NASA pushes back new space program

NASA's plans to launch new manned missions to the International Space Station three years after the space shuttle retires in 2010 aren't panning out.

Officials at the space agency said Monday that they will still hold to their word that the Constellation program--a mission of the newly developed Ares 1 rocket and Orion crew capsule to the ISS--will happen by March 2015, five years after the space shuttle program shuts down. But a previous goal of an early launch in 2013 has now been moved to 2014 because of budget constraints. NASA officials are also leaving wiggle room there.

"Since the program's inception, NASA has been working an aggressive plan to achieve flight capability before our March 2015 target," Rick Gilbrech, associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA, said in statement. "We are still confident the Constellation Program will make its first flight to the International Space Station on or before that date."

Also on Monday, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel expressed concerns about the funding of the Constellation program in its 2007 annual report. Among the worries were the "slow pace at which some NASA headquarters decisions are implemented across the 10 NASA centers," it said.

[gerrrg]

IMHO, NASA took a step backwards when they decided to cut the shuttle program, instead of improving upon it. It would be as if Intel one day decided that the x86 architecture just wasn't cutting it, and decided to start from scratch with a completely new recipe, instead going the way of RISC. Most people would think Intel was nuts, having lost all the expertise of using x86 for 20+ years (or so).

But not NASA. Instead, they go backwards to a capsule on a rocket, and you could just barely feel the richter scale move ever so slightly.

You know, at the very least, childrens' imaginations will have evaporated when the Shuttle program is officially dead.

[geek143]

NASA never wanted the shuttle to begin with, a flying truck as they called it. Politicians rather than space engineers forced that direction. The shuttle was expensive to launch, risky design, and could never carry enough or launch frequent enough to justify it. History has clearly shown on all accounts this is a risky way to get anything into space.

[The_Decider]

It would be great if Intel ditched x86 as it is very flawed.

[Galaxy5]

gerrrg, you forget that funding is key. Instead of funding NASA's Vision for Space Exploration - which includes Constellation as its cornerstone - Congress decided to fund wars and privatization of the military. Our infamous President decided to create another unfunded mandate - dropping the shuttle for VSE - and now NASA is faced with developing new vehicles on a budget only slightly more than in previous Space Shuttle-only FYs.

This information is all public, but it isn't used as context in stories like this. And while Intel had the budget to break from x86 and push it as a new architecture (anyone but me remember Itanium?) NASA simply doesn't. It's easy to pooh-pooh any government agency as a slow and wasteful endeavor, but that doesn't seem to be the case from where I stand.

Give NASA the money to explore space or don't - but don't be surprised when things fall behind when the budget doesn't support it. NASA's budget is something like 1/2 of one percent of the Federal budget, and they haven't discovered magic yet.

[gerrrg]

But Itanium was dropped, and Intel stuck with the original architecture...if we carry the analogy, NASA is going down the Itanium road. Further, while NASA's funding had been decreasing between 1994 and 2000, their funding has gone up each year since 2001, including $.5B increase this year. And, the President didn't make the choice to drop the Shuttle, NASA did. They have their budget, they chose to develop a new (old) vehicle from scratch.

[The_Decider]

The ******* needed to be mothballed in the 80's.

[geek143]

NASA never wanted the Shuttle, a flying truck as it was called.

A flawed vehicle in terms of design and over sold in terms of reliability.

[srb8220]

Galaxy5. Funding is the key. So is using that funding in an effective and efficient way - so not as much funding is required. Unfortunately, NASA has proved that they are incapable of spending our funding effectively or efficiently. As such they are not getting additional funding. What is worse, this decrease in the annual increase of funding has not prompted NASA to change their bureaucracy, increase their efficiency or spend our funds more effectively. Thus, we have this unfortunate delay. This is just one of NASA's issues. It makes me so sad.

[nighttrain2008]

>>NASA's plans to launch new manned missions to the International Space Station three years after the space shuttle retires in 2010 aren't panning out.

What a surprise...not. A government program with no product deadlines, no competition, and funded off tax dollars doesn't get off the ground on time. It's a shocker I tell you. Perhaps NASA should just go back to launching the outdated space bus for a few years. Since they're going to anyway, I would rather they continue wasting my tax dollars on something that has a track record for shoddy workmanship and past deadlines than to go mucking about on something totally new they won't have to produce a usable product for at least a decade. At least with the space bus, the masses still ooh and aah at the millions of tax dollars burning up during every launch.

Instead of whining about more funding (using more of my tax dollars) I've got a better idea. Cut off all funding entirely. Require NASA to submit their ideas to the free market, a place that requires results. Instead of cheering the two times NASA sends a lego robot to Mars

And for those who would call me 'flat earth' or some other form of Luddite, I have no problem with exploration. I want it. I welcome it. When done by private industry instead of by government waste

[The_Decider]

Yeah, commercialize space, that is the solution.

[gerrrg]

Whoa geek143, factcheck, factcheck, factcheck. Even before the end of the Apollo program, NASA had presented designs of the space shuttle. The big vision of the Shuttle was that it would serve as the vehicle to service lunar misions. Throughout the Shuttle's development through the 70's, NASA's budget, adjusted for inflation, was about 2/3 of what it is today.

Oversold in reliability? Perhaps. But they frequently ran 7-8 missions a year. In terms of years in service, they outlasted the projected 10 years, although they never reached the expected 100 launches per vehicle.

And let's not forget, the shuttle is the largest manned transport vehicle out there, period.

[startryn]

almost every advancement in medical technology and micro-miniaturazation is a direct result of the space program. they've been doing the impossible for the ungrateful for so long they're almost qualified to do anything with nothing. we seriously need to give these guys a decent budget and a big, blank sheet of paper.

[Ardose]

It reminds me of one of Murphy's Laws, "To spot the expert, look for the person who states that the project will take the longest time to complete and cost the most money." Without a doubt, that applies to NASA. If they already talking pushing the project back a year and begging more money, you can bet that this is only the beginning and this project will be mired in delays and cost overruns.

Imagine how better off we would be to use the money to improve our country's infrastructure instead of sending men to the big ball of dust.

[celticbrewer]

That's a pretty bad analogy. Intel SHOULD get rid of that old technology and build something from the ground up based on the advances/knowledge of the past 30 years. The shuttle concept is a good one, but it needs a major overhaul. I'm not a big fan of this Ares thing. I bet the private sector could do it better.

[nighttrain2008]

Of course you'll provide the Constitutional basis for NASA will you? While you're at it, provide the Constitutional basis for 95% of the rest of the behemoth called the federal government

[eerasr]

Why does a space vehicle hacve to be cool. The Shuttle is a really neat toy and I will miss her terrible when she is done flying, but if it is faster, cheaper and safer to use an Aries rocket, then why not? We need what will allow more launches per year at a lower costs, not what will sell more toys at Toys 'R Us.