The way things are looking for NASA's Project Constellation, one could expect at this time to see the White House propose a cancellation of the ARES I project in the next year, analysts are saying. An investigation report that Obama required from an independent panel last year showed that the level of funding at that point was insufficient to allow the American space agency to continue on its established direction. Some expect that Obama's 2011 budget request will feature recommendations for changes in the development of the US spaceflight program. Such changes would be devastating, a January 15 report by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel says, Space reports.

The annual document essentially draws attention to the fact that ARES I, a project that has been in the works for many years, should not be abandoned in favor of lesser ones. The main issue that NASA now has to face is the recommendation of the Obama panel, which argued that the agency should share the burden of space exploration with private space companies. This makes sense when considering that the head of that panel was a former Lockheed Martin CEO, Norman Augustine. “To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective,” the new report states.

What some groups used the US Human Space Flight Plans Committee for was to promote their own agenda. The fact of the matter is that ARES I was designed from the get-go to be one of the safest rockets ever. It is constructed so that it accommodates the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which was also built around safety and astronaut security. Now, what the Committee is proposing is that five years of work in this direction, and billions of dollars are sacked, and all in favor of letting private companies carry astronauts to orbit. These private corporations stand to gain billions from NASA.

The same money could be easily placed in Project Constellation, rather than being spent under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. Regardless of the progress companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation have registered when it comes to innovation in space flight, their achievements do not even come close to what NASA is capable of. What the Augustine Commission is saying is that NASA should not care about the safety of its astronauts, and allow them to be launched to the ISS aboard private spacecraft that have been originally designed as cargo carriers.

The question the new report should ask is how are the two even remotely close to each other? How does a cargo capsule turned manned space vehicle rival a rocket designed specifically for this mission, and with safety at its core? The “equal” sign only appears when learning that these private corporations stand to gain billions from the COTS program, if ARES I is sacked. And this is what the new report is arguing against.

“It is the Panel's position that no COTS manufacturer is currently [human-rating-requirements] qualified, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary. Questions that must be answered are: What is the process for certifying that potential COTS vehicles are airworthy and capable of carrying astronauts into space safely? [and] How is compliance assured over the life of the activity?” the document adds. “In making this recommendation, the [Augustine] committee also noted that while human safety never can be absolutely assured, safety was assumed to be a 'given.' The Panel believes that this assumption is premature and oversimplifies a complex and challenging problem because there is not a 'cookie-cutter approach' to safety in space,” it concludes.