Rumor has it new budget cuts NASA's planetary exploration program entirely

[icefire]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/26/obama-readies-to-blast-nasa/

Word has leaked out that in its new budget, the Obama administration intends to terminate NASA’s planetary exploration program. The Mars Science Lab Curiosity, being readied on the pad, will be launched, as will the nearly completed small MAVEN orbiter scheduled for 2013, but that will be it. No further missions to anywhere are planned.

If this is true then NASA is effectively dead 2013.

[Luigibro606]

o_o

Why... why Obama? First you kill our space shuttles and now this?!

Now only commercial space companies are left and without NASA, advanced in space tech and safety will slow down quite a bit. Don\'t expect to be in zero gravity anytime soon.

[kerpollo]

SpaceX: cost effective lift to orbit

Virgin Galactic: zero-G tourism

Copenhagen Suborbitals: amateur rocketeering with surprisingly high chances of success

Maybe government-backed space agencies are obsolete.

[Luigibro606]

Isn\'t the cost to get into space a few million pounds/dollars? I don\'t call that cost effective.

[sneakeypete]

Pretty cost effective for what your doing (and what most companies can do once they\'re up there. We all use satellites. a lot)

gotta love one quote from that site

This is proof the USA is really dying and has no future. Makes me glad I\'m not young any more.

Its a firetrucking rumor buddy... not proof.

Seriously, i put odds that this won\'t happen.

[rdfox]

o_o

Why... why Obama? First you kill our space shuttles and now this?!

Now only commercial space companies are left and without NASA, advanced in space tech and safety will slow down quite a bit. Don\'t expect to be in zero gravity anytime soon.

Because cutting the real fat in the budget, entitlements, is political suicide... but don\'t get me started on politics.

And honestly, I see no reason that advances in space tech and safety will slow down without NASA. The private sector, honestly, has much more incentive to advance technology and safety than a government agency that has no profit motive.

What this *will* do, however, is essentially kill any more actual *exploration* missions, as opposed to the exploitation missions that the private sector tends towards. Unless you can convince the investors that there\'s potential profit in going to Mars, they won\'t let you go. (Although if you can convince them, they\'ll send you in a *heartbeat*, without the dithering and politicking involved in getting a government-run program started and keeping it funded until completion.)

[Herra Tohtori]

SpaceX: cost effective lift to orbit

Virgin Galactic: zero-G tourism

Copenhagen Suborbitals: amateur rocketeering with surprisingly high chances of success

Maybe government-backed space agencies are obsolete.

They aren\'t obsolete as long as commercial space industry has no interest in doing basic research.

Without space agencies with national funding, the quality AND quantity of the scientific results is going to go way, way down. Commercial space industry is not interested in launching a probe to Mars that spends years in transit and then (if it succeeds) sends back data that has, in short term, absolutely no benefit economically. It is, however, extremely important for the purpose of better understanding Mars. Same applies to all other bodies in the Solar system. Currently they are of no commercial interest - therefore commercial space exploration will not have any interest in them.

It\'s all a simple question of priorities. Commercial space exploration is interested in making profitable business by definition. Practically, that means commercial satellite launches. Of course, national space agencies could commission them to run a research program and pay them compensation for that, but by all means they could just as well continue their own operations.

A space agency that gets a budget can use it as best as they see fit to advance the human knowledge of space, rather than worry about making profit in economical sense. In my opinion, the scientific data from programmes like Hubble Space Telescope, Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Shuttle Program, ISS, Galileo, Cassini-Hyugens, Voyagers, Pioneers, Apollo is priceless in value for humanity as a whole, but economics does not deal in values of scientific data, they deal in money (which, ironically, is just a more or less commonly agreed upon format of trading value).

Sadly I doubt any commercial space enterprise will be willing to do independent research unless it offers immediate commercial benefits... which will seriously limit what types of science they\'ll be willing to do.

TL;DR - no, I don\'t think governmentally budgeted space agencies are obsolete. They are in fact necessary.

And, I really hope it is just a rumour.

[WindWolf]

'And as we watch this historic moment - Astronaut MacDonald steps out of the craft and proudly places the giant rotating yellow \'m\' in the Martian soil'.

:\'(

Pete.

[your mom]

ugh Obama why! you destroy the space program you destroy are chance of finding new life in my generation why cant you be more like bush.

[Charzy]

ugh Obama why! you destroy the space program you destroy are chance of finding new life in my generation why cant you be more like bush.

Because Bush disunderestimated how stupid he was.

[Luigibro606]

Because cutting the real fat in the budget, entitlements, is political suicide... but don\'t get me started on politics.

And honestly, I see no reason that advances in space tech and safety will slow down without NASA. The private sector, honestly, has much more incentive to advance technology and safety than a government agency that has no profit motive.

What this *will* do, however, is essentially kill any more actual *exploration* missions, as opposed to the exploitation missions that the private sector tends towards. Unless you can convince the investors that there\'s potential profit in going to Mars, they won\'t let you go. (Although if you can convince them, they\'ll send you in a *heartbeat*, without the dithering and politicking involved in getting a government-run program started and keeping it funded until completion.)

Hey, wanna talk about politics?

[kerpollo]

@Herra Tohtori

Good point.

On the other hand, launching a payload into orbit is usually the most costly aspect of a space mission. With private corporations highly motivated to slash that cost, launching will in all likelihood become way more affordable in the near future. If the price is driven low enough, eventually we may actually see an increase of purely scientific missions funded by grants and university programs.

[Hypocee]

Just ran across this, had to post it somewhere, this was closest.

077:50:22 Young (onboard): By God, just think of where we\'re all going, though, one of these days. This is just the beginning. We have to get rid of that crap first. There must be some real smart folks out there. God, they sure keep a bunch of stars out there for them. You realize these are the first dark we\'ve been in since we left that damn planet. First time I ever felt warm about the dark.

Afraid not, Mr. Young. Not in Murrca. Not anymore.

[Howson]

http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2011/11/senate-passes-budget-with-full-funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope/

[Altair1371]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!1!!!111!!!!!1!11!!1!!1!!!!!!! :\'( :\'( :\'(

Jeb! Launch the ICBM Kerpollo IV and go to Washington D.C.! > 8) >

Yet another blunder by Obama. If these programs do nothing more than send another robot to Mars, they actually do something more than science: Moral! We see ourselves as advancing toward new prospects in space, and without that, we have at least one less advance in science each year! Plus, loom at all the stuff that came from space travel technology! Tang, Velcro, and Teflon Just to name a few. If we didn\'t need them in space, they may have never become a reality!

[Capt'n Skunky]

Tang, Velcro, and Teflon Just to name a few.

According to NASA, Tang, Velcro and Teflon were not spin-offs of the space program.

If you are of a certain age, saying Tang isn\'t from the space program is unthinkable. Actually, General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959.

The powdered mix became associated with astronauts in 1962, when Tang was selected for an eating experiment to be performed in orbit by astronaut John Glenn.

Another urban legend is that Teflon was invented by NASA. DuPont invented it in 1938 but NASA raised the profile by using it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners.

Velcro is a Swiss invention that was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[Altair1371]

TL:DR ver: Your information is flawed

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

True, but they received popularity because of NASA. You could just imagine what people thought: 'If this stuff is used to hold heat shields onto rockets, it must be a great connection! I\'ll use this Velcro!'

[Capt'n Skunky]

True, but they received popularity because of NASA. You could just imagine what people thought: 'If this stuff is used to hold heat shields onto rockets, it must be a great connection! I\'ll use this Velcro!'

The post I replied to was implying that those three items were the result of space technology research which is incorrect. They may have made them popular through use in the space program, but they were *not* developed by the space program. There\'s a big difference there.

Arrr!

Capt\'n Skunky

[icefire]

http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2011/11/senate-passes-budget-with-full-funding-for-james-webb-space-telescope/

thank you this made my day.

[DoctorEvo]

If this is true then NASA is effectively dead 2013.

Not even close. To be fair, the majority of NASA\'s efforts are in Earth orbit, including ALL manned exploration thus far (well, Apollo was a grey area), and in the grand scheme of things, planetary exploration is but a fraction of what NASA is up to.

That said, it\'s not good news. A cut is a cut, and Obama has not been the friendliest to NASA\'s budget.

[icefire]

Planetary exploration is probably the largest (or easiest anyway) public outreach program for NASA outside of manned flight. The common public usually doesn\'t get excited about aircraft research and Earth Science.

It\'s what I meant when I say \'dead\', it would be dead to the public. No manned flights, no planetary science, no hubble, no more rovers. NASA would have lost what little public attention it currently has. And with no public awareness the politicians funding it wouldn\'t have a fear of losing rep for axing other NASA programs.

[DoctorEvo]

Planetary exploration is probably the largest (or easiest anyway) public outreach program for NASA outside of manned flight. The common public usually doesn\'t get excited about aircraft research and Earth Science.

It\'s what I meant when I say \'dead\', it would be dead to the public. No manned flights, no planetary science, no hubble, no more rovers. NASA would have lost what little public attention it currently has. And with no public awareness the politicians funding it wouldn\'t have a fear of losing rep for axing other NASA programs.

Funding for manned spaceflight is still there. COTS and CCDev are still on. We\'re still paying to keep the ISS manned and running. SLS development is written into the budget.

Furthermore, planetary missions usually take YEARS. New Horizons and Juno are both more than another Presidential term away from their destinations. The Mars Science Rover is on the pad as we speak, and is designed to last for another three years. If NASA\'s recent efforts in the post-Constellation-cancellation period are any indication, temporary funding cuts are not enough to stop them from making plans and preparing for the deed when the time is right. By the time the next spaceflight-friendly President signs more funding to them again, I\'m sure they\'ll have a handful of planetary missions ready to go just as soon as the checks can be signed.

[Zool]

This 'story', broken by the Washington Times, is, cover your children\'s ears... total bullshit. There is zero indication outside of a paper with little more credibility than a tabloid that the Obama administration is planning on doing this.

[Hypocee]

The story, fine, on a technicality. It\'s not the Administration. The reality? Among those who actually write the appropriations laws? Not so much.

[NovaSilisko]

It seems like a situation similar to that in Stephen Baxter\'s 'Voyage': the solar system is explored by people, but we don\'t know much about it because funding for viking, voyager, pioneer was diverted into a manned landing on mars.

I don\'t know if a modern version of that would be good or bad. I think putting people in space is a much bigger PR opportunity for NASA than robotic probes, but all the science that would be lost...