Endi 2011 / Daniel/Jason/Kevin/Marc/MiHe/Parth/Simrun
U – A2: Constellation Already Re-Allocated
Download 0.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The new budget
- Constellation funds will be reallocated to ISS and Private space trips Chang, 10
U – A2: Constellation Already Re-AllocatedConstellation funds will be reallocated to international collaboration and tech developments Corley, 10- Writer for technologyreview.com and http://spectrum.ieee.org (2/03/10, Anne-Marie, “Obama's Vision (and Budget) for NASA,” http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/constellation-cancelled-and-new-spaceshot-programs-funded-in-nasa-budget) President Obama’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA calls for the end of the beleaguered Constellation program, which was designed to return humans to the moon. Engineers have been developing Constellation for the past five years, but last summer’s review of human spaceflight plans called the program “unsustainable.” The new budget, announced by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Monday, would increase the space agency’s funding by US $6 billion over the next 5 years, with most of that allocated to accelerating the development of commercial space vehicles. The new plan designates Mars as the ultimate destination for human space explorers, with the moon and near-Earth asteroids as stepping-stones to get there. Bolden acknowledged that the proposed budget is based on the Augustine committee’s report last summer, which proposed a “flexible path” of sending robots and humans to multiple destinations—the moon, near-Earth asteroids, moons of Mars, and eventually the red planet itself. The chairman of the review committee, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, indicated that he was pleased that the budget addresses his committee’s concerns. “The President’s proposed program seems to match means to ends, and should therefore be executable,” he wrote in an online statement. Under the Constellation program, “the means [did] not match the ends,” he toldIEEE Spectrum last month. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of the ten members of the Augustine committee, also spoke briefly in support of the new plan, calling it “a significant vote of confidence in NASA and an exciting strategic shift that puts NASA on a sustainable path toward the future,” specifically by reallocating Constellation funds to develop new technologies for on-orbit refueling, automated rendezvous and docking, heavy-lift rockets, and robotic precursor missions, among other high-tech developments. This shift, Ride said, “brings NASA back to its roots as an engine of innovation” while ensuring that as we explore the solar system, “we’ll be doing it with new technology, and arm in arm with our commercial and international partners.” The new funding in the budget is intended for commercial programs chosen on a competitive basis, rather than internal NASA programs. That money will “drive the beginning of a commercial crew industry,” Bolden said, and leave NASA able to do it’s old job of innovating ways to send humans “farther, faster, and more affordably” into space; specifically, beyond low Earth orbit. To jump-start the fledgling commercial industry, NASA will award US $50 million from economic stimulus funds to commercial space pioneers—Blue Origin of Kent, WA, The Boeing Company of Houston, TX, Paragon Space Development Corporation of Tucson, AZ, Sierra Nevada Corporation of Louisville, CO, and United Launch Alliance of Centennial, CO—to develop initial concepts and technology demonstrations that will take human crews safely into orbit. The budget further commits to extending the life of the International Space Station (ISS) until 2020 or beyond, past the 2015 de-orbit date that would have put an early end to a space lab that has been under construction for over a decade. And it grants the space shuttle program enough funding—$600 million in FY 2011—to ensure that the last five scheduled missions will fly, completing the construction of the ISS by the end of 2010. While the Augustine report found that a human return to the moon would not be feasible before 2028 or 2030 based on Constellation’s progress and meager funding, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver predicts that humans will be rocketing to space on commercial launchers by as early as 2016, based on timelines from commercial bids. Of course, not everyone will be thrilled with the president's plan. Congress will want to hang on to jobs in NASA centers across the country. Seven thousand jobs are already on the chopping block with the imminent end of the space shuttle program, according to Garver, and with Constellation’s demise, more will follow. But Bolden stressed that the money invested in new science and technology programs, especially in the commercial sector, will open up jobs—as many as 5,000 nationwide, he said. Office of Technology Policy (OSTP) chief of staff Jim Kohlenberger added that money budgeted to invest in upgrading NASA centers like the launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, will also create more jobs. When asked how the government would respond to taxpayers wondering why they spent 9 billion dollars on the cancelled program, OSTP's Kohlenberger said that “having put $9 billion into an unexecutable program isn’t an excuse to spend another $50 billion and still not have an executable program.” NASA spokespeople remain confident that Constellation’s end won’t mean the end of spaceflight, human or otherwise. As NASA’s Garver stressed during the press conference, “We’re not cancelling our ambitions to explore space, we’re cancelling Constellation.” Constellation funds will be reallocated to ISS and Private space trips Chang, 10 - science reporter for The New York Times, covering chemistry, geology, solid state physics, nanotechnology, Pluto, plague and other scientific miscellany( 2/1/10, Kenneth, “Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/science/02nasa.html) President Obama is calling on NASA to cancel the program that was to return humans to the Moon by 2020, and focus instead on radically new space technologies. Mr. Obama’s 2010 budget proposal for NASA asks for $18 billion over five years for fueling spacecraft in orbit, new types of engines to accelerate spacecraft through space and robotic factories that could churn soil on the Moon — and eventually Mars — into rocket fuel. Plans for a new mission to leave Earth’s orbit will probably not be spelled out for a few years, and the budget proposal makes it clear that any future exploration program will be an international collaboration, not an American one, more like the International Space Station than Apollo. “I think this is a dramatic shift in the way we’ve gone about particularly human spaceflight over the past almost 50 years,” said John M. Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University who was one of about a dozen people who were briefed about the NASA proposal Sunday evening. “It is a somewhat risky proposition,” Dr. Logsdon said, “but we’ve been kind of stuck using the technologies we’ve developed in the ’50s and ’60s.” To pay for the new technology development, the budget calls for a complete stop in NASA’s Constellation program, the rockets and spacecraft that NASA has been working on for the past four years to replace the space shuttles. “We are proposing canceling the program, not delaying it,” Peter Orszag, director of theOffice of Management and Budget, said Sunday. The proposal would officially end aspirations to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020 — President George W. Bush’s “vision for space exploration” developed in the aftermath of the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003. In place of the Moon mission, Mr. Obama’s vision offers, at least initially, nothing in terms of human exploration of the solar system. What the administration calls a “bold new initiative” does not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there. In the meantime, instead of using the Constellation’s Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, $6 billion would instead go to financing space taxi services from commercial companies. Under the proposal, NASA’s budget would rise to $19 billion in the 2011 fiscal year from $18.7 billion. It would also get additional increases in subsequent years, reaching $21 billion in 2015. In total, NASA would receive $100 billion over the next five years. Whether Congress agrees to the restructuring of NASA remains to be seen. As reports of the impending cancellation of Constellation leaked out last week, members of Congress, particularly in Alabama, Florida and Texas, the homes of the NASA centers most involved with Constellation, expressed concern. “If early reports for what the White House wants to do with NASA are correct, then the president’s green-eyeshade-wearing advisers are dead wrong,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said in a statement last week. Congress may also balk at the price tag. After spending $9 billion over the past four years on Constellation, canceling the contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems and other companies will cost an additional $2.5 billion, Dr. Logsdon said NASA officials had told him. If implemented, the NASA a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today. The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but essentially buy tickets for its astronauts. Dr. Logsdon said the officials said NASA would evolve into a role more akin to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which preceded NASA. The committee did not manufacturer aircraft, but performed aeronautical research that was adopted by aircraft manufacturers. “The assumption is that there are technological breakthroughs out there ready to be discovered and exploited,” Dr. Logsdon said. “I’m impressed and a little surprised how large the investment in new technology is planned to be. It does represent a shift away from developing systems to developing technologies before developing systems.” If the approach succeeds, it could jumpstart a vibrant space industry, but it is also risky. By canceling Ares I, NASA would have no backup if the commercial companies were not able to deliver. One likely competitor for the commercial crew contract is Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX for short. But its Falcon 9 rocket, the one that would be used to carry astronauts to the space station, has yet to have its first launching. When SpaceX, a startup led by Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, won in 2006 a contract to carry cargo to the space station, the company said it would have six flights of the Falcon 9 by the end of 2009. Conversely, another likely competitor, United Launch Alliance, which is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has decades of experience building space hardware for NASA, and its rockets, the Delta IV and the Atlas V, have successfully carried military and commercial satellites to space. But modifications needed for carrying astronauts could be costly and the launch alliance has also experienced delays and cost overruns. NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts. A worry is also that the decades of expertise and experience within NASA in operating spacecraft will be lost, and that the commercial companies might stumble as they learn. A move to an international collaboration would also make future exploration programs susceptible to buffeting from diplomatic winds on Earth. For example, after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, lawmakers questioned whether the United States should continue flying astronauts on the Russian Soyuz rockets. While more countries would share the cost, an international collaboration would probably be more expensive and cumbersome to manage, and could be slowed down by delays of any of the partners. “I’m optimistic this provides a path to a long term and sustainable and high quality program,” Dr. Logsdon said. “But I think there will be a lot of debate over the details over the next few months. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|