A key Senate committee on Thursday approved an authorization bill that would allow NASA to add one more space shuttle mission before retiring the fleet, and press forward with ambitious plans to send astronauts to an asteroid and on to Mars.

After months of debate and criticism, the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation committee passed the NASA authorization bill by a unanimous vote. The bill will now move up to the full senate for review. "NASA is an agency in transition. We've had to take a clear, hard look at what we want from our space agency in the years and decades to come," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-West Virginia), who chairs the Senate committee, in a statement. "I've made my views on this matter very clear: NASA's role cannot stay static. It must innovate and move in a new direction."

The extra shuttle mission would fly in 2011, after two more flights currently planned for November 2010 and February 2011.

In addition, the new authorization bill directs NASA to immediately begin work on a huge, heavy-lift rocket – which would be vital for any asteroid or Mars missions by astronauts – instead of waiting until 2015 as proposed by President Barack Obama in his initial space vision announced earlier this year.

The bill would also advance the development of spacecraft for deep space missions to as early as 2016, rather than 2025 – the goal for the first crewed mission to arrive at an asteroid announced by President Barack Obama earlier this year.

It also allows the extension of the International Space Station's program through at least 2020, also as previously proposed by Obama. [FAQ: NASA's New Direction]

Extra shuttle flight, new spacecraft

NASA's new direction has been the focus of much debate, with some critics calling for an extension of the space shuttle program, which has been slated for retirement next year. Originally, NASA's Constellation program to return to the moon was planned to replace the shuttles, but President Obama's new plan called for canceling Constellation. Some lawmakers have argued to keep Constellation, or to replace it instead with a more shuttle-derived alternative.

"For many months, this committee has been working on a bipartisan basis to develop a strong and forward-looking reauthorization bill for NASA," Rockefeller said. "Through this process, I believe we've reached a sensible center. This bill offers what I like to call a "third way" for NASA."

The bill is a compromise of sorts between Obama's plan and its detractors, the committee said.

"It has been a long and very hard road to get here," said committee member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who co-sponsored the bill, in a statement. "We began more than four months ago with a new proposal for NASA introduced by the President which I believe would have ended the era of U.S. dominance in space exploration, threatened the use of the space station, and jeopardized manned spaceflight. This legislation approved today represents a strong balance between the need for investment in new technology and the continued evolution of the commercial market to take an increasing role in supporting our efforts in low Earth orbit."

The authorization bill clears the way for the extra shuttle mission, allowing NASA to press forward with preparations to launch more vital supplies or spare parts to the International Space Station to stock up for the years ahead without the space plane fleet.

NASA's next two shuttle flights will also help complete construction of the International Space Station. The extra space shuttle flight, likely aboard the shuttle Atlantis, would carry a four-astronaut crew to the space station in the summer of 2011, NASA shuttle officials have said.

NASA's space shuttles are the only spacecraft currently capable of hauling huge experiments and spare parts for the space station. Once they retire, the space agency plans to use Russian spacecraft to ferry crews and cargo to the orbiting laboratory until American commercial vehicles become available.

Obama also called for the cancellation of NASA's Constellation program developing new rockets and spacecraft to return astronauts to the moon. In its place, he proposed an ambitious goal of sending astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 and on to Mars in the mid-2030s. A focus on new space technology was key, Obama emphasized.

"In short, this bill provides a blueprint to get our nation's space program moving forward in a smart, fiscally responsible way, and in a way that will maintain America's edge in space flight, exploration, science and aeronautics," Rockefeller said.

Commercial spacecraft funding

The NASA authorization bill falls largely in line with the space exploration plan proposed by President Obama in February, but with some differences.

Obama's space vision called for a 2011 budget of $19 billion for NASA (a slight boost from 2010). It also called for $6 billion over the course of five years (with about $3.3 billion of that pegged for the first three years) support the development of commercial spacecraft that could fly American astronauts into space after the shuttle fleet is retired next year.

As approved Thursday, the NASA authorization bill would allocate $1.6 billion of the funds for commercial spaceships over the next three years, according to a statement released by committee member Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida), who chairs its space subcommittee and represents the state that is home to NASA's space shuttle launching site.

"The goal was to preserve U.S. leadership in space exploration and keep as much of the rocket-industry talent as possible employed," Nelson said.

Commercial spaceflight advocates, such as the Space Frontier Foundation, have criticized the new bill because of its drop in funding for private spacecraft development.

The foundation urged support for an amendment, proposed by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) would have added $2.1 billion for commercial spaceflight over the next three years to ensure it was funded at the level requested by President Obama.

It's like throwing one good astronaut aster a bad one.

Like throwing the master aster his baster. (d) Into the pool of alabaster.

better than letting the muslims do it first.

Say bye-bye to the crown jewel of American technological achievement ... he wants to have the U. S. bring its begging bowl to the Soviets, Chinese, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, and the FRENCH (of all people) to get OUR stuff into space ...

yea, its sad too...

Some "crown jewel"! NASA is decades out of date, and enlessly inefficient. It's another wasteful government program that deserves to be cut. Let the private sector handle it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/villacampa2.html

It is quickly becoming the natural state of affairs that citizens are no longer working for themselves but are instead laboring in order to fill the greedy coffers of the State. Most individuals in the United States have about half of their yearly income taken away by the government and this percentage is steadily growing. A majority of the citizenry may believe that these funds are being funneled into important social projects but in fact most of this wealth is simply wasted by opportunist politicians and bureaucrats. There are an endless number of government programs that would increase the wealth and productivity of the citizenry if they were only dismantled. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with a requested 2007 budget of almost $17 billion, is a government program that is nothing short of wasteful.

Individuals claim that a majority of NASA's funding is spent on the exploration of new useful technologies. The citizenry views the government as an entity that can fund and perform research in order to uncover technologies that would be beneficial to the market. There is no reason to believe that corporations, with patent laws in place, would not be more than willing to research more efficient ways of creating products. Yet, even if it were the case that government research in technology was necessary or beneficial, NASA is funding scientific studies that are far from useful to the market. Much of NASA's funding is spent directly on extraterrestrial initiatives that study the solar system, space exploration, and methods of improving shuttle performance. It is also a myth that NASA created such technologies as Velcro, Tang and those famous memory-cell mattresses. In reality, the maker of Velcro was a private engineer with a bright idea, Tang was created by the General Foods Corporation, and the Tempur-Pedic company developed those memory-cell mattresses for use on NASA flights. These were all private initiatives and not outcomes of NASA’s technological research efforts. To their credit, NASA did develop freeze-dried ice cream but who likes those things anyway? NASA dedicates over two-thirds of its budget to space exploration and extraterrestrial research. The government agency has spent close to $150 billion dollars simply on the shuttle program, which calculates to about $1.3 billion per launch. This is a decent sum considering that the space shuttle program was sold to the taxpayers as only costing $5.5 million per launch. The question then arises, “should the United States citizens continue to pay for such a costly program?” In the end, it is always the citizenry who pays. Naïve individuals may believe that the Federal government has an endless spring of wealth from which it draws in order to fund its operations, but this is not the case.

NASA has continuously let down the United States citizens and is nothing but a wastebasket into which the government throws our hard-earned wealth. The NASA shuttle tragedies are an outright shame, not only because of the precious lives lost, but also due to the immense cost of these shuttles. The costs of these space ventures are steep and the rewards reaped from these explorations are close to nil. The Mars Observer, that was lost in 1993, cost the taxpayers nearly $1 billion dollars. What the government can not understand is the profit and loss mechanism that is so ingrained into the market. Private entrepreneurs produce goods in a way that minimizes costs in order to obtain a high profit margin. Government programs, such as NASA, continuously spend without giving any benefit to the public. One may say that the simple existence of shuttle programs are a psychological benefit to society but this does not justify the coercive collection of taxes from citizens who may or may not be willing to donate to such a program. When government collects tax revenue, it does not allocate the funds to where citizens demand but instead the funds are spent where politicians desire. Not to mention the fact that much of this funding is lost in the shuffle between citizen and program and wind up in the golden pockets of pork-barrelers.

NASA, like all government programs, becomes increasingly less efficient as time goes by and its purpose becomes less clear. The space shuttle programs may have once accomplished significant scientific discoveries but this is no longer evident. In addition, the social reward of these programs, regardless of what scientific feats they accomplished, are to be measured by a cost-profit analysis and not arbitrary merit. NASA's space exploration programs have continued to fail and this is only understandable to those aware of the lack of incentives present in the public sector. Government, unlike the capitalist market, has little incentive to strive for successful output and may often times overlook the many systematic failures present in the execution of these programs. The public sector inherently has less of an economic incentive to keep costs low and profits high. NASA knows that funding will continue, at least for the coming year, and pushes on promises rather than accomplishments in order to receive funding. On the other hand, the private sector functions on accomplishments, the achievement of its goals, and keeping costs at a minimum while maximizing profits. The failure of the NASA program is inevitably tied to the fact that it is not a private company; it has much less of an economic incentive than those companies that are furthest away from the government’s grasp.

In addition, the current President, with a projected 2007 fiscal budget of $2.8 trillion, has shown no sign that the government will decrease spending in the near future. President Bush stated on June 16, 2004 that

we will explore space to improve our lives and lift our national spirit. Space exploration is also likely to produce scientific discoveries in fields from biology to physics, and to advance aerospace and a host of other industries. This will help create more highly skilled jobs, inspire students and teachers in math and science, and ensure that we continue to benefit from space technology, which has already brought us important improvements.

The President's hopes are sadly misplaced, there is no evidence proving that NASA funds improve technologies in any marketable industries. Any jobs produced by NASA funding will simply be a misallocation of labor. It should be up to the market, with its profit and loss mechanisms, to decide were labor should be properly allocated including the labor of highly skilled scientists. In addition, $17 billion dollars should not be arbitrarily spent in order to "lift our national spirit" through space exploration but should instead be given back to the taxpayers and allow them to lift their own spirits with the wealth.

The solution the problem of NASA overspending and endless mishaps is, like all government programs, privatization. If the citizenry, through the market process, find it profitable to invest and consume products that are tied to space exploration, so be it. In such a scenario no individual is forced to pay for products that continuously fail to meet their expectations. In addition, private companies that take on the task of space exploration will be doing so at a profit and trying to minimize cost. This is significantly different from the wasteful practices of government and public sector programs. Whenever costs outweigh profits, precious resources have been wasted in the production of that good or service. In the private sector, entrepreneurs quite literally pay the price for having misused resources and the costs will cut into the entrepreneur’s income. If this occurs, either changes are to be made in order to cut costs or the entrepreneur will need to shut down the business. When public sector industries waste resources, often times no direct harm is done to their ability to continue the misuse of funding. Any punishment comes down from the legislature and usually comes with multi-millions of dollars in addition funding. It is a time-proven fact that when a private sector company fails, they go out of business yet if a public sector industry fails, they get additional funding.

In order to save the taxpayer from having to pay the increasing costs of a hopeless space exploration program, simply disband NASA and allow the market to decide if such practices are needed in society. If the market decides that these services are in fact desired then it will take hold of these projects while trying to reduce the use of valuable resources. This is becoming evident in the success of SpaceShipOne’s flight in 2004. SpaceShipOne showed the world that the market can do marvelously what NASA has, time and time again, continuously failed to accomplish. The success of SpaceShipOne also spurred the creation of another private space exploration program, Virgin Galactic, that intends to send private individuals into space. Currently, the price of travel into space with Virgin Galactic is $200,000. That is right, $200,000. Not only is Virgin not doing this at a cost (if they were it would quickly fail) but they are allowing private individuals to take part in an experience that was only granted to government scientists. In addition, the risk of these spacecrafts will, in time, diminish as corporations feel an increasing need to secure their customers or else suffer heavy loses. Safety is a hefty concern for individuals who are risking their lives and money in order to partake in an emerging industry. Space shuttles Columbia and Challenger illustrate that even though NASA engineers might only want the best for its passengers, safety has not been such a prime concern as to prevent any of these tragic moments from occurring.

In summation, in order to roll back the growing tide of government spending, the most wasteful programs must be cut first. What is needed from such public sector failures as NASA is not increased funding and wasteful behavior but full privatization. Only when this occurs will resources be used efficiently, will there be increased emphasis on consumer safety on extraterrestrial flights, and an end to the coercive sequestering of funds from taxpayers to prop up a failed program. It is time to put the industry of space exploration to the ultimate test: that of the market economy. The market, not the government, will be the true decider as to the existence of such an industry. It seems that the market is declaring that space exploration can be not only profitable but safe. If this is so, then so be it; it might be possible one day for all citizens to afford flights into the far reaches of space. What is important is to allow consumers, not bureaucrats, to decide where precious resources should go. It is time to end the government finance of wasteful public space exploration and to forevermore dismantle NASA.

Gee ... is there ANYTHING you like about this country ... ? There's always Canada, y' know ...

I don’t like wasteful government spending anymore then the next guy, but I also understand the necessity of investing in our future. Like every other species out there, our survival depends on our ability to adapt, in our case, intellectually more than anything else.
I believe Darwin said it best.
“Freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science”
The best way to stunt the growth of that ‘illumination of men’s mind’ Darwin spoke of, is to do ecatly as you suggest should happen, and hand space exploration over to the private sector.
The reason being, the majority of people on this planet let alone the U.S. don’t have the financial means to take a trip to the moon, and it will be years and years until we can do so somewhat cheaply. (and years and years and years.)
No demand means no market, which in turn means little or no space exploration.
It’s a matter of securing our future, to do so, we must invest in it, specifically, invest in scientific advancement.

It is hard to write the truth down on paper, if you do not know the whole story.
There are reasons that for us to abandon the moon project and to tackle the much more pressing problem using Aster as the lesson plan.

The earth is going to have a very close incounter with an asteroid in 2012. The Russians say it is going to hit the earth, but NASA says it will miss. But if the next calculations are correct it will hit the earth on its next pass in 2038.

So now you tell me what is more important for the USA. TO plan on going to the moon or to find a way to land on an asteroid.

If I understand what they are trying to do, it is not really a landing, but just to bring a space craft along side of the asteroid. The theroy is that the gravitational pull of the space craft over a long distance will deviate the course of the asteroid just a little, but just enough to miss the earth.

They have to do this from a great distance away from the earth to achieve success.
And as for the Hippy who doesn't like anything this country is doing, You are outdated, and missinformed. You haven't changed since the days of Vietnam.
You will be the first one to cry out, ( WHY ISN'T THE USA DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.. ) I DON'T WANT TO DIE ,, HELP !
Ha ha,, so be at peace and stick your head in the sand.

i agree, something needs to be done.... we lead the space race for years, and it shouldn't stop now... if other countries want in, no problem there either. but there is nothing wrong with competition.
it makes everyone better off. we learn that is school. i herd that about the asteroid in the 80's, and nothing since. i think it will hit, but thats just me.

I heard they were testing Nuclear weapons on the moon.

good place for it... who's they?

Not sure? I heard It on coast to caost A.M. Might be US

There's plenty of good things about America. (unlike you, I am not under the delusion that the government=America) Why do you rely on false patriotism to smear people who disagree with unconstitutional, wasteful government programs?

TRUE innovators like Henry Ford and Leo Fender come from the private sector. NASA is a failure. Leave it in the trash bin of history where it belongs. (since you're such a fan of socialized "innovation", you're the one who ought to move to Canada )

i wanna go to mars and see phobos and deimos

and i'm sure people on here are going "yeah we want you to go to"

book of RKISIT 6:66

NASA was good for the golden age of space travel, but it's been in the slow lane for decades.

I still think NASA is cool. I'm always addicted to their channel during missions and eclipse watching and such (any time something cool happens in space, I can never see it because its cloudy over my area!)

But this is what happens when you cut funding to math and science education and kids grow up wanting to be Mr. Pro Football hero. Being a scientist and asking questions and working to get an answer went out the window.

I still want to belive that I will be able to go into space one day in the future, but it gets dimmer everyday.

you can go if your a billionaire.

So that's why the cheese is green.