On Monday, the White House announced its proposed 2011 budget for NASA, which calls for major changes in the agency's direction. New Scientist takes a closer look at what the changes mean.
What exactly has the White House cancelled?
The new plan, if approved by Congress, would axe the Constellation programme, which has been developing rockets and other hardware intended to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.
What does the Administration want NASA to do instead?
It is proposing that the agency spend $7.8 billion over the next five years to develop potentially revolutionary technologies, like rockets powered by ion engines that could dramatically slash the transit time to Mars and orbiting fuel depots that could make human missions to the moon or beyond feasible with smaller, cheaper rockets.
During the same period, it plans to spend $6 billion helping space companies develop their own rockets and crew capsules capable of carrying NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. Funding for the space station would be extended by five years, to 2020, under the new plan.
How will astronauts get to the space station in the meantime?
Once the space shuttle completes its remaining five flights and retires at the end of this year, the only way for US astronauts to reach the space station will be on Russian Soyuz flights. NASA plans to buy seats on these flights to maintain access to the space station.
Does the new plan confine NASA astronauts to low-Earth orbit?
NASA says it wants to send its astronauts on more ambitious missions but so far has no specific destination or schedule for those missions. Agency chief Charles Bolden suggested on Monday that NASA prefers an option like the "flexible path" proposed by a blue-ribbon panel headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine. That plan would see astronauts sent on a series of increasingly distant missions, including visits to asteroids and the moons of Mars.
What criticisms have been levelled at the new plan?
Michael Griffin, who championed the Constellation programme as NASA administrator under President George W Bush, told the Washington Post that its cancellation amounts to an abandonment of human space flight. "It means that essentially the US has decided that they're not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future," he said. And although he provided some funds during his tenure to encourage commercial rocket companies, he says they are not yet ready to start carrying astronauts into orbit.
What do supporters say?
Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin strongly backed the changes in a statement posted online, praising the focus on developing new space exploration technologies in particular. "We have already been to the moon," he wrote (pdf). "This program will allow us to again be pushing the boundaries to achieve new and challenging things beyond Earth."
Is this plan a done deal?
No. Congress passed legislation in 2009 requiring the President to get its permission in order to cancel Constellation. And the new budget that redirects NASA's efforts is just a proposal so far – it can't be implemented unless Congress approves it.
Is Congress supportive of the changes?
There has been fierce criticism from members of Congress, including some from the President's own party, representing parts of the country where thousands of jobs are tied to the Constellation programme.
"Leaving NASA with no detailed plan or timeline for exploring beyond Earth's orbit will cede our international leadership in space," said Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, a Democrat. "The President's proposal is unacceptable."
Another Democrat, Bart Gordon, who chairs the House of Representatives' committee on science and technology, has taken a wary tone. "We will need to hear the Administration's rationale for such a change and assess its impact on US leadership in space before Congress renders its judgment on the proposals," he wrote.
Has work on Constellation stopped?
No. The new budget won't take effect until the 2011 fiscal year, which begins in October. Until then, NASA will continue following the 2010 budget, which directs it to work on Constellation. "Our teams ... came to work yesterday and today and are working on Constellation," Douglas Cooke, NASA's associate administrator for exploration, told reporters on Tuesday.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
No Nuclear Power
Wed Feb 03 23:57:11 GMT 2010 by Enzo
I haven't seen any announcement regarding nuclear power in space. Without that, ion engines are only useful for very very slow (but efficient) probes (see the Dawn mission to Ceres).
Nuclear + VASIMR could allow some spectacular missions in a reasonable time frame.
Chemical rockets alone are very inefficient.
No Nuclear Power
Thu Feb 04 01:30:12 GMT 2010 by Ben
I guess most people are scared because we still have the odd rocket blowing up at launch or in the lower atmosphere. Their concerns are most likely that if a nuclear powered rocket exploded it would spread radioactive material over a huge area. I personally believe it to be worth the risk to develop. Also I am not sure if a nuclear powered rocket violates that space treaty between the U.S and Russia.
No Nuclear Power
Thu Feb 04 05:50:34 GMT 2010 by EarthlingX
Check a possible generator candidate:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
or
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AIPC..608..578P
No Nuclear Power
Thu Feb 04 15:45:37 GMT 2010 by stsman
A moon base would provide safety in regards to experiments and production of nuclear, antimatter, dark matter, products that might be used as propulsion devises. It would remove the risk factor in regards to population and environmental hazard, this is why the Constellation should not be axed. The moon base platform would also again teach/force us to survive on a celestial body by using its available resources.
It might be old technology we are using to getting to the moon, but with time the new technology will be implemented and at the same time we would acquire invaluable knowledge to survive on a celestial body.
No Nuclear Power
Thu Feb 04 17:29:19 GMT 2010 by Twozero
There's no purpose in a base on the moon:
There are no "experiements" with antimatter that are unsafe, nobody has even seen darkmatter, let alone create/experiment with it(not sure where you got that idea from), and there is little to be learned from surviving on a moon base that can't be done on the ISS, or geohabitats on Earth.
This is why the Constellation programme should be axed - it was a work of ignorance by a very ignorant administration.
Mexican Standoff
Thu Feb 04 00:54:18 GMT 2010 by Robert
Looks like we've got ourselves a Mexican standoff, only we ain't got no Mexicans! Congress isn't likely to axe Constellation, and not working on newer technologies will put the US behind anyway. Eventually China will get tired of its primitive capsules and look for something better, while the US continues to base its missions on the same 40 year technology that is useless beyond LEO. I agree with Enzo, Without developing fast methods of propulsion, being the leader in space technology won't mean squat in a few years!
Mexican Standoff
Thu Feb 04 06:22:02 GMT 2010 by Michael from Iowa
There's a misconception I believe among people saying we need to 'save Constellation', they seem to think that if the Administration's proposal is blocked it will somehow magically change the reality of Constellation. As it stands now, half a decade of severe underfunding has left Constellation years (perhaps as much as a decade) behind schedule. Even if the program wasn't canceled Ares I STILL wouldn't be flying before 2016, 2017, maybe even 2018! Ares V wouldn't start development until after a year or two of successful Ares I flights. Maybe you'd see it fly by 2022, 2023... but then you still don't have a lander, or lunar habitats, or any plan to actually build the damn thing. Constellation might... MIGHT make it to the Moon by 2030.
Mexican Standoff
Thu Feb 04 17:32:24 GMT 2010 by Twozero
Indeed, and the fact is that Constellation will provide very little return for the money. Much better to hand over the job to the private sector, and spend taxpayers money on something more useful, like healthcare.
Moonbase - A Necessary Platform
Thu Feb 04 02:52:23 GMT 2010 by Steven Judge
While we must also develop new breakthrough propulsion technologies, it is vital that we build a Moonbase. This is step 1 to colonizing the planets.
A permanently manned Moonbase will teach us an immense amount about how to set up viable outposts on Mars and the moons of Jupiter & Saturn. Without this, we are just tourists from Earth returning home after every trip.
Additionally, with the water discovered on the Moon we can create rocket fuel and build a refueling station in orbit around the Moon. Given the Moon's gravity is only 16% of ours, this rocket fuel will be far cheaper to get into space than sending it from the Earth.
In the absence of an atmosphere, fuel and supplies could even be safely catapulted into orbit using a maglev slingshot or raised into orbit on a space elevator. Greenhouses could be built to grow the vegetables we need to feed our colony on the Moon. This is a fundamental technology for our colonization of the planets.
May I suggest that we name our first extraterrestrial town "Armstrong"?
Moonbase - A Necessary Platform
Thu Feb 04 04:15:10 GMT 2010 by Will S
Wouldn't "Kennedy" be a more appropriate name for the first ET town? It was his vision that put us there; Armstrong just rode in the bus.
Moonbase - A Necessary Platform
Thu Feb 25 04:20:52 GMT 2010 by David Williams
Clarke City would be more like it.
Moonbase - A Necessary Platform
Thu Feb 04 06:37:05 GMT 2010 by PM
Before we can set up anything on the moon, we need to develope a cheap way to get off earth. The existing rocket tech is too expensive. Getting to the moon from LEO takes almost no energy compared to what it takes to get off the ground. Anyway, I think the first thing we need after a cheap launch system is a better space station that can handle a larger staff and work as a refueling / assembly station. Would also love to see some funding dumped into materials research and testing for an earth based space elevator.
Moonbase - A Necessary Platform
Thu Feb 04 14:37:53 GMT 2010 by ben
Don't you think we should sort out our own planet before we look to the skies for other places to colonise? I know it sounds very lutherian, but is space flight really a priority when half the world lives in poverty, some without access to clean drinking water!
How many schools and hospitals could you get for that $12bn?
I'm all for scientific progress, that's why I'm on this website, but one step at a time. let's get everyone on their feet before the rest of us try to run
Moonbase - A Necessary Platform
Thu Feb 04 15:07:46 GMT 2010 by stsman
OK, its sounds like the Pres wants to get the private/public involved in space exploration sooner to manifest R&D.; I can see this working, but I do not understand nixing the Constellation project, any technology they are talking about is at least a decade away, never mind carrying humans. The moon base if anything will teach/force us how to survive on a celestial body by using its recourses that are available at same time give us options of performing experiments that would be too risky on earth or in a tin can.
Keep the constellation at a different milestone rate and at the same time encourage R&D; with the private sector with grants and rewards in regards to propulsion
Lets call it Ziggy Stardust
My 2cents
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.