Indeed breathtaking images. Absolutely spectacular.

Ditto. Great images!

We're paying the russians roughly 56 million per launch to ferry our astronauts back and forth. Hopefully we'll be able to field a shuttle replacement before too long. Our current situation makes me sick to my stomach.

The space station will continue to have continuous human habitation until the station is deorbited. So, there will be people up there at least until 2020 and if the funding becomes available there are those that would like to extend the space station's life out to 2028 (if I recall correctly). The international partners involved are the ones who send up people to the ISS. These people will ride up to the ISS on the Russian Soyuz. American companies are striving to replace Russia as the sole provider of space access and NASA is in the process of creating the space shuttle replacement.

Pretty much all the people on these comment pages who are supporters of the space program are sick about this "space access gap". We would all love our next-gen space craft but paying for it was a tricky circumstance, with politics playing a large role. NASA will have it's own way to access space again, rest assured. It will happen.

Why plan to deorbit it at all? Why can't they just keep it running, adding new bits from time to time, and taking old broken bits out, and deorbit those modules that can't be saved? It seems like such a waste.

Dennis

Well a big part of it is the reality that the vehicle used to build the station is on its last flight and is coming home soon.

People really don't seem to understand how critical the shuttle was in building the station. Yes, it could have been built like MIR was, but MIR wasn't really all that useful for anything other than to study the effects of microgravity on the human body. As flawed as ISS is, it is on the surface far more usable.

Maybe, but if we do develop a heavy lifter, we could make additions. It just seems that planning on throwing it away is like planning on failure.

Dennis:

There is no payloads currently planned for the SLS system. If they did have payloads for it, then I would agree. So NASA is going to build a rocket that will never get launched because currently we have nothing to launch, and because we have no money, it will take us at least 10 to 20 years to develop such a payload.

Stupid thinking.

I disagree. It's was stupid not to plan on keeping it going longer. And I will bet you dollars to doughnuts the Chinese space station that will replace it in orbit will stay there longer.

There is nothing that states that it won't go on for longer than currently scheduled. All it states is that its planned service live goes out to 2020. The space shuttle was only supposed to fly for 10 years, or was that forgotten too?

the 2020 date is based on in part the life cycle of various components and funding estimates. Other than that, it doesn't mean much.

Dennis

I am in full agreement with you, and i think that if the USA is not carefully it will find itself out of the ISS and others will Buy in, i am sure that the station can be updated as needed when needed and it can remain is pace for well over 50 years.

Eagle

That is not legally possible. To understand why, you need to have an understanding of space law. The US parts of the station are literally considered United States Territory and is subject to all the laws afforded that nation. The Russian parts are considered Russian Territory and again is subject to all the laws afforded that nation, etc...

ITAR regulations currently prevent the US portions of the station from being 'sold/given' to any other country or entity and to 'take' them would be considered an act of war just as much as Pearl Harbor was.

Jonathan

the " Law of the Sea" applies to Space " Anything abandoned by its owner can be taken over by any one that salvages it" I think you misunderstood what i said, read it again IF the USA abandons their Share on the ISS, and they do not Maintain it and carry out their Legal Obligations towards it, then it can be Deemed " Abandoned".

Eagle,

Only in your eyes does the law of the seas apply to space. But the Outer Space Treaty says otherwise.

And my point is that due to the terms of the outer space treaty, the US cannot 'abandon' their share of the space station. The US is legally responsible for any assets that are up in space.

If what you stated is true, then all russia would have to say for any of its satellites that are in orbit that have a nuclear reactor is 'we abandon it', and their responsibility in cleaning up any damage that results in debris being spread over a populated area would be void. That isn't the case, and not only is that stated in treaty, it is stated in international courts as well. (re Soviet Union vs Canada when a Soviet nuclear powered satellite that had been dead for years reentered and spread radioactive debris over northern canada.

Yes Any Country that has ANY assets in space can say " we abandon it" but that does not change the " Legal responsibilities" same as an abandoned Super Tanker it can be Salvaged and those that Salvage it are now the " legal Owners" but the Legal system can still take Legal action for any " Damage done by the Previous Owner" i am so glad you are open to a " discussion"

This reminds me a Bit on the USA view of the " World Court" how that refuse to " accept their responsibilities and the Authority of the World Court" and yet they take Others before it..what is that Called?

Eagle.,

And as I said, the OUTER SPACE TREATY specifically denies your claim that the law of the seas applies. It doesn't. The outer space treaty states that.

A Treaty is only Binding to the " Members" enough said!!!

And oddly enough, the US is a member.

We do have a way to get to it. Soyuz. I realize no one is happy about relying on the Russians but they ARE our partners in the space station project.

@mob_barley: could you please explain me why "no one is happy about relying on the Russians"? Did Russians ever dishonor any international space agreements? Did Russians ever ask for being the only "sole provider of space access"? (As I understand Russians are not totally happy about this arrangement as well - it puts tremendous stress on Russian space industry and takes time and resources plus human resources, etc. from upgrading current hardware, ground infrastructure, etc.) Thanks in advance :)

Space,

Yeah, they are not happy as it puts enormous strain on a program that has been in minimal operation mode for something like 20 years. Their space program has similar if not more acute funding problems than the US space program. And they have minimal unmanned programs as well (no russian hubble, no russian james webb, etc...). Pretty much all they have is the minimal production of soyuz rockets and capsules. They even have problems with getting the logistics to launch their rocket in Korou as they worked out with France.

Unfortunately this was ALL caused by the Bush administration misinterpreting what the Columbia accident report stated as a recommendation. But the decision was made, and when that decision was made, it was decided, probably even before the Russians were asked, that the only way to get to and from the space station was to use russian rockets.

@Jonathan - thanks for your excellent respond!

no problem.

And if you are interested, on the MIT courseware site, course 16.885 Fall 2005 is a systems engineering course that is dedicated to the Space Shuttle, There are a number of lectures there that are a gold mine of information about why the shuttle ended up the way it did, what was right about it, what was wrong about it, and a lot of technical information. Most of it is relatively easy for the average person to understand as it is more about how design considerations rather than the design itself. One of the lectures is conducted by one of the investigators on the CAIB, and she gives a really good overview of what she felt was wrong with NASA management and why the recommendations were the way they are, and also a note of her disappointment in cancelling the shuttle program, which apparently was NOT the intent of the recommendation that the shuttle be re-certified after 2010.

Jonathan, thanks for posting the MIT courseware class information. I did my MA on the manned space program up through Apollo. If I ever get the chance to work on my PhD again I will probably move on to the shuttle program. This MIT resource will be very helpful getting me started on that path. I was fortunate enough to get to attend the final launch of Discovery. It is hard to believe with the amazing show of enthusiasm by the people who attended these launches that our manned space effort has legged in the doldrums for such a long time. It is a shame that those of us who are staunch supporters of an active and vigorous manned space program were unable to marshal our ranks to present a united front for lobbying in Congress. If we had maybe the past 40 years of our space program would have been vastly different.

Robert:

Unfortunately, the only person in Congress that I was aware of that showed any real passion, meaning not the self serving bring jobs to my district passion, was shot in the head earlier this year by a crazed lunatic.

Space

Russina is thrilled to be the " Taxi to the ISS" and i am sure they are also Thrilled to get 50 million$ per ride, it sure adds to their Liquidity, Plus think of the Prestige they get from the world wide news about " Russia Helps USA" ;-)

I Personally can see Rusia IF the Heavy loads space launch becomes more profitable, them resurrecting the BURAN. It is More efficient then the Orbiter with a Bigger return Load capacity.

58 million per seat, so if the US has 2 seats on a flight, it is 116 million.

Buran is toast, Russia doesn't own it anymore, it was given to Kazakhstan.

@Eagle Averro

"Buran" is a long time history - they have been there and done it in 80's and saw absolutely no profit/any good coming out of the program (except for the national prestige and international/political benefits). It seems to me that they know well how to count money, especially being on such tight budget (as it was back in the end of 80's till the end of 90's).

Space,

Buran would have been useful IF the Soviet Space program was configured to utilize it. As it was, the Soviets were never interested in the flexibility, their systems developed around the legacy systems. So as much as anything the soviets just didn't know what to use Buran for.

As far as designs are considered, it is a pretty straight forward vehicle design, the plans have been put on CD that people can buy, and I have seen them. (don't have them though).

Energya would have been a vehicle that the soviets/russians could have used, however they lost the boosters when the soviet union split up as the Zenit rocket was a Ukranian design. Without Zenit, Energya was pointless.

@Jonathan-2055273

You are right again (btw, we can use the Tu-144 program as analogy here - there was this beautiful design and technology, but very limited market and money to work with and - most importantly!! - very little soviet government/political will, so the program was killed as unpragmatic and way too expensive). Plus cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian space agencies looks very problematic at this point and only future will tell...

Space

Well the Tu-144 had a fundamental flaw in its design compared to the concorde.

The Tu-144 couldn't super-cruise. The Concorde only uses its afterburners to get to cruising speed, at that speed, the engines on the Concorde are super efficient. On the Tu-144, the engines couldn't super-cruise, so it was afterburners all the way. So if the Tu-144 were flying the London to New York route, it would need to land for re-fueling somewhere over the atlantic (I believe about 2/3 the way).

I actually liked a lot about the Buran design. I think the decision to put the rockets on the booster instead of the vehicle made for a very flexible design that would allow for the booster to be able to launch oversized cargo. But again, the russian space program really wasn't set up for that, and since it takes years to make any kind of space payload, it was a capability looking for a solution. That 'capability' looking for a solution is the exact same problem with SLS. I am not saying that the rocket wouldn't be useful, but there is nothing that we are doing now that would even be close to using it.

Space

Many things have changed in the World and in Russia since BURAN was mothballed, It Can indeed be " resurrected" and it can Use a Maglev Assist launch a lot easier then the Shuttle (Orbiters) can, so Never say Never and Never limit potentials, Russia is now on its " second breath" it financial position because of the sale of gas to Europe is a lot better, and hence i can foresee a " BURAN type Vehicle with Maglev assist" taking to the Sky, and i see that with a 20-30% greater Potential then the USA doing the Same.

And on the Concorde it was " USA jealousy that Killed the Concorde" the Fire was actually a tyre Burning if they did not do a Fuel dump, there would have been no crash. The Fuel dump was what got the Fire so hot and intense that it then caused the Fuel tank to explode.

@Jonathan-2055273

...all good points!

There is no point resurrecting Buran, the jigs are gone, the reference plans are all over the place (the stuff I saw was just scanned images of the plans), the rest of the rocket is in pieces. It would be better to just start from scratch. You wouldn't be spending any more money and you would get a better vehicle (you could use more composites in the design for example).

There is NO way that a maglev launch could safely launch something the size of Buran.

Jonathan

And Why not what is the limitation?

heat dissipation is the biggest one. If you look at a rocket launch (any rocket launch), the rocket first goes up, then once it is above the thickest part of the atmosphere, it then changes to accelerate horizontally (the shuttle actually went up higher and then lowered its altitude slightly to add to the effective thrust).

At sea level, once you get past a 400 or 500 miles per hour, you are basically spending more energy to keep your speed than you are accelerating. The heat generated by that drag would essentially melt your vehicle, something the tiles on the shuttle couldn't even protect you from.

...most importantly is that Russians have absolutely no intentions of restarting "Energia/Buran" program as it was. Just as I said before - they've been there and done it and now it's time for them to move on to new system with more efficient design and meanings of using it (please keep in the mind that it will be very much "Russian" system reflecting very unique Russian specifics and goals - and I don't think it would be correct to judge it from the European/American point of view).

I think we are living in very exciting times, gentlemen!

The Russians have no intention of really doing anything unless someone is willing to give them the money. Notice how Klipr has essentially died. Why? well there was never any intention to build it unless the europeans gave russia money.

@Jonathan-2055273

...and you are right again: Kliper was originally designed as respond on ISS's and European Space Agency's requirements/needs and had very little to do with actually Russian Long Term Space Program (if there is a such thing, I'm not totally sure). So, if there is no money from European partners - no Kliper.

Jonathan

So you are telling me and the Science world tht a " MagLev Train cannot go 1000 miles per hour, because at that speed it will melt?

not at 1000 miles per hour, but that isn't the escape velocity of a space craft. You would have other issues with a maglev train going a thousand miles per hour that would probably create an extremely unsafe system, but that has nothing to do with the idea of launching buran (which fully loaded would be close to 200,000 pounds) into orbit from a maglev linear accelerator.

Jonathan "At sea level, once you get past a 400 or 500 miles per hour, you are basically spending more energy to keep your speed than you are accelerating. The heat generated by that drag would essentially melt your vehicle, something the tiles on the shuttle couldn't even protect you from."

Seems some one is " Dancing on Hot Coal" I recomend you do some reading on " electromagnetic linear accelerator" and How Efficient electric motors are, and how riding on electromagnetic fields reduces friction, and on that point some reading on fluid dynamics and how a cone shape creates a vortex and by use of an electric charge, friction reduction is generated, have fun reading.

I am not referring to that, I am fully aware of the 'thermal efficiency' of magnetic levitation. It doesn't however change the fundamental requirement that you need to increase the velocity of your vehicle to much higher than the velocities that have been tested or even envisioned for this technology.

So maybe I should ask you this questions and see if you can answer them.

Assuming you are taking a vehicle the size of a mini van (lets ignore a 200,000 pound vehicle that launching buran would be).

1) At what velocity do you intend to 'release' such vehicle from your maglev track?

2) How long does that 'track' have to be?

3) What is the maximum G force that the occupants of that vehicle have to withstand?

4) What altitude do you expect to release that vehicle

Once you have answered those questions, you now need to ask,

1) what is your propulsion going to be to increase your velocity to orbital velocity (approximately 17,000 miles per hour)

2) How much mass do you need for that function

3) depending on the answer to 4, you need to ask, how powerful do your rockets have to be to be able to take you from the point at above question 4 to that orbital velocity based on the drag at that altitude as well as what is necessary to increase your velocity to that orbital velocity.

These questions are not in any order.

By the way, you misunderstand the 'cone/blunt object' discussion. Yes a cone WILL reduce drag, but it also increases heating effects because of the boundary layer. By creating a blunt nose, you do increase your drag, but you reduce your thermal effects because the boundary layer effect is spread out more. In essence, by increasing drag, you decrease thermal effect on the object. (Wrote a paper on that in University by the way)

Eagle

Oh and by the way, if you want to invest in magnetic launch technology, be my guest. Nobody is stopping you. The more the merrier. There is just nothing that I can see that would make it work for this application. Personally I think that maglev technology would be perfect for what it is being used for currently, high speed 'rail' designs. So if you invest in it, when it fails, you can probably use what you learned for the 'rail' application.

http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd189/Eagle_Averro/Maglev/

a bunch of computer drawings and models doesn't answer the questions that I asked. 

Then you will never understand...why waste " good wine on old skins"

Then why don't you answer the simple questions. Not like there is anything I have asked that would be considered a trade secret.

I think about 80%, and the ownership is split up with 'rack time'. Canada example, because of the contribution of the Dextre robotic arm, has 3% ownership and is allowed 3% of the rack time in terms of science experiments.

We have also greatly benefited from that investment.

Rodent

IF the Commercial Market could see a Profit they would have been in it decades ago, see how and why those that are in it now are doing it, a high % of their Funding is NASA, so then it is still NASA that pays for the " Privilege of Private companies carrying NASA loads"

We should have. I have lost count at all the replacement programs that have been canceled along the way.

Frank

Have you heard the story " My Grandfathers hammer, I had to change the handle 3 times and the head once" so is it Grandfathers hammer? The Orbiters have had most if not all of their Components " Updated".

What qualifies as "real" scientific payoff in your eyes Kammeyer. Whatever you've been hoping for I would just suggest that you keep your eyes on the AMS-02. It was just installed (during Endeavor's last flight) but it will, very likely, provide the "real" science everyone is clamoring for, just you watch.

mob,

I am not sure why it needed to be attached to the station though. Why couldn't it just be a separate satellite?

K, agreed. I say shiny $100 billion white elephant. Actually it's worse than that. We could just walk away from a regular white elephant. We'll have to deorbit this thing. And in the meantime we'll throw more money at it to help demonstrate that it hasn't been a waste. The science just isn't there.

mob, I will watch for science from AMS-02. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. Regards....

Guys... Aside from the sheer technological achievement of getting it up there and making it work (knowledge that can be rolled over for use on future projects), there have been numerous scientific achievements as a direct result of research done there. Just because it doesn't have an impact on the taste of your morning coffee or your tv reception doesn't mean it isn't important.

Here's the actual report:

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029998_2009030907.pdf

Well said sir!

Ronald, I too remember seeing Sputnik, in my case as a 5 year old. However, I've done some research which says that Sputnik was at the limit of naked-eye visibility, so I'm guessing that what we actually saw was the Echo satellite that went up in 1958. It was a reflective balloon, 30 meters in diameter, and meant to be seen. Sputnik was dinky in comparison.

I have my own story about watching the 1st moon landing on TV. I was with my mom and dad and two brothers on a camping trip in, well, July 1969. We had brought along a tiny black and white TV set specifically to see the landing and the 1st steps. However, we were in Yellowstone National Park that day and, as you might guess, TV reception was non-existent. We were serious though and speculated that if we drove up to the parking area atop Mount Washburn at 10,000 or so feet, that we just might be able to see it. We gambled. Our faces were all scrunched up in the fierce sunlight, and if the picture had been any grainier, it would have been indistinguishable from random noise, but we saw it! A couple of hippie-types -- I mean nothing bad here as I was about a year from becoming one myself -- passed by and commented how lame it was to come to Yellowstone Park and then watch TV. One of us said matter-of-factly "We're about to land on the moon." Their next comment was "Far out!" and they watched along with us. Funny stuff!

Hey guys, there's a lot of truly exciting stuff going on with unmanned spacecraft: Messenger, Cassini, MRO and other Mars orbiters, Kepler, New Horizons, JWST (I hope). Dawn will begin to orbit Vesta this week!! I think we're gonna be ok.

I'm 61 years old and I too remember all those events. I remember when man first walked on the moon and I remember Alan Shepard and John Glenn and their first orbits of the earth. As a child I was terrified that both men would die in space. I remember the panic when Sputnik went up and taunted us from space and the high drama of Apollo 13. All of them tiny but significant baby steps.

The Shuttle had a good run. Now it's time for the next stage and I applaud the Chinese and Indian governments for pledging to take up the torch and run with it.

Well, I'm 30 and missed all of that. Now I fear that because of politics, I'll never get to experience humans leaving low earth orbit in my lifetime. We have all sorts of money to waste on all sorts of useless ventures all over this earth including but not limited to bloodshed, but furthering the knowledge and physical reach of all humankind just isn't a high enough priority. Sometimes I just don't know what to think about this generation...

atypical, we can do better. Being in/causing 2.5 wars is absurd and horribly expensive in lives ruined and treasure squandered. Afghanistan, while justifiable, has been badly mishandled. Still, look at what is happening in space. The Dawn probe began orbiting Vesta just this weekend! These are exciting times. Survive!

Darn

Seek not to change the unchangeable, but seek to mold that that can be molded, what are your thoughts about Vesta? Great times to be.

Oh yeah, I'm very excited about Dawn. I'm even more excited about New Horizons. Just wish human spaceflight was more of a priority.

A Typical

I personally am a believer of " Crawl before you walk" Robotic missions to establish what can and cannot be done are fundamental, try short cuts and we are in for a " long haul damage"

Have a Look at " Making Mars Habitable" and you will Understand how robotics setting up habitation Zones before manned flight are a must, along with a working Lunar base,

atypical, human spaceflight is cool, but it's also expensive and humans don't add much value. Besides, there's no rush. Our time will come. Regards....

Humans Add a huge value because we have something called instinct, and it is amazing how many times that instinct has made discoveries, no Robot can do that , add to that the time delay so that even remote controlled Robotics cannot be viable, BUT, for the time being they are the best we have till we can do better, the point is that Deaths in Space exploration are far too " expensive", you might hear that many say " i will volunteer for that mission" and yes many can and will, but that does not mitigate Insurance and other concurrent costs.

Darn that dream

I realize that this is a dramatization, but you really need to watch the episode of 'From the Earth to the Moon' called 'Galileo was Right'. That episode pretty much tells you WHY manned space flight is so valuable.

10% won't succeed. We need to do all we can to make it not succeed. We should be increasing funding at NASA by 10% in 2012 and '13. and then 20% in 2014. We need to build the replacement for the space shuttle and it's not going to happen in ANY timeframe if we keep letting Capitol Hill cut funding!

Mob,

We need to build the replacement for the space shuttle and it's not going to happen in ANY timeframe if we keep letting Capitol Hill cut funding

That's why it's time for private enterprise to take the helm and get the government out of the way.

Rakesh

The 100 billion is because it is essentially a one off. If we were building a hundred of them, the costs would come down quite a bit.

Also, another thing, the station may have cost 100B, but then people also like to quote the shuttle costs, but a huge chunk of those shuttle costs were to build the station, so it isn't 300B spent on the two programs.

What?

Edited:

Something of interest for discussions relating the the I.S.S.

The best plan for the I.S.S. is when it's time has come is too add some heavy boosters to it, fire the boosters and send it off into deep space. The station would be one giant homing beacon. The station could also be loaded with personal items such as Teddy Bears, watches, magazines, photo albums etc. that people would pay NASA a certain amount of money to have their item placed within the cargo holds of the modules of the I.S.S. The money raised could then be put towards new modules for a new station as well as giving people the oppurtunity to send something into the Universe to tell the Other's hey we are here and this is who we are.

I think people would throng to the idea at being able to send a small token of theirself into the night sky...somewhere out there.

The space station is so heavy that it will or would take an enormous amount of energy to keep it in orbit or push it back to a higher orbit. To push it into a higher and higher orbit would take more and more energy to the extent that it would take an unbelievable amount of energy to push it into deep space (just to discard it) and the cost of ferrying teddy bears and personnel effects would be prohibitive.

If individuals would put their initials on a postage stamp, they might be able to afford to put that in orbit for a lot of money.

leonard, mass has nothing to do with ISS staying in orbit or not. IF there is nothing that will slow it down, then it will stay in orbit forever. It is low enough however to be touching the upper atmosphere of the earth so it does occasionally need a boost, but it is the drag from the atmosphere that is doing that, not the mass (there is no weight up there, only mass).

I realize that, but like the Skylab, if it is in a decaying orbit, it will eventually come down unless it is pushed up. The boost is required is in proportion to the mass. Actually, I believe it would be more correct to say, the atmosphere is slowing it down and it drops down to a progressive orbit to reflect the speed, until it will burn up. So, effectively, the speed has to be increased to compensate for this. To reach deep space would require escape velocity which is over 23,000 miles per hour.

that is the boost, but the mass won't be the problem with ISS. it is the size. Skylab took something like 7 years to decay IIRC. It wouldn't be that long. If and when the space station is deorbited, it will be rigged to come apart so that it can burn up more effectively.

Jonathan, force = mass x acceleration. The ISS will need to be accelerated if it is to go into a higher orbit, or a lower one for that matter, so mass is an issue, though not the only one. Until you mentioned it I hadn't thought of the possibility of breakup high, high, in the sky. How will they control that? Yikes! Regards....

mass is not an issue with regards to it's reentry. The original comment was about reentry so my response is based on that.

The control will be based on breakup charges that will be simulated ad nauseum on computer.

Dwight

I am sure that many a University world wide will be happy to " Lease any science rack" and hence profit can be made from running the ISS for well past 2020.

Independent

You go for it! What a future your generation has. There will be so many jobs related to space exsploration that we haven't even imagined yet. Hope your dream happens.

Because the CAIB recommendation which is the basis of the shuttle retirement, didn't recommend that the shuttle be sold, it recommended that the shuttle be re-certified after 2010. So selling the shuttle would require that same recertification. THAT was the part that Griffin really didn't want to do. Griffin had no purpose for the shuttle because it interfered with his dreams of a mars mission. His is the perfect example of treating NASA as his personal fiefdom.

The Shuttle (orbiters) do not have a FAA certification they are still flown as " experimental craft" and as such cannot be sold

They could be flown by a private entity as an 'experimental' vehicle as well. That isn't a stumbling block. The legal responsibility that the US would incur is not different whether it is a government entity or a private entity.

The process to build a new external tank however would take at 3 years to start up again, so more shuttle operations? that door has closed.

I Am so Glad to see you are an " Authority on what doors are closed and what Doors are open" Glad to have your authoritative input.

Eagle,

My company has paid about 10 million dollars in giving just this legal advice. The point about the experimental vehicle is for ANY manned vehicle, not the space shuttle. It is how every entity that is trying to get into the business is operating right now.

Well said Tony, well said sir

Obama has never really had an interest in space, so for that I don't really blame him. Bush never really had an interest either. The president that last really had an interest in space was Johnson, so you have to go back a ways. Ever since then NASA has essentially just been left to rot. Blaming obama is pointless because he is no different than the others.