NASA Budget Under Scrutiny by House Lawmakers
By Bart Jansen
Florida Today
posted: 24 March 2010
01:42 pm ET
WASHINGTON — The Constellation program aimed at sending astronauts back to the moon was too expensive, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said Tuesday as he faced another House grilling about the agency's budget.
Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on science, asked Bolden why the administration would discard the Constellation program after spending $9 billion on it.
Bolden said Constellation wouldn't have reached the moon before 2030. Even then, he said the Ares rocket and Orion capsule wouldn't have had a way to return from the moon's surface because that hasn't been budgeted.
"I just couldn't in good conscience recommend that to the president," Bolden said.
President Barack Obama's proposed fiscal 2011 budget proposes boosting funding by $6 billion over five years. He would increase research at the International Space Station and rely on commercial rockets to ferry people there.
The budget has provoked bipartisan outrage in Congress among lawmakers who prefer that U.S. astronauts travel only aboard NASA rockets.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., asked Bolden to reply to a congressional request for options that would allow the U.S. to send its own rockets to the space station instead of relying on Russian rockets after the retirement of the shuttle this year.
"We are unable to do that," Bolden said. "There is no alternative budget. There is no plan B."
Mollohan asked why the country can't simply stretch out funding for Constellation, but Bolden warned that pouring another $45 billion to $60 billion into Constellation would starve research programs of funding.
Bolden said NASA would spend less using commercial rockets to reach the space station than it would using its own rockets. He hopes to save NASA money by reducing $600 million to $700 million in overhead supporting Ares.
His goal is to develop a versatile capsule that could sit atop a variety of commercial rockets.
Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, D-Md., said the changes proposed in the president's budget would occur too quickly. He said proposing $3 billion over five years to develop a heavy-lift rocket to carry people beyond the space station isn't enough.
"I'm concerned that we don't have a roadmap," he said. "Commercial will not get us to the moon. Commercial won't get us to Mars."
![]()
Click to view image: 'pc1'
http://www.space.com/news/house-reviews-nasa-budge
Advertisement below
|
|
| Liveleak on Facebook | |
|
LIKE Liveleak.com |
-
Gun Control is Bullshit
-
Ferrofluid sculpture...developed by NASA
-
NASA's 3D Sun
-
Complete NASA Footage of Challenger Space Shuttle Explosion
-
Man kills self, hostage at NASA building
-
NASA buys $19 million toilet system
-
NASA Controlled Impact Demonstration
-
UFO - during the NASA tether incident
-
NASA will check backgrounds despite criticism
-
NASA has released never before seen pictures of Jupiter.
-
NASA-Carnegie's $350 Million Space Toy Wagon




Good. The democrat representative from FL cut a deal with BHO in exchange for his yes vote on the abortion people call a health care bill.
Such scrutiny should cast a light on just how much this fuckers yes vote cost the American tax payers.
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByFenrisulfr (183.08) Fenrisulfr Send Message
(2)
I'd be happy if half the bloated military budget went to NASA and we had a moon base in 10 years
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByZardoz003 (1572.02) 
Zardoz003 View Channel Send Message
(2)
Privatization is essential for space exploration.
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByRepConTilDeath (386.58) RepConTilDeath View Channel Send Message
(0)
When US politicians travel using commercial means I'll agree with that.
What you don't say is Government funded privatization is essential for space exploration as you see it.
Would you like a second serving of conflict of interest with that?
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByjumpingforJoy (3897.06) jumpingforJoy Send Message
(2)
thats what i was thinking. at a time when half of americans want to go live on another planet, they cut funding, increase taxes and say get to work, slave, youve got other peoples mouths to feed.
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByKolariah (211.26) Kolariah Send Message
(1)
NASA's needed a financial overhaul for decades.
Back in the 1960's I heard NASA spent upwards of a billion dollars trying to develop a ball point pen that would write in zero gravity.
Know what the Russians did?
They used a pencil ... A FUCKING PENCIL!!!
Posted Mar-28-2010 Bymichael567 (1929.20) michael567 View Channel Send Message
(0)
Stupid communists give up too easy. Space pens are the future, open your mind!!!
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByZardoz003 (1572.02) 
Zardoz003 View Channel Send Message
(1)
You're right.
What was I thinking?
If I only had a nickle for every time my space pencil broke while traveling between the stars I'd be a wealthy man.
A space pen is the way to go.
Posted Mar-28-2010 Bymichael567 (1929.20) michael567 View Channel Send Message
(0)
give NASA the money, fucking Obama you cunt traitor bastard
are you going to take money from the military next
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByArdo Melnikov (79.36) 
Ardo Melnikov View Channel Send Message
(0)
He increased the budget this year, it is near a trillion dollars. It shouldn't be more then 200 billion which is almost as much as the rest of the planets military budgets. Think about it, the military is a money sink whole beyond anything else ever conceived as it stands today. Eisenhower was spot on and ignored like all great men.
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByZardoz003 (1572.02) 
Zardoz003 View Channel Send Message
(1)
What does NASA do by the way besides charge 49 million per toilet?
Posted Mar-30-2010 ByJeffersonSie (50.60) 
JeffersonSie View Channel Send Message
(0)
Duct tape a baloon and a camera from Ebay = 100 Bucs...
Posted Mar-28-2010 ByT_Bone69 (474.76) 
T_Bone69 View Channel Send Message
(-3)