Obama Lays Out Future Of American Space Exploration: Key Details (PHOTOS)

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – President Barack Obama declared Thursday he was "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future" as he outlined plans for federal spending to bring more private companies into space exploration following the soon-to-end space shuttle program.

"We want to leap into the future," not continue on the same path as before, Obama said as he sought to reassure NASA workers that America's space adventures would soar on despite the termination of shuttle flights.

Obama acknowledged criticism, even from some prominent astronauts, for his drastic changes to the space program's direction. But, he said, "The bottom line is: Nobody is more committed to manned space flight, the human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way; we can't keep doing the same old things as before." He said that by 2025 he expects U.S. space exploration to reach beyond the moon and further into the solar system's reaches.

Within his lifetime, Obama said, America will "send astronauts to Mars and bring them back safely." Obama visited the launch pads where U.S. space voyages begin and said the space program is not a luxury but a necessity for the nation. He said the Kennedy Space Center launched Americans into space and has inspired a nation for half a century. He said NASA represents what it means to be American — "reaching for new heights and reaching for what's possible" — and is not close to its final days.

1 of 7

Cancellation Of Constellation Program

1 of 8

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

One of the most controversial elements of Obama's space program was the president's decision to kill NASA's $100 billion Constellation program to return astronauts to the moon, which was initiated under the Bush administration. Apollo-era astronauts including Neil Armstrong attacked an earlier version of Obama's plan (not the most current one, unveiled April 15), calling the cancellation of the Constellation program "devastating."

gadgets/slideshows/227034/slide_227034_987669_small.jpg

Autodance, Clio-Winning Smartphone App, Autotunes Your Dance Moves (VIDEO)

New Spotify Apps: Tastebuds And Fellody Turn Your Favorite Music Into A Dating Profile

7 Technologies the Military Made Possible (PHOTOS)

Klouchebag Site Mocks Klout By Measuring Twitter ‘Asshattery'

Jack Dorsey On 'Charlie Rose': The Best Tech Disappears

Foxconn Workers Protest Wages, Threaten To Jump Off Roof

One of the most controversial elements of Obama's space program was the president's decision to kill NASA's $100 billion Constellation program to return astronauts to the moon, which was initiated under the Bush administration. Apollo-era astronauts including Neil Armstrong attacked an earlier version of Obama's plan (not the most current one, unveiled April 15), calling the cancellation of the Constellation program "devastating."

comments(2818)

Total comments: 2818 | Post a Comment

1 of 8

Proposal

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Minor Repercussions Major Repercussions

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Initiatives

loading...

Initiatives

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[drumsgirl]

12:23 PM on 04/19/2010

No need to fret seriously - a little more than 3 years from now Zerobama will be gone from the White House and the next POTUS can change what Obama planned.

[siafu]

05:14 PM on 04/19/2010

No matter which president you slavishly follow, the biggest problem NASA has is the constant direction-changing that goes on. Nobody should see another major shift, in any direction, in a positive light.

[copestir]

06:34 PM on 04/18/2010

After 8 long years of double speak, does this new president really think we buy for a minute more double speak. First cut the program altogether. Your plan would disable the space program. And then you make a fine speech about your commitment. As a hard core liberal, this guy is a disappointment.

[Chip W]

06:33 AM on 04/18/2010

I'm all for NASA and space exploration, but this is spending money we don't have.
When, if ever, will we say we won't spend it because we don't have it?

[siafu]

05:17 PM on 04/19/2010

This may be spending money we don't have, but given that it's less than 0.5% of the national budget, it really shouldn't be even in the list of top ten targets for cuts. How about starting with defense spending?

[CabinGuy]

12:14 AM on 04/18/2010

Obama is cutting billions from NASA, laying off thousands but has big plans for space. He is destroying it while trying to spin a story about expanding it. Further decline of America on his watch.

[RobinSeattle]

12:53 AM on 04/18/2010

There's a reason the Constellation program is being cut:

"The Constellation Program has been scrutinized since its inception for uncertain cost estimates, cost growth, major technical difficulties, and a timeline that is constantly being pushed further into the future. In the early stages of the program, the July 17, 2006 GAO report stated that “the agency cannot at this time provide a firm estimate of what it will take to implement the architecture…NASA will be challenged to implement the architecture recommended in the study within its projected budget.” Three years and $10 billion later, the GAO again evaluated the program (in the August 26, 2009 report), and found that, “NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to $49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10 billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design challenges have been addressed.”

In a climate of economic turmoil, President Obama and NASA have wisely proposed cancelling the unsustainable Constellation Program and are instead turning to private companies to oversee launches. This policy shift will be a welcome change for taxpayers, as well as the nation’s fiscal outlook. "

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watcher/2010/march/to-infinity-and-beyond.html

[copestir]

07:10 PM on 04/18/2010

So all the folks that will loose their jobs will no longer pay into the system and instead get on unemployment. Promises of retraining programs cost tax payer's money. Retraining for what is another issue. I guess the only thing this administration is committed to is the war in Afghanistan.

[aseeker7]

02:25 PM on 04/18/2010

CabinGuy, you are either ignorant or lying. President Obama is increasing NASA's budget by $6 billion over the next five years. He's using the money to accelerate technology development, Space Station research, access to low Earth orbit, a new heavy launcher, and our first exploration outside the Earth-Moon system. More important, he supporting the growth of commercial space industry. I'll take that over Bush's false promise any day.

[Buckeye54]

11:08 PM on 04/17/2010

I was 15 when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon. My parents had I and my five brothers & sisters stay up way late just to watch that very historic moment.
All through my childhood I read everything I could about our astronauts and our space program and to this day I have an abiding interest in science.
I'd hope that President Obama's ideas will spark a similar interest in our young people.
And before you say anything about the cost, how many missions to Mars could we have funded on the money wasted instead on the war in Iraq?

[PlayTOE]

09:33 PM on 04/17/2010

May I suggest that you have a listen to some video from NASA on the new Obama plan and the reactions to it ... see

President Obama Pledges Total Commitment to NASA
http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAtelevision

Equally interesting are the reactions of NASA staff who seem quite pleased to follow the President's plan.

[drumsgirl]

12:25 PM on 04/19/2010

And so you believe it because some gov't worker said it publically? You know - like folks worried about losing their jobs???

[siafu]

05:18 PM on 04/19/2010

I know many of those folks personally, and very few are actually worried about losing their jobs outright. The biggest changes will be at the biggest companies, who are planning to reshuffle people rather than dump them.

[RJGEvans]

08:20 PM on 04/17/2010

I support the new program. However, it does not matter if we went to the Moon before, there is still much to do on that celestial body, so I'm not sure abandoning the body completely to Russian and Chinese exploration and economic exploitation is wise.

I am excited by the prospects of landing on an asteroid though. I'm not putting any hope for Mars by the 2030's. If Constellation is any example, the US will not reach Mars until much later due to underfunding, over promising and technical difficulties. I put it at in the 2040's.

[PlayTOE]

09:10 PM on 04/17/2010

I like the asteroid landing too, and want to see them put a couple of ion motors on it to transport it where we can use it (presumably L 1) for space mining of materials.

[Beltiras]

03:46 PM on 04/17/2010

I applaud the new program. The only modification I'd make would be scrap #4 and put the funding toward the Elevator.

[siafu]

06:51 PM on 04/17/2010

The elevator is still too far away to be anything but an advanced research project; it's not ready for major funding. Even if all the resources in the world were available, there would be little to no change in the timetable since technologies in so many different fields (materials, power beaming, etc.) would need to be developed before the design analysis can even begin. In short, this is something to be funded and pursued maybe 30-40 years from now, but not yet.

[Chip W]

06:22 AM on 04/18/2010

Until then couldn't we build an escalator?

[PlayTOE]

09:06 PM on 04/17/2010

A space elevator requires 3,000 km long carbon-nano-tubes. So far we have the longest ones being about 2 cm long, so we have a ways to go.

Perhaps in 50 or 100 years we can build a space elevator.
For now, the next generation heavy lift space truck sounds like a great idea.

[Beltiras]

04:05 AM on 04/18/2010

Try 18.5 cm long @ best, the synthesis of CNT has grown by leaps and bounds.

[libwingoflibwing]

09:48 PM on 04/16/2010

Once again this president disappoints me. His NeoLiberal values now are devastating the Space Program. I've been upset with him because he has been continuing Bush policies. Now he is actually over turning the one of the few Bush policies that were decent.

The basic idea here is that from now on instead of private corporations being paid to design and build vehicles for NASA, which then belong to all of us, now the money is just given to the corporations to design and build vehicles, which they get to keep to make a profit. Then when the U.S. Space program needs to use these vehicles the tax payers will have to pay for it to the very corporations that we paid to build them. This is disgusting. Obama is privatizing our Space program.

What is the point of saying we should go to Mars but canceling going to the Moon again and setting up a permanent base? Going back to the Moon is the only way to test and retest going to Mars. Developing a Moon base is the only way to test and retest developing a way to stay on Mars for an extended time, which only makes sense since it will take years to get there and back.

[siafu]

10:35 PM on 04/16/2010

I'm sorry, but the claims you're making are completely absurd. We may, in some weird and abstract sense "own" the space shuttle, inasmuchas they belong to the government, but the technology developed by corporations is still just as propietary as anything else. The system as it has been since the beginning is that corporations-- and not just any corporations, but the largest ones in the country like Boeing, NorthropGrumman, and LockheedMartin-- make a huge profit because of the "cost-plus" contracting scheme being used, which encourages companies to waste money on development (increased salaries, extra bureaucracy, etc.). If anything at all, renting launch services from private corporations will REDUCE the wasteful spending involved and manage to funnel less of our tax dollars into the pockets of billionaire fatcats.

Moreover, this Bush policy that you consider decent was itself a complete sham. His Vision for Space Exploration went the same way as No Child Left Behind-- grandiose statements that were not then followed up by actual funding or support. There is no way that it would have succeeded as it was going; if we had continued with his plan, we would have made it to the moon MAYBE in another fifteen to twenty years, if at all.

[siafu]

10:36 PM on 04/16/2010

Also, we went to the Moon in the 60s without having some easier body to test it out on. Certainly, being able to use the Moon as a testbed for technologies would be useful, but it's hardly the "only" way to test and retest the technologies involved, and it's hardly an ideal testbed for Mars, anyway, given that it lacks an atmosphere, has lesser gravity, is composed of different materials and minerals, has a much slower rotation vis a vis the Sun, and is much closer to the Sun at all times. Right now, the Mars Society is already conducting simulations of living on Mars in places like Devon Island in Arctic Canada, and the Mojave Desert here in the US, both of which are better analogs for Mars than the Moon is. If it's just isolation from Earth that we need to test, this can already be done (and has been done extensively) in orbit.

[tangelan]

06:28 PM on 04/16/2010

Who but President Bush would allocate $100 million to go to the moon. When we've already been there. Shouldn't they have been able to make a couple of trips by now? If we can go to the international space station, why couldn't we go to the moon? Something doesn't smell right about that price tag.

[siafu]

10:23 PM on 04/16/2010

$100 million doesn't even scratch the surface. That's what it costs to launch an unmanned satellite into Earth orbit.

[cabinetmaniac]

10:07 AM on 04/17/2010

* $100 Billion.

:-]

[rikster]

05:08 PM on 04/16/2010

to go where no man has gone before...the NCC1700 starship series..the JPMorganChase...with sister ship GoldmanSachs

[ron ray]

04:54 PM on 04/16/2010

so obama lays out an ambitious some president might start in, oh, 2020, and we'll see space travel underway 'in his lifetime.'

but in the meantime, we have to hitch rides to the space station with the ruskies -- and gas, grass or nuclear fuel rods, nobody rides for free.

all told, it's about the same the bushes laid out -- very important, very ambitious plans to be carried out by someone else. that's very different than kennedy's bold pledge and totally uninspiring.

hey, I still believe I be the first trillionaire and jet off to Saturn on my neutron surfboard with jennifer anniston in the back seat, in my lifetime. but that's not a 'plan' either.

[tangelan]

06:22 PM on 04/16/2010

Kennedy laid out his vision to see a man on the moon but it was actually done under another president. Wow. You guys really DO think President Obama can do anything. I know he's smart but he can't engineer a rocket. I would have thought your expectation would be lower after Bush.

[Hontas Farmer]

12:57 AM on 04/17/2010

That's in part because JFK was shot. He wanted to go to the Moon "in this decade" the 60's we landed in 1968 under Richard M. Nixon, thanks mostly to LBJ.

I guess in the 60's we Americans weren't so partisan and vindictive that we'd hamstring the nation just to stick it to the minority party. That's all this is nothing more.

[BocaMom]

01:00 PM on 04/16/2010

So when President Obama going to lay out the plans to fix the economy and unemployment??? He said at his State of the Economy Speech in January that Jobs and the Economy was his #1 Priority! What happened? We have 17 million Americans out of work and the President and Congress are doing absolutely nothing about it.

[tangelan]

06:23 PM on 04/16/2010

Fox News? They just passed a jobs bill. What would you like him to do specifically? All the tax cuts in the world won't stop our jobs from being shipped abroad. Any other ideas?

[Hirnlego]

06:48 PM on 04/18/2010

the dow is pretty much back up... so apparently people are making money.. so, shouldn't they start creating jobs?

[siafu]

11:00 AM on 04/16/2010

Obama's new plan may be a good one, but by far the biggest problem NASA has had over the last 30 years is a lack of consistent direction. Grand projects are proposed started, and then abandoned just about as often as the office of president changes hands. In this case, the Constellation program may have been flawed, but there had been a great deal of work on it that was already completed, including a test flight of an Ares-1 testbed. All this work is now just going to be abandoned.

In my opinion, though, focusing on privatization of launch services is a very good idea, and should hopefully bring some competition and ordinary economics to the sector. Currently, launch services in America are controlled by three companies, two of which work pretty much exclusively for the government. It's impossible to find out price quotes for launch vehicles, including for launches that have already passed, and any attempt to use foreign companies gets rather stymied by the draconian laws controlling technology transfer and export control. We need to reform this, and allow NASA to follow its original mission as a research institution more closely rather than operating the agency as a basic services provider.

[Gleeful31]

10:16 AM on 04/16/2010

The threat of resource depletion/asteroid collision and all these other pseudo apocalyptic events that the ignorant spout off are not even remotely close to human timescales. They are astronomical timescales. If it were me, NASA would see a lot more cuts in their pointless space expeditions. Just making jobs to do things that have little/no return value on them is not productive to a hurting economy. We need to be getting things done at home right now, and we can come back to the bigger problems when we are in a better shape.

[siafu]

11:03 AM on 04/16/2010

Asteroid collision is not nearly so fantastic a threat as you make it out to be; there are many, many asteroids in orbits that cross the Earth's orbit, and meteors strike the Earth all the time (literally). The statistics game comes in when looking at the size of the objects, but it's a very real threat, even if not on the Earth-killer scale. An impactor of the size of the one that struck in remote Siberia in 1908 would easily destroy a city were it to hit one.

[gro]

09:37 PM on 04/16/2010

You see the great discussion by Neil Tyson concerning the asteroid Apophis?
He said if Apophis hit in the Pacific in 2036, there would be a tremendous tidal wave hitting the US west coast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaW4Ol3_M1o&feature=related

[JimR]

12:04 PM on 04/16/2010

"Just making jobs to do things that have little/no return value on them is not productive to a hurting economy."

Little or no return value, huh?

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html