Want to see America back on the Moon? Forget it.
In fact from the most recent Obama administration announcement, the only Americans we are likely going to see in space this decade is on that near worthless money-hole known as the ISS (International Space Station), likely ferried there by Russian (and who knows, perhaps Chinese and Indian) crafts. Why? Because the replacement for out shuttles, now all some 25 years old or older, have been scrapped too (the last planned shuttle launch is September 16, 2010).
According to the president's budget, sent to Congress today, the Constellation program, which is the program to replace the aging shuttles with new technology that would not only continue American manned presence in space, but designed for an eventual trip to the Moon, is officially axed. The overall NASA budget will be slightly larger in 2010 then in 2009 ($18.7 billion dollars, or .5% of the budget) and will focus mainly on research and development and robotic probes. There are some vague words about how this will help with a longer range goal of Americans visiting Mars, but if we cannot work towards returning to and establishing a presence on the much closer Moon, I am not seeing how the latter will be pulled off (maybe we can hitch a ride on a Chinese or European ship if they let us).
This is all part of a feeble attempt to control spending more as we face a budget deficit of $1.26 trillion dollars in 2011, by attempting a three year non-defense discretionary spending freeze with the aim of saving $250 billion over 10 years. The plan though will only save $20 billion in 2011. To put that in perspective, it is like you and I saying we are going to spend $10,000 more then we earned in 2011, but then propose a spending cutback that would cut out repainting the house for the year, thus spending only $9840 more then we make, thinking that is a real sacrifice while purchasing a Lexus and a 60" plasma TV.
Congress though may nix all of this, including dropping the Constellation program as well as any spending freeze. Although I am all for spending cuts, the money we would have spent on the Constellation program would be the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to total spending. Believe it or not, these programs do spur and create new technologies, and in today's world where cutting edge competition in technology is global, we could use that. Yes, I admit, it is a national pride thing too, I mean we were the pioneers that put humans on the Moon originally, to develop ships you can land and reuse over and over, we were the forefront of manned space exploration and now we are just dropping the entire idea altogether for at least a decade and likely being behind other nations for decades afterward (including possibly hostile nations). We could easily cut much larger and much more useless spending elsewhere (of course if it was me, I'd dropkick a couple whole cabinet level departments, but I digress). Heck just reducing the federal government's ridiculous bureaucracy without ending any program, strictly reining in department spending, and cutting pork projects would save tens of billions in 2011 alone (if not more).
Done ranting.
According to the president's budget, sent to Congress today, the Constellation program, which is the program to replace the aging shuttles with new technology that would not only continue American manned presence in space, but designed for an eventual trip to the Moon, is officially axed. The overall NASA budget will be slightly larger in 2010 then in 2009 ($18.7 billion dollars, or .5% of the budget) and will focus mainly on research and development and robotic probes. There are some vague words about how this will help with a longer range goal of Americans visiting Mars, but if we cannot work towards returning to and establishing a presence on the much closer Moon, I am not seeing how the latter will be pulled off (maybe we can hitch a ride on a Chinese or European ship if they let us).
This is all part of a feeble attempt to control spending more as we face a budget deficit of $1.26 trillion dollars in 2011, by attempting a three year non-defense discretionary spending freeze with the aim of saving $250 billion over 10 years. The plan though will only save $20 billion in 2011. To put that in perspective, it is like you and I saying we are going to spend $10,000 more then we earned in 2011, but then propose a spending cutback that would cut out repainting the house for the year, thus spending only $9840 more then we make, thinking that is a real sacrifice while purchasing a Lexus and a 60" plasma TV.
Congress though may nix all of this, including dropping the Constellation program as well as any spending freeze. Although I am all for spending cuts, the money we would have spent on the Constellation program would be the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to total spending. Believe it or not, these programs do spur and create new technologies, and in today's world where cutting edge competition in technology is global, we could use that. Yes, I admit, it is a national pride thing too, I mean we were the pioneers that put humans on the Moon originally, to develop ships you can land and reuse over and over, we were the forefront of manned space exploration and now we are just dropping the entire idea altogether for at least a decade and likely being behind other nations for decades afterward (including possibly hostile nations). We could easily cut much larger and much more useless spending elsewhere (of course if it was me, I'd dropkick a couple whole cabinet level departments, but I digress). Heck just reducing the federal government's ridiculous bureaucracy without ending any program, strictly reining in department spending, and cutting pork projects would save tens of billions in 2011 alone (if not more).
Done ranting.