strong concern about NASA Headquarters actions and comments regarding the Constellation programs, the programs which together form the human spaceflight programs authorized by Congress in 2005 and in 2008, under Republican and Democrat control, respectively.

(visit link for complete letter)

If I read this letter correctly, it appears as though Congress is going to try and stall the disbanding of NASA if not save it all together. There are a few interesting key phrases in this letter. I am curious to see how this thread goes and if the key phrases I picked out will be picked out by ATS users.

NASA is not being "disbanded". Hardly. Where did you get that idea? That letter seems to be more concerned with cancellation of contracts than with the space program.

The White House budget would cancel the Constellation program. The reason given is that the project is way over budget and way behind schedule. There are many who believe that it was ill-concieved from the beginning.

The White House said it makes more sense to, rather than work on another Moon landing program, work on long range goals.

The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration that includes:

* Research and development to support future heavy-lift rocket systems that will increase the capability of future exploration architectures with significantly lower operations costs than current systems – potentially taking us farther and faster into space.
* A vigorous new technology development and test program that aims to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities. NASA, working with industry, will build, fly, and test in orbit key technologies such as automated, autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in-orbit propellant transfer, and advanced in-space propulsion so that our future human and robotic exploration missions are both highly capable and affordable.
* A steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies to increase the safety and capability of future human missions and provide scientific dividends.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Okay, disbanded was probably a little premature this early on. I feel that space exploration and all it entails in the future, as far as the U.S. is concerned given the current economics (if I may be so bold), will become primarily sourced by private and corporate entities both in the U.S. and abroad. Personally, I feel people are more concerned with keeping their homes right now than landing on the moon, or mars, etc. so if the whole program was shut down temporarily I would be okay with that. It's not like Space is not going to be there later. Right?

the safety criteria list for the new "commercial" programs proposed by NASA (in the new sense of being the primary means of human spaceflight) are still weeks away from being finished, and that those criteria have an enormous impact on the real budget cost of the President's new plan.

So does that mean "NASA Airlines" "Come fly the friendly Ionosphere"? That would be a decent approach (no pun) to beefing up their budget.

I think that this new NASA direction is better than constellation. Cancellation of pointless, delayed and over-budget Ares I and shuttle and diverting this money to commercial companies and promising new technologies is the way to go.
Now if they just speed up the development of a heavy launch vehicle...

reply to post by UberL33t

No.
The guidelines are for commercial operations by others (Bigelow, Branson, et. al.). I think.


[edit on 2/13/2010 by Phage]