NASA chief on new space strategy, Achenblog, Washington Post

"Q. Is Obama going to offer any sweeteners when he goes to central Florida [for April 15 space conference]? The fact that the President is taking time to visit Florida to discuss the future of America's space program demonstrates his commitment to NASA, and our robust exploration vision. I think people will see firsthand what I see - his passionate commitment to a bold future in space which is at the heart of the decision to add an additional $6 billion to NASA's budget."

Unused NASA tower epitomizes brewing fight over space budget, The Hill

"Our greatest accomplishment in human space flight were gained because President Kennedy said we will land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth by the end of this decade," Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in February. "President Kennedy didn't say, 'We're going to spend a few billion dollars on some really unique research and development.'"

Imagination may be casualty of loss of space program, Deseret News

"Five years ago, I wrote in favor of privatizing the space program, mainly because of costs. I was wrong. The race to the moon never was a competition to see whether capitalism or communism was superior. The U.S. space program was just as dependent on the public treasury as was the Soviets'. It was, rather, a matter of pride and national security. Maybe we've lost that vision because our chief enemies these days, fanatical Middle Eastern terrorists, don't have a space program. But the price of becoming "a second-rate space country" is just as unthinkable as it was 40 years ago."

We have a budget proposal from the President that expands ISS utilization, invests in building a commercial LEO services-based launch capability, promotes a push to do R&D on exploration-enabling technologies, and, yes, cancels the Constellation program.

We have a Congress that, amongst the members who seem to care, largely doesn’t like this proposal, but is split amongst the various local concerns about what the best response to the budget is.  I have to admit that I share Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s sense of irony at a Democratic White House arguing for increased privatization against Congressional Republicans advocating the continuation of a monolithic government program.

The space community itself is just as divided.  You can see it on the space blogs and in the press, where we argue amongst ourselves about extending Shuttle, building a more direct derivative of it, saving Constellation (or not), supporting commercial endeavors, and just about every iteration in between.

This goes beyond just a technical debate, though.  People are taking this personally.  I experienced it first-hand when I found myself leaving a young professionals group that I had eagerly helped launch last fall, largely because I felt that dissenting views were no longer welcomed or respected and messaging decisions were being made on the basis of their marketability, not their content.

Speaking as someone who grew up watching the Shuttle, once worked on Constellation, and who now works on the Space Station Program, I can see where most people are coming from.  Putting aside the typical politics that seem to be dominating the debate on Capitol Hill for a moment, I understand why people would feel trepidation at the vanguard of human space flight for the past 30 years coming to an end and discomfort at the uncertainty of what the future holds.  As an engineer myself, I know my first instinct is to prefer the comfort of being pointed in a certain direction and told to go forth.

Personally, though, I do think NASA needs to focus on core strengths – exploration beyond LEO, scientific discovery, and technological innovation.  The Space Act is clear that NASA is not to compete with private industry where such capability exists.  The Vision for Space Exploration and the 2004 Aldridge Commission both said that NASA should not replicate existing LEO launch capabilities.  It’s long past time we stop thinking everything will be alright if we can just pick up where Apollo left off.  The world has changed since then and so must we.

When I search inside myself, I find that my strongest loyalty is to the enterprise of space exploration itself, not necessarily any particular program.  As long as we are moving forward and I am making a meaningful contribution, I’ll be happy.  If that means I have to change my own personal notion of what the future holds, so be it.

So long as we support an endeavor that is subject to the vagaries of the political winds, we will not have any hard-and-fast guarantees. The reality of the matter is that this could all change again when the next President comes along. Our best insurance against having change imposed on us against our will is to pursue missions with clear, unambiguous benefit to the nation.  I think we can take a lesson in this from another part of the government.

Few question the value the military, as an institution, provides our country. No one lamented the “end of the Army,” though, when the immense, $340-billion Future Combat Systems program was canceled.  FCS, despite completing its Systems of Systems Functional Review, was over budget and failing to meet its original requirements.

Before its cancellation, critical funding elements were already strapped and advanced technology development had been deferred.  The Pentagon was recommending further deferral as early as 2005 because of budget strains elsewhere and expected funding declines.  Sound familiar?

The Army is now working to figure out how to manage their programs better, what from FCS is really of value, and how to roll that forward into building its next generation of ground combat vehicles.  Studies of program management have repeatedly shown that there is a declining trend in successful completion with increasing size, budget, and complexity.  Instead of one monolithic program, the Army is now separating their modernization effort into role-specific programs.

We must not make the mistake of conflating the vision with the implementation, nor can we let ourselves fall victim to the sunk costs fallacy.  We need to be honest with ourselves and our stakeholders – the American public – about where the space program is now, where it is going if we stay on the present path, and where we really want to take it.

I think the Vision for Space Exploration is still a good one and that the findings of both the Aldridge and Augustine reports validate it.  Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we should have a conversation about how to best realize that Vision within the political and fiscal realities we must face.

The traditional disdain of engineers and scientists for dealing with politics has only hurt us over the past few decades.  We must bridge that gap if we expect policymakers to hear us, but we must also be careful to not lose our objectivity in the process of advocacy.  Otherwise, we will fall into the same trap that has recently discredited climate science in the public eye.

I believe with all of my heart that our civilization’s future is in space.  Our continued evolution and survival depends on our ability to explore the solar system, peel back its mysteries through scientific inquiry, and utilize its resources for the benefit of both our country and the rest of the world.  As far as I am concerned, that is our mission. Let’s not lose sight of it.

3 astronauts, lt. governor to address 'Save Space' rally, Florida Today

"Three astronauts who flew on the space shuttle will be among the featured speakers at a "Save Space" community rally April 11 at the Cocoa Expo Sports Center. During a planning meeting Friday, rally organizer and Brevard County Commissioner Robin Fisher said astronauts Jon McBride, Winston Scott and Bob Springer have agreed to be speakers. Florida Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp also is expected to speak at the event, along with various elected officials and community leaders."

Cochran and Wicker file bill to stop threat to NASA's Constellation Program, WLOX

"Mississippi Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker Friday cosponsored a measure to prohibit NASA from suspending work on the Constellation Program without justification. The Constellation Program was established in 2004 to be the human space exploration program to replace the Space Shuttle. Stennis Space Center in Hancock County is currently building rocket test stands for the Constellation Engines."

Contractors Preserving Constellation Funds To Pay for Program Closeout, Space News

"While NASA is asking Congress for $2.5 billion to shutter Constellation, agency officials say they do not know whether that money will be enough to pay for the government's closeout costs and still cover the termination expenses NASA contractors would incur as a result of having to cancel orders, vacate leases and pink-slip employees when the program is ordered shutdown. As a result, some contractors -- including Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems -- are preparing to slow or stop work on Constellation in order to set aside program money to cover their own termination expenses when NASA formally issues the shutdown orders."

Dear Colleague Letter: NASA Cuts Threaten National Defense - Invitation to Important Defense Staff Briefing Next Week, Rep. Rob Bishop

"With the industry already reeling from the cumulative impacts of these large SRM program cuts and terminations, NASA has now made an ill-advised and drastic decision to propose total cancellation of the Constellation manned space flight program, which would also include termination of the Ares 1 rocket, leaving our nation without a single large-scale SRM program in full production for the first time in 50 years! That will leave the U.S. to rely solely on the Navy's D-5 missile Life Extension program, with a production rate of only one booster stack per month, as the bedrock in sustaining our nation's ability to produce large scale solid rocket motors. .... This important staff briefing will be conducted by representatives from SRM producer, ATK, as well as their suppliers and aerospace industry teammates, followed by lots of time for Q&A."

Utahns in Congress all against cuts to NASA, Salt Lake Tribune

"Bishop, whose district include Alliant Techsystems, which produces solid rocket motors and employs 3,500 people, said that Obama's budget on NASA doesn't save any money and that it would actually cost $2.5 billion to end the Constellation program. Moreover, Bishop says Obama's move hurts the country's ability to enhance its missile defenses."

Keith's note: I find it to be a little strange that the other major U.S. manufacturer of SRMs, Aerojet, is not being invited to participate in this presentation. If Rep. Bishop truly intended this event to be a discussion about national capabilities, one would assume that he'd try and get a representative set of presentations - not just one company's - the one he represents in Congress. Truth be known, this is really all about ATK and the fear of lost business in Utah - with the arm waving about national issues used as a smoke screen. As for DoD concerns, there is clearly no consensus on this issue - either way. As for the D-5, its first stage stage (a SRM) is 24 feet long whereas Aerojet's SRMs on the Atlas V are 67 feet long - so clearly someone other than ATK can make large SRMs.

Pentagon Not Yet Concerned Over NASA Changes, Aviation Week

"[Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] did mention, however, that he and other defense officials have had longstanding concerns over the space industrial base, much the same way they do for shipbuilding. Like with warships, the admiral said there is consensus that the Defense Department is paying too much for old systems when it comes to space assets."

Sen. Says Solid Rocket Motor Costs Will Double, Navy Disagrees, Defense News

"During a Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Rear Adm. Stephen Johnson, said he expects solid rocket motor prices to rise 10 to 20 percent. He assured Vitter that 100 percent price growth is not likely. Johnson heads Navy strategic systems programs."

New NASA Policy = Higher USAF Launch Costs?, earlier post

In Case You Missed It. .. Who is behind the cancellation of the Constellation program?, Rep. Rob Bishop

"Last night on the Floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) voiced concerns over statements made by NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, who is apparently the leading voice in the proposal to cancel the Constellation Program, NASA's tested replacement for the retiring Space Shuttle."

Keith's note: Excuse me Rep. Bishop - but are you suggesting that "NASA's tested replacement" is the Ares 1-X launch last year? You know, the one-off rocket built out of left-over parts, another launch vehicle's guidance system, and dummy upper stages? That's right - the same one that flew a strange profile after staging and had parachute failures. Just checking. I am not certain that this one test flight can be exagerated to imply (as you clearly do) that the Constellation program has been "tested". As for your off the wall conspiracy mongering with regard to Lori Garver's imaginary cabals to undermine human spaceflight until the end of time, I guess there's always one empty seat on the bus to crazy town - right next to Sen. Vitter.

Sen. Vitter Has Been Drinking the Koolaid, earlier post

Keith's note: As is usually the case at times like this rumors abound in and around NASA. Many are of the sort that spread because you hope that they are true. Having the ring of logic helps too. In this case, the rumor or viral meme that I keep encountering is that the President will visit KSC - not just to try and woo people with his prose mixed with logic and compassion - but rather that he will augment his comments with the announcement of a compromise of sorts. He'd announce it after describing the problem and discussing the options he has available to him.

The question lingering in the minds of folks inside and outside NASA - as well as inside and outside the Beltway is why political strategists in the White House would knowingly send their boss into the proverbial lion's den with nothing but words as a defense. There are a lot of angry people at KSC who will be unemployed through no fault of their own in a short period of time - in a region where there is not another space program to go work for. As such, whether it is an anguished and angry outburst in a town hall meeting or pickets along the road, folks down there have little to lose - and their elected officials are almost as desperate. Opinions will be brutal and frank. Lots of potential YouTube moments.

So why send him down there? Well, he could say that he felt the need to speak to people face to face about this potentially dire situation - something his predecessor never did. That will score some points - but not enough. But if he really wants to connect with folks, he'll do a partial mea culpa and say "I hear ya".

And then comes the compromise. The current White House plan is to continue with the Shuttle shutdown initiated by President Bush. But instead of having Constellation ramping up to provide a human transport capability and to cover shuttle program workers, Constellation is cancelled and there is no safety net whatsoever. Bad layoff numbers now become dire.

NASA folks on the other hand are of two camps. First, here are the folks who want to shut down shuttle and yet retain as much of Constellation as possible - an "Ares V Lite" with Orion on top being their favorite flavor.

Then there is the "fly Shuttle" crowd - which is of two sub camps. One sub camp simply wants to fly the Shuttle as it is until something else is fully operational to take its place - with human access and jobs being the two main drivers. The other sub camp wants to stretch out the remaining shuttle flights and add some additional flights as they transition from shuttle to a shuttle derived (side mount) architecture that would be cheap, straightforward, use existing resources, and would also preserve human access and jobs.

The White House jumped out of the gate resolute that their plan (OSTP's plan) was perfect in every way. NASA had insight into its formulation but the decision to go in the direction that was announced was OSTP's - not NASA's. NASA had no choice but to go along with it because that is how things work. The talking points, white papers, etc. were all of White House origin.

Well, we all know what happened.

Clearly, OSTP's plan did not receive the universal accolades that they had assured themselves that it would. NASA's rollout was botched - but a lot of the blame rests with OSTP for this - not NASA. What do you do when you are kept out of the loop and only have several days to roll things out? Congress was unified across party lines (at least in the states affected by the policy) in their opposition. Something needed to be done. So, one Sunday afternoon OSTP announced the "Space Summit" at KSC on 15 April - during a shuttle mission (talk about timing). No details were released other than the fact that President would swoop in on Air Force One.

In the weeks that have followed little concrete detail has emerged. NASA PAO has no idea how this will be covered since no one has told them. KSC employees know something is up but the people most affected seem to have the least amount of input or participation in the event.

As it stands now the President will land at the KSC skid strip and be helicoptered over to the Headquarters area of KSC for an invitation-only event. While no invitation criteria have yet emerged you can imagine that the audience will be well screened and everything scripted - at least while POTUS is in the room. After that event the President will tour some KSC facilities while another venue is brought online for some subset of the KSC workforce to participate. The format is supposedly a "town Hall" - something the President does rather well at. Who gets to ask questions is still a TBD. Oh yes, KSC management is not sure they like the idea of this event in the first place given the tensions and potential for televised bad moments.

So here the President stands, confronted with a lot of very dedicated people who work as much for the income as they do the thrill of being a part of space exploration. What do you say to this group as they are about to have their ranks utterly devastated in a way that will rival the closeout of Apollo in its effect on the economy?

In my mind the only thing he can do is offer some sort of compromise. Again, along the lines of saying "You spoke loud and clear" or "I heard ya", the President offers some sort of bridge wherein money slated for use in HLV studies is added to the shuttle budget. The shuttle is flown perhaps twice a year as a shuttle-derived cargo capability is brought online - all while commercial means - including perhaps human-rated EELVs are brought online. Constellation is cancelled, commercial capabilities come online and prove their value, and NASA gets a HLV. In addition, NASA's workforce is not eradicated but manages to retain some semblance of its former self. It is not perfect, but it is a compromise.

The President could also decide to designate the jobs situation in the NASA sector as he has with other sectors - retail ("cash for clunkers"), banking (mega bailouts), construction (that train from Tampa to Orlando), etc. and use Recovery Act funds to augment the funding of such a transition.

Then again, the President could just come down to KSC, stand on that stage, gird his loins, and stand up for his decision in front of the very people most affected. Many politicians would be terrified of doing such a thing. To be certain, while the decision he defends may be unpopular, I suspect many affected will at least walk away (still angry) knowing that the guy on the stage that they elected is not a wimp.

But this scenario where the President arrives with nothing but words to offer is such a non-starter. As such, I smell a compromise in the making.

Keith's note:
According to multiple sources, the chief DIRECT fan boy Stephen Metschan, is still trying to whip up support for his rocket idea - as if it is the one and only solution to every single problem NASA has. It would seem that his big protest rally idea onsite at KSC has evaporated from lack of interest (and permission). Now he is sending proposed speeches around to Washington and his pals via messages that incorrectly spell the the first and last name of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Gee Stephen, it sure would help if you get the names of the main players straight before you try and influence White House policy.

Review of NASA's Progress on Retiring the Space Shuttle Program, NASA OIG

"Based on calculations by the Office of Inspector General, historical flight rates, and internal NASA evaluations, NASA is not likely to meet its September 2010 timetable, and it will most likely take until the second quarter of FY 2011 to complete the last of the planned Space Shuttle flights."

NASA Pays Sky-High $66 a Person for Seminar Snacks, AP

"The nation's space agency paid the out-of-this-world price of $66 a person a day for bagels, cookies and juice at a conference, a new report found. The subject of the NASA conference? It was a training session for its procurement officials -- the people who do the buying with taxpayer funds. During the three-day conference, the 317 attendees snacked on "light refreshments" of soda, coffee, fruit, bagels and cookies at a cost of $62,611, according to a NASA Inspector General report. That's $66 a day per person. And that wasn't the only problem. The NASA financial watchdog criticized the financially strapped space agency's spending on conferences in general. The inspector general said NASA didn't price shop to get cheaper locations for conferences and that NASA's spending on food and drinks was "excessive."

Keith's note: Of course, the procurement folks on travel to this meeting also put meals on their travel expenses too, right? Hmm, seeing their travel vouchers for this meeting would be a fascinating FOIA exercise ... "do as I say - not as I do", eh?

Final Memorandum on the Analysis of Fiscal Year 2009 NASA-Sponsored Conferences, NASA OIG

House panel vows to save Constellation, Orlando Sentinel

"To emphasize its doubt, the subcommittee asked Thomas Young, a former Lockheed Martin executive, to testify. He flatly told the committee that the White House plan was untenable and said that NASA should not rely on commercial rockets to transport astronauts. "In my view, this is a risk too high and not a responsible course. The commercial crew option should not be approved," he said, adding that the best policy would continue a longstanding partnership between NASA and the aerospace industry because the U.S. needs NASA's space expertise."

Keith's note: As I Twittered yesterday: "Tom Young has his gaze firmly affixed on the past not the future and thinks of ways of how not to do things rather than how to do them. FAIL"

NASA's Nebula rolls out in the cloud, Federal News Radio

"Nebula is 18 months old and is literally rolling along. Agencies across the federal government are exploring cloud computing, but NASA's work in the area could be become the poster child for its use. Their Nebula Cloud Computing Platform at the Ames Research Center in California is being touted as a possible model for others. Chris Kemp, chief information officer of NASA Ames, explains the benefits of Nebula. "The real thrust of the project was making it easier for NASA to make its data accessible on the Web. NASA started using the Internet long ago, and, as a result, we have thousands of public-facing Web sites, and in today's environment, that's expensive to operate. It's also a large attack surface from a security perspective. We're trying to make it easier and more secure for NASA data to be accessed by our partners and the public."

The Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, (ASF) will be hosting the Apollo 13 40th anniversary on Apr. 9, 2010. This celebration will be a great opportunity for both space buffs and those with only a passing interest in the topic to meet giants in manned space flight history. Attendees will also be treated to spectacular tours and gourmet meals as NASA's Kennedy Space Center, (KSC) plays host to this historic event.

When one visits the Visitor Complex at KSC one normally has a tour guide explain what they are seeing and its historical significance. In the case of the Apollo 13 40th Anniversary the guides will be two of the astronauts who flew the mission, Jim Lovell and Fred Haise as well as Gene "Flight" Kranz, the man who made the famous quote, that "Failure is not an option." They will tell you what they experienced first hand.

The ticket price also includes a look into a mock-up of the firing room and a gourmet dinner underneath the massive Saturn V rocket that is on display inside an expansive building at KSC. During all this you will hear first hand accounts from Lovell, Haise and Kranz as well as "Pad Fuehrer" Geunter Wendt, NASA Project Engineer Bob Sieck and other key astronauts and personnel who were involved with the mission.

Tickets also include a photo opportunity and proceeds will go to the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation. The ASF is a non-profit, [501(c) (3)] group established by the original Mercury astronauts to give scholarships to students seeking engineering and science degrees.

For More Info:

Keith's note: The NASA-related hearing scheduled for today at 10 a.m. in 192 Dirksen Bldg. Has been postponed. The intent was to discuss the FY 2011 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations. Scheduled witnesses: Charles Bolden; Paul K. Martin, inspector general, NASA; and John Frost, member, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. Word has it that the new target date is 22 April.

Help 25 of the top high school innovators design the future! On March 29th, the Spirit of Innovation Awards challenges YOU to vote for your favorite teams and help select this year's "Pete Conrad Scholars!" Over the past 6 months, 25 finalist teams have created real products to solve some of the grand challenges facing society. From the depths of the oceans to the edges of space, these students will knock your socks off! Piezo-electric wallpaper, robotic astronaut assistants, advanced water purification systems, and Navajo Solar "Frybread" ovens; these are just a few of the amazing products high school students are designing. To see all of the teams check out http://www.conradawards.org, and remember, online voting is open March 29th through April 9th. Winners will be announced April 10th during the 2010 Innovation Summit at NASA Ames Research Center.

Keith's 23 Mar update: I have learned that after the President holds his summit event at the KSC Headquarters area the President will then have a town hall meeting onsite at NASA KSC where he will hear - and take questions from KSC employees. He will also tour a number of KSC facilities (VAB, OPF etc.) It would seem that the concerns of the KSC workforce have managed to trickle up to OSTP. Stay tuned.

Lt. Gov wants Obama to debate; space summit venue hunt is on, Orlando Sentinel

"It remains to be seen what exactly White House plans are for the meeting, which is now being called a "Space Conference." NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver was at Kennedy Space Center last week scoping out possible venues for the meeting. Her choices are the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building that was recently refurbished as a factory to assemble the Orion crew capsule that is now on the Constellation chopping block; the Operations Support Building 2; the Training Auditorium; the Debus Center at the visitor complex; and the Saturn Center ... The location of the meeting isn't the only aspect of the conference taxing officials' minds. Administration insiders are still discussing various formats as well as whom to invite to the event."

Keith's 16 Mar update: The story circulating at KSC is that Air Force One will land at the Skid Strip and that the President will be moved to a building on site at KSC where the Space Summit will be held. Rest assured that the audience will be scrubbed, vetted, reviewed, checked, and otherwise investigated such that no one gets in unless the White House says so - and they are certain not to cause any embarrassments for the President and his "message". Any protests that might be staged will be soooo far away from the event venue as to be imperceptible by media covering the event.

Keith's 15 Mar update: Sources now report that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has become personally involved in some of the discussions related to this Space Summit.

Keith's 14 Mar update: Still no word as to who will be appearing at the OSTP Space Summit or what will be said. Oh well: there are still several weeks within which OSTP can stall on this. I guess we'll just have to wait for OSTP chief of staff Jim Kohlenberger to get around to telling people what will (or won't) happen at this summit.

If the President is trully enaged in all of this - as OSTP Director John Holden is so fond of saying that he is - and if the President is indeed concerned about the NASA and contractor workforce, then OSTP needs to find a way for him to interact with people - directly - not via a scripted circus with intermediaries and surrogates. In other words, the President needs to do something in a way that resonates with how he got the job in the first place.

As it stands now, the people who are most affected by these OSTP policies are the least involved in this event. That is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with an Administration that heralded openness and transparency as the hallmarks of their new way of doing business.

There is a Senate hearing on "Assessing Commercial Space Capabilities". So ... maybe this issue will get discussed at that hearing given that the new Obama space policy places great reliance upon the commercial space sector.

Keith's 12 March note: The "Town Hall" concept that the White House originally considered for the President's 15 April trip to Florida has been replaced with something a bit more like the recent health care summit. No word yet as to who will participate other than senior Administration and NASA officials and local and state politicians. You can bet that the White House advance team will pre-screen and hand pick almost everyone in attendance so as to limit the opportunity for random outbursts and YouTube moments. But they can't do much about what happens outside the meeting site.

Meanwhile, Stephen Metschan, one of the team of non-rocket scientists behind the DIRECT concept is out trying to organize some sort of rally or protest meeting in/around KSC to coincide with the White House event. Alas, his friends are posting notes on NASA Watch stating that he is not doing this. Well, he is - and I stand by my reporting.

Space Coast Wants Answers From Obama - Local 6 To Ask Your Questions During Space Summit on April 15, WKMG

"When President Obama returns to Florida for a Space Summit next month, the crowd may not be so welcoming. His 2011 budget killed the Constellation project, put a hold on human space flight missions and left the lives of thousands of NASA workers and their families in limbo."

Obama facing uprising over new NASA strategy, Reuters

"It is making for a potentially explosive environment when Obama travels to the Cape Canaveral area on April 15 to host a space conference with top officials and leaders in the field. "What reception will they get? Not good," said Keith Cowing, editor of nasawatch.com, a website that closely monitors the U.S. space agency. "It's a gutsy move. It's Daniel in the Lion's Den."

Bolden defends decision to cancel Constellation program, SaceflightNow

"The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that NASA is "scrambling" to come up with a new plan to satisfy vocal critics in Congress, but Bolden vigorously defended the strategy outlined in the agency's budget proposal released Feb. 1. "I wish I could say it was a singular problem of funding [affecting Constellation]," Bolden said. "Funding was the principal driver in causing the Constellation program to be unsustainable. But the Constellation program had degraded to a lunar program without a lander. Those decisions, while they had to be made because of insufficient funding, put us in a situation where we almost could not recover."

NASA to Devise New Spending Plan to Placate Congress, Wall Street Journal

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is scrambling to come up with a new budget proposal to placate congressional critics as senior members of the House Appropriations Committee say that White House's plan for the agency won't fly on Capitol Hill. The Obama administration had initially proposed to allocate $6 billion over five years for a program that eventually would outsource manned space missions to private companies. Members of the appropriations subcommittee, including Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, its ranking Republican, have told NASA in recent weeks that they won't support the White House's proposed budget."

A new hope for Obama NASA plan?, Orlando Sentinel

"The most heated exchange came when U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, asked Bolden which country -- the United States or China -- would send humans to the moon next. Bolden started to respond by saying it didn't matter -- because the U.S. already has been there -- when Wolf cut him off. "Well it does to me," he snapped. "It does to me, and I think it matters, with all respect, to a lot of Americans." Bolden then said he thought NASA would "get back first" with Obama's plan. "I think we stand a pretty good chance of getting to the moon much quicker than we would have with the Constellation program," he said, stressing the plan's focus on developing new space technologies."

Prepared Statement by NASA Administrator Statement of Charles F. Bolden before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations

"Before I discuss the details of the NASA budget request, I would like to talk in general about the President's new course for human exploration of space. With this budget, the United States has positioned itself to continue our space leadership for years."

Remarks by NASA Deputy Administrator Lori B. Garver at the American Astronautical Society's 48th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium

"The President's budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation's future."

- House Science and Technology Cmte Space and Aeronautics Subcmte Hearing: Proposed Changes to NASA's Exploration Program, 24 March: ESMD AA Douglas Cooke and Tom Young testify at 2 pm EST.

- Hearing Charter
- live webcast
- Presentation by Doug Cooke
- Testimony by Tom Young

- Opening Statement By Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords, Hearing on NASA's FY 2011 Budget Request and Exploration

"Over the past few months we have held many hearings to address safety concerns for human spaceflight, the competition of international space programs, and the impact of NASA's programs on the skilled aerospace workforce and industrial base. We have also heard from the Government Accountability Office and NASA's Inspector General. And just last month NASA Administrator, General Charlie Bolden testified on the FY2011 budget request. Unfortunately, the NASA Administrator was unable to satisfy many of the members of this committee. Today we are going to continue to take a closer look at the elements of the proposed plan and try to get additional information--to the extent that such information exists."

Robert M. White dies at 85; pilot made history with 1962 test flight into space, LA Times

"Robert M. White was a 38-year-old U.S. Air Force major and record-setting test pilot at Edwards Air Force Base in 1962 when he joined the elite ranks of America's four astronauts. But Mercury astronauts Alan Shepard, Virgil Grissom, John Glenn and Scott Carpenter went into space seated atop ballistic missiles and returned in capsules that parachuted onto the ocean."

Robert White, a pilot in 'The Right Stuff,' dies, SF Chronicle

"After his space flight, he was featured on the cover of Life magazine next to the quote, "Boy, That Was a Ride."