On Aug 23, 7:38*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*This report says the White House preferred option beforehand was to
kill Ares I. They just wanted an independent review panel to give
sufficient justification for it:

Presidential panel presents Obama with major NASA dilemma.
posted by Orlando Sentinel on Aug 14, 2009 6:12:43 PM
By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
"WASHINGTON -- When President Barack Obama named a panel to review
NASA’s manned-space program, his aides said privately they were hoping
the group would recommend scrapping NASA’s troubled Ares I rocket
program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the
moon.
But the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee came to a
troubling conclusion this week: NASA’s current budget offers no hope
of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or
more."
...
"But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program
by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they
saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it,
“infeasible.”
"But they didn’t expect that NASA’s budget would leave no room for
another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station.
"Even the panel members themselves were surprised.
"Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10-
member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option
that would fit within NASA’s current manned-space budget that the
committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020."http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/08/pre...

*It's that last part that irritates me greatly. You mean for $100
billion dollars specifically for *manned* missions we can't come up
with a way to get to the Moon in 10 years?
*According to this page the entire cost of Project Apollo with 6
successful Moon landings cost $135 billion in inflation adjusted
dollars:

Apollo program.
7 Program costs and cancellation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ts_and_cancell...

*You mean in 40 years we haven't figured out a way to do better than
that?
*Remember when the first President Bush back in 1989 proposed manned
missions to Mars at a cost of $500 billion? The huge cost estimates
led people like Robert Zubrin to come up with ways to do it at roughly
1/10th that amount.
We need new people otuside NASA to accomplish the same for Moon
missions.




DATE:02/10/09
SOURCE:Flight International
NASA design reviews should not have been approved says report.
By Rob Coppinger
"The US Government Accountability Office says NASA should not have
completed preliminary design reviews for its Constellation programme's
vehicles because it did not have the data to allow it to meet planned
delivery dates with confidence.
"Neither the Orion crew exploration vehicle nor its Ares I crew launch
vehicle should have progressed, says the GAO. In its September report
on Constellation the GAO highlights NASA's decision to delay Orion's
PDR from mid-2008 to third quarter 2009 and the fact that it closed
the Ares I review, while deferring resolution of the launcher's thrust
oscillation issue until the Constellation programme design milestone
in March 2010."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oved-says.html

On the other hand:

Obama voices support for space funding, leadership.
BY CRAIG COVAULT
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: October 7, 2009
"Obama said that to remain competitive it is critical for the U.S. to
increase federally funded research and development projects and that
he wants to significantly boost funding for such programs to a
sustained level of 3% of Gross National Product (GDP). The current
level is about 2.4% according to the Congressional Budget Office."
....
"White House comment on the new NASA options are expected soon after
the Administration officially receives the report by late October. But
it has already received a detailed summary of Augustine's options.
Science Advisor Holdren has also already held unofficial sessions with
the Augustine team to gain a detailed understanding of the report.
Sources tell Spaceflight Now that Holdren has received those options
favorably and expressed optimism that the White House can help with
funding shortfalls toward modification of the Bush plan."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/07obama/

The Augustine Commission has said NASA would need an additional $3
billion dollars per year to enable the planned manned missions to the
Moon:

Mars and Moon Are Out of NASA's Reach for Now, Review Panel Says.
By Joel Achenbach, Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Although taking a dim view of the status quo at NASA, the Augustine
committee clearly endorsed the goal of a robust human spaceflight
program and all but pleaded on behalf of the agency, which runs on an
annual budget of about $18 billion. A space exploration program "that
will be a source of pride for the nation" will require roughly an
additional $3 billion a year, the committee found."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090802464.html

This represents a 16% increase over NASA's current funding levels. If
the Obama administration really means an across the board increase in
science funding from 2.4% of GDP to 3%, then presumably this would
also apply to NASA. The extra .6% represents a 25% increase over
current levels. That would be enough to fund the Moon missions
assuming most of the increase went to fund manned missions.


Bob Clark