posted 11-27-2008 07:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rbnn:
Am I the only one befuddled by this trillion-dollar bank bailout?

---

posted 11-27-2008 09:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Source: UNICEF

---

Besides, if you want to go by Unicef's figures, the areas with the highest infant mortality rates in impoverished regions of the world have received amazing amounts of aid, resources and assistance for decades and it has made little difference.

quote:

---

But the space program can wait (and will have to).

---

posted 11-27-2008 11:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
What will waiting accomplish? Must we really solve every problem here on Earth before we can resume the exploration of space?

---

Resume exploration? We stopped? When did THAT happen?

quote:

---

Keep in mind that NASA employs thousands of engineers and keeps several large contractors busy (which also employ thousands).

---

posted 11-27-2008 11:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Indeed, especially when you compare the total cost of the recent bailouts (Citi included) -- $4.6165 trillion -- with the total cost of NASA, all 50 years, adjusted for inflation, $851.2 billion.

---

Chris.

posted 11-28-2008 08:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Indeed, especially when you compare the total cost of the recent bailouts (Citi included) -- $4.6165 trillion -- with the total cost of NASA, all 50 years, adjusted for inflation, $851.2 billion.

---

posted 11-28-2008 11:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
What will rushing things out accomplish, aside from finding yourself back to a post-Apollo (or shuttle) situation?

---

I don't see any rushing taking place. The return to the moon goal is going to take at least 15 years from the date that the current administration outlined that as a goal...that's about 6-7 years longer than Kennedy's goal was. Holding off on Mars until at least 2030 doesn't seem like rushing either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
If the argument to continue (manned) space exploration is to maintain jobs, technological know-how, or even national security, then that's perfectly fine. And you'll probably get the necessary funding out of Congress. If the argument is "(manned) exploration", then the space program can wait.

---

posted 12-02-2008 10:02 PM               

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's NASA transition team is asking U.S. space agency officials to quantify how much money could be saved by canceling the Ares 1 rocket and scaling back the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle next year.

...The questionnaire, "NASA Presidential Transition Team Requests for Information," asks agency officials to provide the latest information on Ares 1, Orion and the planned Ares 5 heavy-lift cargo launcher, and to calculate the near-term close-out costs and longer-term savings associated with canceling those programs. The questionnaire also contemplates a scenario where Ares 1 would be canceled but development of the Ares 5 would continue.

While the questionnaire also asks NASA to provide a cost estimate for accelerating the first operational flight of Ares 1 and Orion from the current target date of March 2015 to as soon as 2013, NASA was not asked to study the cost implications of canceling any of its other programs, including the significantly over-budget 2009 Mars Science Laboratory or the James Webb Space Telescope.

posted 12-03-2008 08:56 AM               

"The questionnaire also contemplates a scenario where Ares 1 would be canceled but development of the Ares 5 would continue."

Huh? So how would you launch Orion, then?

Saturn V was able to launch the CSM but that was dictated by the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous approach. Is (was) Ares V planned to follow the same approach?

posted 12-03-2008 09:39 AM               

There are other alternatives too, such as modifying Orion to launch atop an existing ELV, such as Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V (Heavy).

posted 12-03-2008 03:59 PM               

I get the feeling that based on the requests for these reports by the transition team that the NASA specific campaign promises may not make it to January 20th. It seems like the whole transition team may be taking the stand of don't let the door hit you in the behind on January 20th.

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

posted 12-03-2008 06:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
It seems like the whole transition team may be taking the stand of don't let the door hit you in the behind on January 20th.

---

Somehow I don't see them accepting a position that would contradict their own positions.

posted 12-03-2008 09:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Scott, any possibility in your opinion, that Jupiter may get picked up?

---

Whether Griffin publicly acknowledges or not, given the concerns with Ares I, there is concurrent (under the radar) work being conducted within NASA to pursue man-rating an RS-68/Delta Heavy (the RS-68 is a key enabler of Jupiter) and the Atlas/RD-180 - I am hearing that either is a much more viable alternative (however keep in mind the 180 is actually a Russian engine to be produced under license here within CONUS and may not be well received politically). The questionnaire could represent the commencement of a nuanced approach to extricating NASA from the decision to go with a troubled solid first stage once Griffin departs (the presumption is that it would be justified based on economics rather then the technical merits). It would be interesting to see what the revised timeline might be, particularly any alternative to Ares-1/Solid which stands up an operational capability in advance of what was originally proposed with the original configuration.

posted 12-10-2008 09:06 PM               

Tensions were on public display last week at the NASA library, as overheard by guests at a book party.

According to people who were present, Logsdon, a space historian, told a group of about 50 people he had just learned that President John F. Kennedy's transition team had completely ignored NASA.

Griffin responded, in a loud voice, "I wish the Obama team would come and talk to me."

Alan Ladwig, a transition team member who was at the party with Garver, shouted out: "Well, we're here now, Mike."

Soon after, Garver and Griffin engaged in what witnesses said was an animated conversation. Some overheard parts of it.

"Mike, I don't understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood," Garver said.

"If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar," Griffin replied. "Because it means you don't trust what I say is under the hood."

posted 12-11-2008 12:16 AM               

By the way, for what book this "party" was for?

posted 12-11-2008 06:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
By the way, for what book this "party" was for?

---

posted 12-11-2008 05:11 PM               

A Message from the NASA Administrator

A recent report in the Orlando Sentinel suggested that NASA is not cooperating with members of President-elect Obama's transition team currently working at Headquarters. This report, largely supported by anonymous sources and hearsay, is simply wrong.

I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous e-mail to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to "lean forward," to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately.

We are fully cooperating with transition team members. Since mid-November, the agency has provided 414 documents and 185 responses to 191 requests. There are six outstanding responses, and the agency will meet the deadline for those queries.

Also, we strongly urge full and free cooperation by companies performing work for NASA. I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community.

The transition team's work is too important to become mired in unsupported and anonymous allegations. The President-elect's transition team deserves everyone's complete cooperation.

Michael D. Griffin
Administrator

posted 12-12-2008 12:22 AM               

If there were no arguments, then maybe Lori Garver should say so officially.

But then, in Griffin's statement, I'm not quite sure to what extent we're supposed to read anything into the leaning forward being in quotation marks. One could interpret such quotation as "we're providing the info they want but we don't agree with them." If so, it would add credibility to the Sentinel's report, wouldn't it?

posted 12-12-2008 03:20 PM               

What [Garver] and others are said to be considering is to scrap the plans for the Ares 1 -- which is designed exclusively to carry humans -- and replace it with Atlas V and Delta IV boosters, which are currently used to launch satellites but could be redesigned, or "requalified," for humans. Griffin hates that idea, and firmly believes the Atlas and Delta are unsafe for people. One well-placed NASA source who asked not to be named reports that as much as Griffin wants to keep his job, he'll walk away from it if he's made to put his astronauts on top of those rockets.

posted 12-12-2008 08:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
to operate on just the assumption that the status quo is the best option would negate the reason we embrace transition in the first place...

---

This is one transition that many inside the agency and outside don't exactly embrace.

To operate on just the assumption that Ares is the wrong vehicle to do the job before it is even tested might start us down the path of being stuck in LEO for a very long time, and hitching rides to it from the Russians, at that.

Our President-elect realized there were political gains to be had by pledging his support to Florida voters last fall. But now that he is guaranteed the job, he is free to do as he wishes, at least for the next four years.

Politicians have a way of distancing themselves from any direct contact with controversial decisions. They leave it to "advisors", "task forces", and yes, even "transition teams." The newly crowned king waits in the wings while his minions are sent out to arrive at the conclusions he wants them to reach. When they return with the expected answer, he points to them, claiming he is only following the advice of "the best and the brightest."

I cannot claim any inside knowledge of this current process, but on the surface it smacks of a politically convenient escape route from promises made.

posted 12-12-2008 09:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
To operate on just the assumption that Ares is the wrong vehicle to do the job before it is even tested...

---

posted 12-13-2008 08:44 PM               

I hope I am wrong.

posted 12-13-2008 09:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
I hope I am wrong.

---

posted 12-13-2008 11:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonCrater1:
What would be the declared objective of repeated LEO missions, to service the ISS or the Hubble or Webb telescopes...

---

posted 12-14-2008 09:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonCrater1:
I believe that you ARE wrong... We will, IMO, return to the moon, but much later than planned.

---

2. You say the Obama administration will be criticized if it doesn't follow through with the space program. Are you suggesting that the party faithful will not criticize the Obama administration if they spend money on a space program instead of health care? Or any of the myriad other programs outlined during the campaign?

I believe that many participants in the Apollo era understand that going to the moon was about beating the Russians (read: a battlefield in the Cold War), not about scientific discovery. Some great science was done, but that was a fortunate bi-product, not a primary goal.

It will (IMO) be very, very difficult to gather the sustained political support necessary to undertake a major space exploration program by the US for the purpose of scientific discovery.

YMMV.

posted 12-14-2008 11:36 PM            

This is a work already in progress. It will take a great many years of preparation to get there again. IMO, we will reach the moon again when we are ready and when we have the funding. Competition from another country and public opinion in favor of a return will eventually be an incentive to make us follow through with our plans.

As for national health care, that will probably take 20 years to accomplish, again for many reasons, if at all. The space program is a small percent of the national budget. Nationl health care will cost many times that. IMO, the Obama Administration will try to begin national health care by covering the very young and the very old and those with debilitating diseases. Then they will tackle major diseases, such as those with cancer and heart disease. Those in the general population will have to fend for themselves for decades, perhaps taking advantage of a few national health credits on their income taxes. There are over 315,000,000 people in the US. To cover all of them is probably impossible now, as it was last year and the year before that. The recession did not cause this. It was impossible before the recession IMO.

posted 12-15-2008 12:11 AM               

Agency officials said they have improved financial controls -- including forcing managers to better estimate costs. But the problem is so bad that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that NASA's new moon rocket would go over budget by as much as $7 billion.

posted 12-15-2008 12:59 AM               

As Scott Pace, the new director of the Space Policy Institute, puts it, "Those who talk don't know, and those who know don't talk."

posted 12-15-2008 05:52 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonCrater1:
What would be the declared objective of repeated LEO missions, to service the ISS or the Hubble or Webb telescopes or to repeat what Russia has already done in space or to compete with China in some way?

---

I have a ghastly feeling that, whoever had been elected President, US manned flight in space may be drawing to a close - at least for a decade or more.

I do feel that many members argue their case based on their wishes, rather than the cold hard facts.

As I predicted in another thread, we ain't returning to the moon for many, many years - and certainly not in the next 20!

One can already sense the new administration starting to trim round the edges, and it won't be long into the new Presidential term when I believe the lunar programme will be cancelled. Sorry, but that's my opinion.