Rocket Science for the Rest of Us

The new budget for NASA has significantly cut commercial space...and our chance to spend American dollars on American space industries and get our-ownselves into space.

No, I'm not frustrated. Why do you ask?

According to reports, Congress is still funding $5 billion to its new heavy launch space program, with the goal of Mars, but has cut the commercial flight program to get us to the ISS to $406 million, less than half of what was asked.  That's going to put a serious crimp in the progress of companies like SpaceX and Orbital, who are well into developing craft to get us to the ISS and beyond.  In fact, one report says this will push these programs back years.  Isn't that the equivalent of denying a man with injured legs crutches he needs to walk because you want to buy him expensive running shoes?

You don't want these!

Trust me: These are going to do you good later.

While I personally feel they will eventually need to get away from depending on government funding, the simple fact of the matter is, the ISS is the only game in town...unless we want to market to the Chinese, and I think they're feeling pretty happy about doing it themselves.  (Their re-entry capsule landed safely Nov 17 after a successful docking.)

The re-entry capsule of Shenzhou-. Congrats to the Chinese.  祝贺

But looking beyond that, let's consider what it will cost the US to keep sending astronauts to the ISS on the Soyuz:  just $47 million a seat.   Remember SpaceX believes they can do it for $20 million.  Even if they have cost overruns, they'll be cheaper.  But not if we don't get there.

So, the question is, will NASA delay programs in hopes of getting better budgets later, cut out some of the competition and concentrate on the companies that are closest to success, or do a "peanut-butter spread" cut and make all the programs suffer.  Or maybe Congress will make a bill to give special funding later.  I've not found anything yet, so stay tuned.

NOTE:  This blog is about SPACE, not about politics, but sometimes politics affects space, as we all know.  Today, I'm venturing into politics.  Anyone who comments outside the topic of this blog, especially if it is inflammatory, will have their comment deleted.  We're all intelligent, reasoning adults here, so please don't let politics turn you into something else.

In 2010, Obama announced that he was going to scrap NASA's near-space missions and leave them to commercial interests while setting NASA's goals toward longer distance and space research.  Now, as candidates campaign, we're seeing some pushback on that policy.  Last week, Herman Cain, who is running for the Republican candidacy, said that President Obama “has cut our space program to the point that we now have to bum a ride with the Russians in order to get to outer space." I have to admit, I'm disappointed and concerned about his approach for a couple of reasons:

• The Shuttle was way beyond its life and needed to be retired.
• The space program was already on the decline as a result of several administrations (back to Clinton, really) when we didn't start working consistently on a replacement for the shuttle.
• Each administration (especially if it's the opposite party from the one before) changes the goals, programs, etc., at least in part because it was the other guy's program and they can do better.

So blaming Obama is really typical political grandstanding, and while I'm not surprised, especially in a speech in Huntsville, AL, home for NASA, I'm concerned about what Cain--or any candidate--will do about government or commercial space once in office.

Now, Cain has not given any specifics on what exactly he would do to "relaunch our space program," but he did say, "It's not just about getting to the moon and outer space. The space program inspires other technological advances to business and the economy. In the Cain presidency, it will be reversed back to where it should be."  (Huntsville Times)  Does that mean back to NASA making trucks for the ISS or back to making the US a major space power?



Granted, space is a low political priority, although I agree that it is a point of national pride, a growing industry and a vital step to our future.  However, as Cain said in his same speech, governments don't grow the economy; businesses do.  So, by extension, if we want to have a growing space industry (a manned space industry in this case), we need to get the commercial space businesses involved.  Supplying the ISS is a good start.  Just because we don't want to "bum a ride" with the Russians, doesn't mean we need to turn NASA into a taxi service again.

Loved ya, Shuttle, but it's time to move on.

I'll be watching with interest to see what other potential candidates say about the space issue.  If you see an article, please send it my way!