With the release of the full report by the Augustine Committee only days away, NASA is making preparations to test a rocket vital to a space program that the Obama administration may be preparing to terminate.

The U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (also known as the “Augustine Committee” because of its chairman, Norman Augustine, the former president and CEO of Lockheed Martin) has announced that it will be releasing its final report on October 22 about the future of manned space flight; meanwhile, NASA’s Ares I-X rocket, which would be used in future manned space missions, is now secured on Launch Pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. According to NASA,

Managers will meet at Kennedy on Friday for a Flight Test Readiness Review to thoroughly discuss whether the flight test is ready to proceed and set an official launch date. Currently, Ares I-X is targeted to launch Oct. 27 at 8 a.m....

NASA's first flight test for the agency's next-generation spacecraft and launch vehicle system, called Ares I-X, will bring NASA one step closer to its exploration goals. The flight test will provide NASA with an early opportunity to test and prove flight characteristics, hardware, facilities and ground operations associated with the Ares I.

The Ares I-X launch is one step in realizing the plans of the Bush administration’s “Constellation” program, which proposed a return of human space flight to the Moon by 2020, with plans for manned exploration of Mars at a later date. The continuation of Constellation has been in doubt since President Obama’s decision in May to appoint a committee to evaluate the future of the U.S. program of manned space flight.

According to an Associated Press report (“NASA puts new rocket on launch pad for test flight”):

It's the first time in 34 years that a rocket other than the space shuttle has stood at Launch Pad 39-B. NASA modified the pad for this rocket, which is supposed to eventually carry astronauts to the moon....

The test vehicle will blast off next Tuesday on a 2 1/2-minute ballistic flight to demonstrate how the partial first stage performs. It's costing NASA $445 million.

Thin and exceptionally tall at 327 feet, it looks like what will carry astronauts into orbit, possibly by 2015. But much of it is a mock-up, and no person or payload will be on board.

The shuttle, by contrast, is 184 feet tall. The Saturn V rockets that carried men to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s were a record-setting 363 feet.

The uncertainty associated with the future of Ares and the entire Constellation program highlights some of the central difficulties associated with a government program of manned space flight. With multi-billion dollar programs being initiated, or cancelled, on the basis of presidential policy whims, the thought processes usually associated with rational business practices are simply thrown out. The decision to produce and launch hundreds of millions of dollars worth of space hardware, while simultaneously contemplating simply scrapping the entire process that led to the development of hardware in the first place because of a change in administrations could prove iconic of the unbelievable government expenditures of the past year. As Ares I-X rises from the platform, perhaps the last gasp of an endangered manned space program, the cargo-less launch of a $445 million rocket may well summarize the first year of the Obama administration: a mind-numbing price tag, with very little to show for it.

Photo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

William the Lesser said:

The missing wordin this essay .... ... is "Constitution," as in "Where does the Constitution authorize federal expenditures on space exploration?" It's also worth noting that the space program of the late, unlamented Bush regime is built around a rocket booster named for the Greek god of war. It seems likely that the "American" space program will be folded into some larger "multinational" effort as part of the ongoing design to place space-based military assets under UN control. This was pointed out in TNA more than 10 years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20000818225502/www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no16/vo13no16_cosmic.htm

October 20, 2009 | url

Bonnie said:

Right on, William the Lesser The ONLY context in which government involvement in space activities is constitutional is defense. But... HEY! WE FOUND WATER ON THE MOON! Well, whoop-dee-doo! What are you going to do with it? Bottle it and bring it back to Earth to sell to yuppies for $15,000 a bottle?

October 20, 2009

William the Lesser said:

Private Lunar Exploration You know, if the FedGov weren't sucking capital out of the economy like the vacuum of space pulling O2 out a hull breach*, private lunar exploration and development might be possible. Water from the lunar south pole would be very useful in supporting a self-sustaining colony to mine and export -- among other things -- Helium-3, which is found in abundance on the moon and vital for nuclear fusion. TNA covered that issue here -- http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ Behind+the+environmental+lobby:+it+may+seem+stranger+th an+fiction,+...-a0131199395 *I know: O2 is actually blown into a vacuum, not "sucked" out.

October 20, 2009 | url

Ivanhoe said:

Are We Missing the Point? Weather our space exploration is gov't or private funded is'nt the question. The question is what will China, Russia, India and Europe do with the Moon, Mars and the metal rich asteroid belts once they have planted there flags and carved up the geography. This is the greatest race for wealth and colonization of new terrain since Columbus discovered the New World and let the other European powers carve it up and gather unprecidented wealth. The United States got it's beginning from this.

October 21, 2009

Bonnie said:

Beautiful dreamer, awake unto me If China, Russia, India and Europe wish to burst their budgets on projects providing a negative return on investment, they have my permission to have at it. Based upon prices of 101/dmtu for iron ore, or $19/lb for copper, or even $1300/oz for platinum, it will be impossible to get anywhere near the break even point. It's a pipe dream. As to Helium-3, 100 million pounds of lunar soil would have to be moved and processed to produce of one pound of Helium-3. The cost would be astronomical, and the damage to the lunar surface irreparable. (Source: Pravda) And, please, stop with the inane comparisons of the New World to the moon. This is like comparing apples and bricks.

October 21, 2009

Ivanhoe said:

Dear Bonnie I understand your point, why sail in search of new worlds when we all know that the world is flat....Do you know that the value of pure nickel on just one of the asteroids identified is worth more than all the real estate on this planet? I'd rather see us spend the money to get unlimited wealth than to spend money for nothing which seems to be the current state of affairs.

October 21, 2009

Elmer said:

It is no longer 1962 and Kennedy is dead Spain's investment amounted to three ships, three crews, and provisions. Spain then pillaged, stole, killed, and destroyed to make itself wealthy. Portugal saw this and wanted to get into the act. So did England, and to a lesser extent France. These countries feuded with each other for control of this "unlimited wealth", waging many wars. Spain and Portugal are now virtually third world nations, France is a joke, and England (who held on the longest) is now beginning to sink into oblivion. Greed really worked out well for them, don't you think? Now, as to all this nickel on the asteroids. Please tell me the dollar value of all the nickel for which we have practical use. Be sure to factor in the reduction of the value of nickel due to it projected supply and demand. Next, give me an estimate of the costs of sending enough men and equipment to the asteroids (fuel, cost of equipment, supplies, wages, developmental costs, etc.), performing the mining operations, whether of not you intend to ship ore back to Earth or do the processing there to extract the metal, and the cost of transportation home. Now, double your numbers (due to proven government inefficiency). How long will it be before we break even? This is a tad more complicated than three wooden ships and 120 men.

October 21, 2009

Bonnie said:

... First off, government funding of space exploration is not constitutional. Second, as a private investor, I, too, would like to see a Cost Benefit Analysis and projected ROI. While economies of scale would certainly benefit in reducing costs, do not forget the law of supply and demand. Ivanhoe is projecting a virtually unlimited supply. It is likely it will require an unlimited supply to reduce costs significantly enough to be practical. But what of demand? Demand could undoubtedly be increased somewhat, but certainly not to an unlimited degree. Consider also that a large portion of the created demand will be dedicated to obtaining supply. Ivanhoe, pretend I'm from Missouri. Show me!

October 22, 2009

Ivanhoe said:

Dear Show Me Russia, China, India and Europe will show you how. Ore won't be shipped back to earth, small factories will built on the Moon and Mars producing material to fabricate all their needs. I guess you guys have never watched any sci-fi movies. As far as a society without greed, well let's wait for the second coming for that manifestation.

October 22, 2009

Bonnie said:

... Sci-fi? You are basing this all on SCI-FI? LOL! That's a good one! Watch out for the Cardassians!

October 23, 2009