NASA Cancels Missions After All 256
jd writes "Barely a day after NASA chief Dr. Griffen swore blind that projects might be frozen but not cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints, news comes of a new asteroid mission that has been cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints - something Dr. Griffin did not mention in his earlier comments. The visit to two asteroids, short about $90 million, was completely abandoned according to NASA, with no possibility of revival. In consequence, smaller missions are reportedly feeling at much greater risk."
Climate of budget tightening (Score:5, Informative)
This is a difficult situation because the mission has a lot of merit. But it was over budget and had technical problems [spaceflightnow.com]. Something had to go in a climate of budget tightening. Most people on this forum will rail at this decision. They should blame the aimlessness of NASA's manned space program since Apollo, and credit NASA administrator Michael Griffin for doing something about it.
Re:To all the naysayers. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:1, Informative)
How do you think they found out about the explosives?
Foam insulation my ass.
Try 31 times higher. (Score:5, Informative)
That's a bit of an exaggeration... NASA's share of the federal budget [kowaldesign.com] is roughly 15 billion dollars. The DOD gets 475 billion. That's closer to the neighborhood of 30 times. It's worth mentioning that the executive branch gets 25 billion a year though; About the same as the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and NASA combined... Limos and jets cost more than shuttle missions apparently.
Re:JPL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war (Score:2, Informative)
Oh yes. Wait - they are? I haven't seen it, have you? I give you a 20 year time frame - you give me one, just one, that's right one (1) example of a foreign country where a large problem, like a threat to us, has been solved. Until then, STFU.
Re:Climate of budget tightening (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the Space Shuttle was a damn good idea and the concept is still a damn good idea. If it sucked so bad then why are people still considering a reusable delivery system today?
Nay Sayer!!!
It's still a good idea, just like the 286 intel chip was. But they need to opportunity to go next generation on the project and build a new series. In the future I think it would make more sense if NASA only built two and then started a redesign.
Foolish Choices (Score:4, Informative)
I'm all for going to the Moon and on to Mars, but I want a sustainable space program. I want to see us go out to space and develop the resources that are out there.
As has been pointed out on this thread, the Shuttle isn't the best way to do this. We need safe reliable transportation to space at a reasonable cost. I think the best answer is a space elevator. The folks over at www.liftport.com are working on actually building one -- well actually four of them. If LiftPort accomplishes it's goals, it will have four space elevators that will be able to carry a shuttle load of cargo to orbit on a WEEKLY basis. Since the elevator will extend out sixty thousand miles, it will also serve as an excellent launching platform for missions to anywhere in the inner solar system. The Earth's own momentum will supply the initial velocity needed.