Take a lookee here. This dude is not exactly a dope. He understands what is being proposed....

[link=http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100609-investigator-speaks-out-nasa-plan.html]http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100609-investigator-speaks-out-nasa-plan.html[/link]

And here's a release from SpaceX on the launch of the Falcon 9. Seems like it was a perfect launch of a brand new vehicle.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30992

Yes, it was. Again, see the link I posted to see why you DO NOT want to trust astronaut lives to Falcon.

And here's a summary of the Augustine Report, which basically stated that Constellation was way over budget and way behind schedule. Even if it had been continued there was an expected 7 year gap in USA abilities to launch humans into orbit.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/rela...ry_report.html

It's a somewhat long read but interesting.

I saw an interview with one of the Augustine panel members which basically stated that even if Santa Claus dropped a completed Ares 1 and Orion capsule in the laps of NASA, they would have to cancel it because they didn't have enough budget to operate it! The latest estimate, probably too low, is that each Shuttle launch now costs 1 Billion dollars. That's Billion with a B. Estimates on one Ares 1 launch right now is 1.5 Billion Dollars. That would probably only grow. NASA was able to design a lower cost alternative to Shuttle that managed to cost more then Shuttle!

Here's Spacex's website. Take a look and see what you think. I think they seem to be doing a very good job.

http://www.spacex.com/

I took a look at the link. He says commercial companies should only be used after they prove capability launching cargo. And that is exactly what NASA is doing with SpaceX. Several missions with supply to ISS, then possible manned missions. I just don't see why you are so locked on to the viewpoint that only the so-called "established" companies can only build rockets. After all, NASA has never built any launch vehicle. It's all been done by companies, who BTW, never did it before they needed to.

And here's something a little further down in your link,

Fellow CAIB member John Logsdon, now professor emeritus at the George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute here, said Tetrault is repeating the mantra of many commercial crew opponents by singling out “new entrepreneurial� firms and ignoring the fact that large, well-established companies including Boeing and United Launch Alliance are poised to compete for the $6 billion NASA intends to spend over the next five years on the commercial crew initiative.

Logsdon also said it is premature for Tetrault to conclude that commercial providers will skimp on safety.

“That’s an ideological judgment, not a technical statement,� Logsdon told Space News. “You can’t make such a judgment in advance of something being done.�

Once again, how do you think companies like SpaceX are going to do it cheaper? They will skimp on safety related issues (among other things). If the bonehead in the White House gets his way, you'll see what happens.....

The Augustine Commission also concluded that we could do Constellation for an additional 3 billion a year.

Now exactly how much did the bonehead give to AIG again???.......

I guess you find it comfortable to continue to throw insults.

Why should they continue to fund a project that was poorly run, over budget and behind schedule that would result in vehicles that would be too expensive to operate?

I believe you are completely wrong and struggling because your world is changing.

Because they would not be too expensive to operate given the increased budget (and let's not forget that all of the money spent would be returned many times over, a great investment). What you call poorly run would end up being a program with far, far more capability, safety, and inspiration than Obama's planned "Road To Nowhere". "Cause that is exactly where his new proposed plan will take us! Hopefully, Congress has enough insight to not stand for it.

Too expensive is too expensive. The solution is not to keep throwing money at a program that was going nowhere and spending too much to get there.

I've really said all I need to say. Congress will not reverse the direction outlined. It is better in the long term for the space program. All the cute negative names attached to the plan won't change that fact. It's really very simple. NASA will not see a huge increase in their budget to waste it on Constellation.

Sadly, you are likely correct. This country has, for many years, decided to spend about one half of one percent of the GDP on NASA. Yet that very same institution returns many fold on the investment. How much more goes to HUD, AIG, and others (with zero return???)? It is both sad AND crazy.....

What you call "keep throwing money at a program going no where" was actually a program that had clear goals and was making progress towards said goals. So what if we upped NASA'a budget to 1% of the GDP? We would then know that we would be getting seven times the money spent on 1% instead of .6%. WOW!! What an awful thing!

Too bad we don't have a guy in charge that can see the future, instead of pandering to minority voters and selling out the future.....

I REALLY feel bad for my kids.

I'm not an economist, but many that I have read or seen have said that all the money used to support the financial institutions and companies kept this country from falling in to a very deep depression. Not a whole lot of space exploration would come from a depression.

I don't believe that "seven times" estimate. Evidently a whole lot of people don't either. Especially with regard to money spent on Human Space flight. And if someone can really "see the future", well he would be more amazing then anything else. Everyone takes their best guess at what will work the best. And I really don't see how increasing NASA's budget with a direction to work the problem another way is "pandering to minority voters" or "selling out the future".

The current administration was left so many problems from the previous 8 years that very little is going to be solved overnight.

Here's something I pulled out that dispels the myth of the return on investment,

Not only does NASA’s public relations approach fail to dispel the obscurity of the thousands of technologies the agency develops, but no one has accurately calculated the actual value of NASA spin offs. (Daniel Lockney, editor of Spinoff, cites widely quoted numbers from informal studies in the 80s and 90s that estimate NASA generates between 7 and 22 dollars for every dollar invested in NASA research. But, according to a 1998 report by the Federation of American Scientists, those numbers are unrealistically high, having been calculated out of NASA’s research budget, not it’s overall budget.) From 1978 to 1986, the height of research and development on the shuttle—and presumably fertile territory for potential spin off—NASA spent $55 billion, only $2.5 billion of which was considered R&D; the other $52.5 billion went to overhead like salaries and maintaining communications networks. The agency reports that during that same period, $5 billion went back into the economy in the form of spin-off technology, a return on investment of about 10 cents on the dollar against the overall budget, a loose estimate at best without detailed scrutiny—something NASA has yet to undertake.

I'm in Brevard County. There are over 20,000 lost jobs in our area with outsourcing companies closing around my town everywhere. If you check www.zillow.com, property values plummet $15,000 on about every home here in just the last two months when it's going up in other parts of the country. These companies have closed their doors losing their contracts this year. (Thank goodness we all have Wal-Mart's popping up everywhere to take up the slack. ) Sadly, your daughter will see a country completely different from the one we grew up in.

Thousands of men are losing their careers, homes, and confidence in their future financial security. I'd discuss the impact of the BP spill in our area too, but I don't want to be accused of rambling too much. "Let's just wait for Frabjous Day and our champion will win for us."

Lookee here: [link=http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1406]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1406[/link]

Be careful what you type, someone might pull the plug on the internet too.

Would have been nice if Glenn had raised this when Bush decided to end Shuttle in 2004. But I guess it's better to be late then never.

Actually, it's pretty much locked in stone that Shuttle will end. They are extending in to 2011 because of delays, but that will be about it. The cost to start up production lines again to keep it going would be ridiculous. I wish there was budget for everything, but look at what the country is facing right now. Unemployment, two wars, the Gulf spill, healthcare, national debt above 13 Trillion dollars. Debt per taxpayer is now $118,661. I really don't know how we're going to recover.

Investing in something high tech that will inspire a generation to get degrees in science and engineering can only help (gee, when can I think of a good example of that happening in the past 50 years....). But it takes fore-thought. Our country seems to be severly lacking that nowadays....

You could say the lack of foresight started when Nixon canceled Apollo 18 and 19. I really don't think the government can think beyond the next election. It's really sad. I actually think that if Kennedy had not been killed, we probably would have never had the drive to complete the Moon program. On another note, how can the US spend more money then it is now? It is an insane path.