<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  Reporters at the  Orlando Sentinel created a stir today by breaking news\u2014citing anonymous sources\u2014that President Barack Obama&amp;#039;s budget will not include any funds for hardware for NASA&amp;#039;s human space flight program. They say it axes all spending on the Constellation program: a Bush administration plan that tasked NASA with building a launch vehicle alled the Ares I to deliver supplies and staff to the International Space Station. The plan then called for a larger version of the rocket, Ares V, for longer missions including a return to the Moon. There will certainly be a fight on Capitol Hill as politicians rush to save jobs, decry the lapse in national prestige and play blame games over who lost the moon. (In truth, both the Bush and Obama administration seem to have underfunded the Constellation plan.) Ares may be salvaged, but the program will not likely get the funds it needs to stay on track unless Congress rebels entirely. The Ares I program has already been hampered by redesigns, delays and cost overruns. (NASA has spent about $8 billion on Constellation hardware so far.) Any partial restoration of funds will only keep the program on life support and sap other NASA efforts.  Here&amp;#039;s a breakdown of the some questions to ask during the aftermath of the apparent collapse of the United States&amp;#039; human space flight program. 1) Who are the beneficiaries of this budget shift?  The NASA budget reportedly increases by a couple hundred million dollars, money that will in part be dedicated to keeping the International Space Station operational until 2020. Private space companies will also receive new opportunities to sign high-dollar contracts to supply the station. President Obama is selling the idea of bringing private space into NASA&amp;#039;s fold as a whole new way of thinking, but NASA under the Bush administration already got the ball rolling with ISS resupply contracts to the private space companies Orbital and SpaceX. But the Bush team hedged their bets by keeping a government program functional. What will happen if private space fails to create a reliable launch vehicle? So far they are doing well, but a small engineering flaw or a mishap could grind the effort to a halt. Also, as private space companies morph into large contractors, will the risk of bureaucratic lethargy increase, as seen in the defense industry among prime contractors? 2) Is the military the heir to NASA? Who is the point agency on U.S. spaceflight these days? As NASA abdicates some of its role, the U.S. Air Force is eagerly asserting itself in space. Some programs, like the X-37B space plane, have already transitioned from NASA to the military. NASA&amp;#039;s research centers are world class and work in close collaboration with the military. But without human space flight, a marquee element of NASA&amp;#039;s mission, the agency could become a research support organization that occasionally launches a probe or space telescope, while the Buck Rogers spacecraft will be designed by the military (and private space companies). That&amp;#039;s OK, but government designs could run into hurdles caused by clumsy defense department procurement, secrecy demands and debates over &amp;quot;weaponization&amp;quot; of space. 3) Will the U.S. lose the new Space Race? Do people care? The legacy of the era could become evident in a decade, when India or China succeeds in returning humanity to the moon. This achievement meant something for national prestige and scientific innovation in the 1960s and it means similar things now. NASA has long been a cradle for innovation as well as innovators. Without the appeal of a human flight program, will fewer aspiring scientists and engineers be lured into the agency and towards military and private space? Will the research end of NASA suffer from this lack of inspirational purpose? What are the geopolitical ramifications, if any, of this waning of American power? 4) What will the next big launch vehicle look like? And when will it be ready? NASA is seeking alternative ideas for a new heavy-lifting launch vehicle, a move that increased the odds that Ares V is considered doomed by NASA. Will the agency adapt military rockets, build a new launch vehicle from scratch or adapt components from the Space Shuttle program to make a new design from established parts (and possibly save jobs from existing production lines)? When will this new craft be ready, anyway, and what will it be used for? This debate was settled with Constellation\u2014a reassessment will be delayed by political and engineering debates. 5) Are NASA astronauts going extinct?  Heroic Explorers Wanted: Only Robots Need Apply. NASA&amp;#039;s most exciting missions to other planets are based on robotic probes. For example, the agency is now evaluating three interplanetary missions, all of which involve sending robots to explore in our stead. The winner of the ongoing contest will receive $650 million to send a probe either to the moon, to Venus or to an asteroid, ready to launch by 2018. That&amp;#039;s a pretty good value compared to Constellation, but colonization is the next historic step into space, and without a human space flight program, any extra-planetary colony under a U.S. flag will be populated by robots. Or a NASA astronaut will be visiting the Chinese or Indian moonbase. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a5170/4343791/>