NASA Would Revive Orion Capsule Under Obama’s Plan (Update 1)

[Divine Discontent]

Source: Bloomberg

<snip>Obama’s NASA plan would create 2,500 jobs more than the Constellation program in the area around Kennedy Space Center by 2012, and would invest $40 million for economic development of Florida’s Space Coast region, the official said.


April 14 (Bloomberg) -- NASA would revive a planned space capsule to give astronauts aboard the International Space Station an emergency escape and develop a rocket capable of carrying humans to Mars under proposals from President Barack Obama, a White House official said.

NASA would spend $3.1 billion during the next five years on research and development of the heavy-lift rocket, which would be able to take astronauts to destinations such as Mars, according to the official, who asked not to be identified. A decision on the rocket’s design would be made in 2015, the official said late yesterday.

Obama’s revised plan, which increases the NASA budget by about $6 billion over five years, would allow construction of a new rocket to begin two years earlier than under the Constellation program, the official said.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/nasa-would-revive-capsule-and-build-new-rocket-under-obama-plan.html

---

I put that snip part at the top, because in the story they have it at the bottom! They have been RAILING against Obama here on the Space Coast and Daytona/Orlando/Melbourne triangle because of the potential end of KSC. This is very big news, and of course, local 13 still has Nadia's rescue from yesterday as the top story, when they have been running the anti-Obama stories from local leaders, senator Lemiuex, congressmen, and workers for months. http://cfnews13.com/default.aspx?refresh=1 They should be saying how his plan will create 2500 more jobs than the Constellation program on the front page. Breathe deep, smell that liberal media at work!

[Kolesar]

1. How else are we going to beat the Soviets to planet Mars?

I don't favor the manned flight program.

[Divine Discontent]

2. just from the financial/jobs point of view, not the scientific, this sounds like a good compromise

considering we're facing horrible problems in the U.S. with a $10,000,000,000,000.00 deficit. I want research to continue, but the previous administration ruined a good ten years of stronger advancements for this country by focusing on warfare around the globe. So, this isn't a bad outcome imho. I am no expert on the scientific side of the decisions being made, but I love watching the rockets go up. I don't feel it's important we're "first" to do everything in space, but I would like more of those rover type missions. They gave great return for the investment put into them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. When was the revised plan reported?

I've been busy all week. Anything that brings money to this area is good news for Dem candidates in the area.

[DJ13]

3. I read that the estimates were of a 9,000 job reduction in Obama's plan

Due to canceling Bush's return to the moon program.

Is the 2,500 jobs created in addition to saving those 9,000 jobs, or is it 9,000 lost with 2,500 created for a net loss of 6,500 jobs?

[Divine Discontent]

5. not an expert, but I'll give my 2cents of info. I'm under the impression that 7-9K jobs will be

lost when the Space Shuttle program closes down. I am only going by what's written in the story about the 2500 jobs (being more than the Constellation program). Regardless, it gives the area a foothold with thousands of jobs, still, when this nation is hemorrhaging and schools and fire departments are closing down all across this country.

[AzNick]

4. So why was Armstrong bitching?

We are ditching the back to the moon program to replace it with a mars program.

[Divine Discontent]

6. I like this idea better.

Regardless if the numbers are right (2500 more jobs than the moon program), the fact is they will bitch and moan about Obama if he doesn't do the moon program, even if he ok's another plan that is arguably a better one for the U.S.

[liberation]

8. You are right, those astronauts don't know what they are talking about.

When it comes to matters of space exploration, I always go with the lawyers with the nice smiles... not with the pilots, astronauts, engineers, and dudes who have actually walked on the moon and their silly talk.

[Divine Discontent]

9. they're lucky to even have a NASA after the destruction of the US treasury

[liberation]

14. ... apparently there is no argument or situation which can not be addressed with black mail.

Scientific investment has a bigger ROI than wasting money in silly things like bombing countries already in the stone age... further back into the stone age.


But as I said, why would I listen to Neil Armstrong. The guy has only walked on the moon, not like he knows anything about anything or anything.

[Divine Discontent]

18. understood. he should certainly have input. but there's certainly other experts who are actively

pushing for Mars instead of the Moon. That is for them to fight over, I'm just glad they can't claim he's totally destroying NASA's future (not like the previous administrators and president haven't already done it).

[grantcart]

15. well there is a huge divide between the scientists and the flyboys or astronauts

who say that adding a human is very costly and adds nothing to the science.

Now I like human space travel but I understand that astronauts are not objective or any more qualified to talk about cost/benefit ratios than the scientists who actually are the consumers of the data.

[AzNick]

17. But men in space are a nice technological prowess... or used to be?

France could have been the third nation to send men in space but scrapped the project altogether, to the disappointment of the French astronauts.

Years later, China achieved this goal, with a big international yawn but I like to think there was something positive for China, at least in the short term.

[anigbrowl]

19. Neil Armstrong dislikes it. Buzz Aldrin supports it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/14/2270153.aspx and about 900 other articles. There's no consensus on the issue.

[liberation]

7. "would" is different than "will"

that is why.

[progressoid]

16. Armstrong's (et al) letter was sent prior to this revised plan.

And we're still at the mercy of the Russians to get to and from the space station for at least the next five years.

[penndragon69]

10. They should blame bush.

He's the one who killed the shuttle program and bankrupted America.
It was bush and his incompetent NASA appointee's who wanted to build a square wheel called
Orion.

While over 50% of NASA engineers favored using the existing shuttle external tanks and boosters
to do the heavy lifting. After all, once you remove the bloated shuttle from the equation, you have a heavy lift vehicle
that needs only slight modifications and it could deliver everything needed to get to the Moon, Mars or the asteroids
into orbit for assembly.
Cheaper, better and faster than rolling back time to 60's tech.

[Divine Discontent]

13. I agree. And I wish our president would just say it in his speech to them tomorrow... it's B*sh's

fault that this country, right on down to NASA, is so screwed.

[Kolesar]

20. Where would the liquid fueled engines be attached in that configuration?

Those million-pound thrust solid rocket engines could lift heavy payloads on their own and would be useful for unmanned launches.

I am trying to imagine putting engines on the external fuel tank.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Wha-What?

Is Obama's revised plan better for the area in the long run?

[lumpy]

21. Kick up

v