|
Author
|
Topic: Review of US Human Space Flight (Augustine)
|
dogcrew5369
Member Posts: 760
From: Statesville, NC
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 01-30-2010 10:55 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Lunatiki:
I'm as right-wing as they come, and people keep asking me "would you want your taxes raised to get back to the Moon and then on to Mars?" I say YES without hesitation.
I agree, why should we worry about our taxes going up to support a robust space program. Look at all the trillions wasted so far on stimulus, boondoggles and kickbacks to political friends in government over just the past year or so. They spend like crazy drunken sailors and now want to act like mizers. What the? Taxes are going to go up anyway to pay for all this out of control spending. Why not do something worthwhile like space exploration if, as I believe, taxes are going to have to go up anyway. What it takes to do the program the right way is only a drop in the bucket to what is being spent. Like Alan Shepard said, quit messing around and light this candle!! If the government cared about space exploration like China cares about theirs, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Of course, China practically owns us now. It truly is sad. I'm afraid we'll end up the Portugal of space exploration. Pave the way then get out of the way! |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-30-2010 11:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dogcrew5369:
I agree, why should we worry about our taxes going up to support a robust space program. Look at all the trillions wasted so far on stimulus, boondoggles and kickbacks to political friends in government over just the past year or so.
That's just it. This President has no interest in space. In the eyes of the current political climate, if you are willing to have your taxes raised for the funding of space these guys stop listening at "raise taxes". They want to hand it out in social programs and not for exploration because that beholds more people to them.The Shuttle has been perceived poorly since it has simply been a truck to haul portions of the ISS which has a worse public perception. NASA gambled with the ISS and Shuttle and they lost. The Manned US Space program is dead. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1733
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 01-30-2010 11:50 AM
I think I have the solution. It's all about adapting the program to the realities of our society and culture. We can return to the Moon under the auspices of a new TV Reality Show: "I'm A Celebrity. Stop The World And Send Me To The Moon!" It would involve sending troubled and has-been celebrities, such as Lindsay Lohan, Gary Coleman, David Hasselhoff etc., on a spaceship to the Moon, with the resulting conflicts and antics. We could sneak in a couple of real Astronauts who would do some lunar science when they got there. It would be a huge hit and probably pay for itself.Or we could convince people the Moon had massive amounts of a mineral called "Vanium", which when consumed makes one feel like a virile 20-year old and eliminates fat and wrinkles. The demand would be insatiable, and the placebo effect would mask the con-job. Just thinking outside of the box.  All sarcastic humor aside, I think it's truly a sad state of affairs that what I'm kidding about actually has a ring of truth to it. If Mars were found to be made of gold tomorrow, we'd have Hilton Hotels and McDonald's Rover Drive-Throughs there by 2025, and a lot of people would have perished along the way with hardly a pause in the progress (i.e. the cost of doing business). Such is human nature. |
bigcrash3
Member Posts: 36
From: Summerfield, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 01-30-2010 01:58 PM
First, I would like to say that I share Robert's optimism for the future of NASA. However it is tempered by the fact that as much as I want to see manned missions back to the moon and on to more distant places, I have come to accept that it will probably never happen in my lifetime (I'm 38). I have written my congressional and senatorial representatives and stated my support for NASA. The most recent being this past week to Senator Burr. As the saying goes, "All politics are local". Frankly, locally, I know of no one else who cares. My friends get a kick out of my space hobby and my wife tries to be understanding. I get all of the questions regarding space flight and I have a very basic understanding. I know enough to know that I really don't know much. On this forum we come together and discuss and debate and appreciate each others' knowledge, but I go back to the real world and get asked "When was the last time the shuttle went to the moon?" Please. After attending a few events such as the ASF show and the NASA HOF induction ceremony I was fortunate to meet several folks from overseas who have great enthusiasm for NASA and spaceflight in general. However, as a taxpayer and a voter, I refuse to support a Russian ride to space as the only alternative. Cooperation for convenience and goodwill is one thing but completely unacceptable to me as the only way to ferry our people to the space station. I have said as much to my elected officials but expect no action or response for that matter. I consider the private companies such as SpaceX and Virgin Galactic wonderful conversation pieces but not much more than amusement rides. SpaceX is trying but has much more to do before having a man rated spacecraft. America needs a new spacecraft soon. Unfortunately, as usual, it will take a great event by China or Russia for us to get our act together. I do not fear another nation's flag on the moon. I do fear the loss of resources and talent that the space program cultivates. Only half kidding, maybe the Air Force has a space vehicle that is man rated, they certainly have the money. |
AstronautBrian
Member Posts: 310
From: Louisiana
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 01-30-2010 02:45 PM
I am not good at debating. I am one of those people who can never say what they mean to say when they need to say it. Anyway, I just have to get some thoughts out, so I apologize if I ramble.First off, I am very dissapointed. I'm not a number cruncher and I don't understand the technical details, so maybe my desires are unrealistic, but to me it just seems so clear and simple. If commercial space needs to be developed, then by all means do so. Hand over control of sending cargo and astronauts to the ISS to them. At the same time, fund NASA to push the frontier and go back to the Moon to stay and go to Mars and the asteroids. Let the big boys push the envelope while letting commercial space come into its own. Getting rid of the Moon and Mars is so short-sighted that even my cat can see it. Whatever vision the administration has for NASA is the same vision that a bat has - virtually none. Follow the money, though, I know. Congress doesn't give NASA enough funding because they say space doesn't interst the masses. NASA can't do anything to interest the masses because it doesn't have the funding. It is a catch 22. No one is bold enough to want to stand up and spend the bucks, and nothing can be developed fast and safely enough to hold the people's support. When you think about it, that is a sad state of affairs. Our nation has become too fickle and demand instant gratification. It is all "what does it do for me in the short term" and not "what does it do for me and my kids in the long term." Everyone also wants to save the world. Take the billions from NASA and end poverty, hunger, and war. I'm all for ending all of that, but take money from pork barrell and stupid projects that don't have a chance in heck of doing anything useful. I guess the only thing that will one day light a fire under the hind quarters of America and give us the will and the guts to get out of LEO is to be knocked down a peg or ten. We've been number one for so long that people figured we would be number one forever. Well, we better be prepared to become number two, three, or four because that is where we are heading, and not just in space. For the good of the American space program, I wish the Russian, Chinese, and Indian space programs all of the luck in the world. I don't know if anything I've said has made any sense. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that our capability to send astronauts into space on our own is about to bite the dust. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-30-2010 03:43 PM
In short.....This administration will not fund NASA because NASA doesn't cut any checks to constituants. (i.e. "spread the wealth") |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 01-30-2010 05:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The space shuttle is being retired after the STS-133 mission, currently scheduled to launch in September of this year.
By the way, thanks Robert for the quick explanation!! Now for my two cents: I wish they would fly the Space Shuttle once or twice a year from now until they actually develop something instead of relying on Russia or commercial ventures. They understand the system now more than ever, why not just use it every now and then? Just my weird thoughts. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-30-2010 07:48 PM
coolslap.com: An Open Letter to the U.S. Human Spaceflight Community Administrator Bolden will talk about NASA's shift in direction on Monday afternoon, February 1 at 3:00 pm ET. There will be a lot more blogging, punditry, bitching, sky-is-falling gnashing of teeth - and sadly, real fear, real pain, and real despair. No doubt about it. Change is hard. Fear, pain and despair shouldn't be ignored. If they are, they have a way of festering. Unfortunately, society is not comfortable speaking about them. And if society isn't comfortable, imagine how such discussions play within an aerospace community composed of engineers and scientists and aviators and steely-eyed missile men and women. But it is HUMAN space flight (HSF) we are discussing, after all. And we can't do human space flight without taking the state of the humans involved into account, any more than we would fail to take into account the health of hardware or the robustness of engineering and operations processes... |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-30-2010 08:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AstronautBrian:
...don't know if anything I've said has made any sense. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that our capability to send astronauts into space on our own is about to bite the dust.
Brian, what you said makes complete sense, and it is essentially the same thing most of us are feeling right now... let down. What we can do about it (at least on this side of the pond) is write to all of our representatives in Washington and VOTE in the coming Congressional elections. If you see no action against Obama's efforts to kill manned spaceflight, or you get no response from writing, see what the challenger's positions are and vote for him or her. Of course, 2012 (election year, not the apocalypse) isn't that far off either. By saying this, I'm not attempting to make some political statement against the Dems, or Obama himself. I once posted here that if he made the commitment to carry through with what NASA was doing, I would stand up and applaud with everyone else. He hasn't, so I won't. I will make every effort to find candidates in the future who have more of a vision for our future and our reputation for leadership in the world. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-30-2010 09:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
He hasn't, so I won't.
But what if he, or more accurately, they have? What if, as the Augustine committee and others have suggested, they found that the current course NASA was following was destined to go no where? What if, to accomplish the goals and keep the commitment, a new approach was needed?This isn't about supporting or not supporting the President, nor should it be. It is about supporting NASA and more importantly, the achievements in space we all want to see accomplished. As a friend recently wrote, "Sometimes dreams need course corrections." Or for another view, see Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Give space a chance NASA's manned program has been endlessly circling the Earth for almost 40 years now, with no real end in sight. I don't have a lot of faith, so to speak, that Ares can do the job in breaking this cycle. I suspect a lot of the same folks who are decrying this move by Obama are the same ones who would be first in line to say that NASA has had its wings cut for decades now, making one bad decision after another when it comes to space exploration. Maybe it's time -- maybe it's long after time -- that we let someone else have a stab at this.When I look at the Moon, I see a place where people will one day work, live, breathe, play, and explore. I also see that future receding two years for every year NASA doesn't have a rocket to go there, and I've been watching that movie play for many years now. I'm tired of it. When I look out my window now I see a future I've been dreaming of my whole life, a future that seems just out of my reach. When my children, my grandchildren, look out their windows in that future, y'know what I want them to see? The blue-green crescent Earth hanging in a pitch black sky over a cratered horizon. Let's give space a chance. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-30-2010 10:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
This isn't about supporting or not supporting the President, nor should it be. It is about supporting NASA and more importantly, the achievements in space we all want to see accomplished.
The current administrations philosophy as well as its experience, track record for making decisions and success rate should certainly be a metric for whether its chosen course of action with regards to Human Space Flight is a prudent one. If the philosophy shaping the President's world view sheds adherence to the concept of American Exceptionalism (a principle which guided all previous modern day presidential actions and has at its foundation the belief that the US occupies a special nitch in the world, is not equal to other nations and extends to our country's uniqueness to achieve great things), the President is more likely to default to a course of action which further diminishes US ability to unilaterally protect its self interests to include the retention of a leadership position in Space. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-30-2010 11:03 PM
Setting aside what the President believes or does not believe, we know that he didn't come up with this plan alone, nor did he make the decision to adopt it alone, just as Kennedy didn't come up with or decide that we were going to the Moon alone. In both cases, they turned to advisers; many of the same type who have been consulted in "all previous modern day presidential actions" as applicable to human space flight. So this is just as much about what advisers in- and out-side of NASA have said for years: the program of record was broken and the fix might very well come from the segment of the space industry now exhibiting the same excitement for spaceflight as the young men and women who made Apollo possible. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-30-2010 11:14 PM
The president was presented with a range of options - he could either select any one of them or none (sending them back for rework), depending on what he perceived to be in the country's best interests. No matter how you slice it, the decision is his to make. If he believed the Moon a worthwhile objective but the current program of record was broke, other trade-offs were available (to include those recommended by Augustine) to help close the gap. Ultimately the buck stops with the President and the processes he exercised to arrive at the decision. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-30-2010 11:23 PM
I hope the announced changes will speed up the consideration for an international effort to reach the moon or Mars. Surely, there are other nations out there that want to reach the moon, too. And while one can be cynical about international projects necessitating certain compromises (such as the ISS), there is a real possibility that working together can result in achieving the goal more quickly than working alone. And, as was said on another forum, budgets for international efforts might be less prone to getting cut as long as the effort is considered part of our international diplomacy.Also, it would make sense that we explore the moon or Mars as the human race, not as an individual nation. Nobody can take away the accomplishments of the United States during the Apollo program. Americans can always feel a certain amount of national pride because of that success. But maybe this turn of events opens up a greater opportunity to work with other nations to get the job done. If we all share the cost, we can all share the triumph...and do so in peace for all mankind. |
bigcrash3
Member Posts: 36
From: Summerfield, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 01-31-2010 08:31 AM
I think that an international effort to reach the moon or Mars sounds nice but won't work. I truly apologize if this offends anyone but I am just trying to be honest. Other countries may contribute parts or modules but most of the money and lifting capability end up being provided by the US. At present, China may be the only other country able to help finance such a huge venture. I think cooperation with them on such an endeavor would be next to impossible. We can't even come to agreements on trade, valuations of currency and Taiwan...or Google for that matter! |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-31-2010 10:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...just as Kennedy didn't come up with or decide that we were going to the Moon alone.
As I keep saying, Obama doesn't have a Lyndon Johnson on his team. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-31-2010 10:46 AM
That's why spaceflight is the best olive branch in all of the affairs of humankind.I agree with the many statements of former Apollo 12 and Skylab 3 astronaut Alan Bean that an international approach to human spaceflight would be unifying in ways we can only imagine. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-31-2010 11:35 AM
...but who pays the bill? |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-31-2010 01:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I agree with the many statements of former Apollo 12 and Skylab 3 astronaut Alan Bean that an international approach to human spaceflight would be unifying in ways we can only imagine.
International won't work. It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future.Look at any international project for manned space exploration and it is very lopsided with the US taxpayer paying the bulk of the cost and the US program performing the heavy lifting. There is no benefit to the US to participate any international program. If it comes down to the US paying 75% of the cost, supplying 75% of the hardware/know how/risk and only having 20% of the say in how things operate (much like the debacle of the ISS), I prefer the US creating a program that is 75% of what the international parties want and make it US only. Those than can do (at some point). Everyone else can watch on CNN. I don;t mean to sound flippant but anytime those that do not have the capabilities for a manned program start speaking international partnership it is all political speak for "we want your cash, we want your technology and we want to be treated as equals even though we are not". |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-31-2010 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Setting aside what the President believes or does not believe, we know that he didn't come up with this plan alone, nor did he make the decision to adopt it alone, just as Kennedy didn't come up with or decide that we were going to the Moon alone. In both cases, they turned to advisers; .
Who says his advisors are competent? or that they all agree? For everyone who says no there can be found another that says yes. If Obama believed what he spoke about when looking for votes when running for the office, the decisions he has been making would be different. In politics politicians have their advisors create the reality they wish to pursue. Obama does not wish to make manned exploration a priority. It's not complicated and it is nothing other than that. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 01-31-2010 04:43 PM
It really makes no difference what this particular budget calls for. Neither party has been a big proponent for manned exploration. Seven previous President's were quite content with LEO. No Bucks, no Buck Rogers. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-31-2010 06:29 PM
Is anyone aware of any organizations that have announced any organized effort to fight this? Unless I am taking it wrong, collectSPACE is not going to try to do anything but I would like to help any organization that will try to convince Congress to save the moon. Do far I have written my senator but I would like this to not go down without a fight. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-31-2010 06:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
Unless I am taking it wrong, collectSPACE is not going to try to do anything...
collectSPACE is not an advocacy organization. As earlier provided, page 11 of this thread has a list of political action groups and links to their website. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-31-2010 06:58 PM
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will brief reporters about the agency's fiscal year 2011 budget at 3 p.m. EST on Monday, Feb. 1. This televised news conference has been rescheduled for earlier in the day (12:30 p.m. EST) and as a teleconference only. For details, see: NASA Announces Two News Conferences To Discuss The 2011 Budget And A Bold New Approach To Exploration |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-31-2010 07:23 PM
I've been ranting for days but this is the official reaction for my organization,It has been very difficult for me to read the news coming out about the new direction for NASA. I understand things can change and I even understood that we may have had to change launch vehicles to succeed. But I was absolutely shocked that we are abandoning our plans to return to the moon by 2020. It hurts deep inside to know that now I may not witness Americans landing on the moon again in my lifetime. I took Obama at his word and have been teaching children for the past year that we would be landing on the moon in the next decade. I am so so sad I do not even know how to react, I actually support all the good things incorporated in the new direction but it is over shadowed by the fact that today's action has lost us the moon and the inspiration that was to be. Congress will not continue to fund a program that is uninspiring and most likely China will follow through with their plan to land in 2024. Today is a sad day for America and the impact of this decision will be felt for many many years to come. Scott Bass, Mercury7 Science Center |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 12:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
International won't work. It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future.
Ariane is a commercial, multi-nation effort and last time I checked it's working.If you want international to work, you'll have to let go of certain things. It's more of a cultural thing than anything else. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:31 AM
Name one president since the end of Apollo who made "manned exploration priority"?Some people are unable to accept facts. US government-funded spaceflight is being overhauled in favour of the business/commercial sector - something long overdue. That's who will pay for it! Social programmes have always existed, but President Obama was not elected purely because of his position on NASA. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 06:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
If you want international to work, you'll have to let go of certain things. It's more of a cultural thing than anything else.
I don't want international to work! I don't even want it considered because there is no benefit to the US or the US Taxpayer in an international effort.It's simply others wanting the US taxpayer to fund their own space program. I think other countries or groups of countries (Europe) should go full steam with independent manned space programs. Maybe the US should even sell them a couple shuttles. When the US and NASA feel threatened in their manned space superiority will they possibly sit back and come up with a bold and clear direction that involves something other than low earth orbit repair missions to the ISS. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 07:25 AM
So far the US and UK have committed around three trillion dollars between them on the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which seem to be making those countries a safer place to live.The adjusted cost of the entire Apollo program was around $125 million: you could buy 56 Moon landings for the cost of those military adventures. I don't know about you guys in the US, but no-one in the UK voted for either war, and we have an unelected PM who seems intent on throwing even more good money after bad. |
minipci
Member Posts: 421
From: London, UK
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-01-2010 07:39 AM
If I had the chance to vote on those wars I would certainly have voted "Yes", and would have committed even more resources to prosecuting those actions. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 07:44 AM
Whether members here supported or not supported military actions is off-topic to this discussion. If you want to discuss space funding as it relates to other budgets, fine, but treat the other budgets generically and objectively. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 08:22 AM
Thoughts from Miles O'Brien: NASA will get more money - good news in a tough fiscal environment. But not nearly enough to fund the audacious - yet nostalgic - Moon program Bush envisioned. So today, we will hear it is all being scrapped. NASA will spend the money that is freed up to bolster efforts to study our own planet and its climate, for aeronautics and to keep the International Space Station in business until at least 2020.There will be money spent to seed a more robust private, commercial space industry and to devise new propulsion systems that will make a trip to Mars faster - and thus more plausible. The idea of developing a plasma propulsion system to take humans exploring deeper into the solar system is enough to get most space cadets pretty jazzed. So it is good news that there will be more money spent here. Bring it on. That there will be no trips back to the Moon does not bother me that much. JFK famously said "We choose to go to the Moon because it is hard..." Well, frankly, for us, the Moon is not so hard. We know how to do it. I have never heard a really compelling reason to return (including the prospect of mining Helium-3). What is hard is devising a piloted trip to Mars, one of its moons or an asteroid. No one has done that. And that's what leaders are supposed to do. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 08:31 AM
Running a country is like running a household budget: 'if you want a foreign holiday, you can't have the new car' is a good metaphor. A widely-voiced opinion is that, whereas most of us here see the STS as an incredible achievement of which the US can be justifiably proud, others have commented that it was a gamble that failed to excite the US public at large.... I have heard this opinion expressed by some people who, if things had gone differently, might have led the American push on to Mars in the late 70s. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 08:36 AM
I wonder if one of those "new propulsion sytems" include Dr Franklin Chang-Diaz's VASIMR engine? |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 09:20 AM
Miles fails to mention that the original plan was to use the moon as a test bed for a mission to mars. Besides ,paying lip service to mars without at least a fuzzy date in mind for when you will go is pretty much bs. But Miles comments do bring to the forefront why Nasa is doomed, When Americas most staunch space supporters simply shrug off losing project constellation it shows how little support it had in the first place except for those like me who were passionate about it. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-01-2010 09:36 AM
So we axed the ageing Shuttle to help fund the new moon missions; now we'll be axing the new moon missions to help fund Mars missions. If only I could just axe my cynical old brain I'd be really happy today.Really, how dumb are we? Honestly? It's obvious to anyone of the meanest intelligence that today will be a black day for NASA's manned space exploration but we're expected to flag wave about the crumbs of comfort being offered somewhere over the horizon. Excuse me if i don't join in with the cheerleaders. If ever there was a thread that deserved to be awash with moments of silence it's this one. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 09:38 AM
Discussion continued here: Constellation cancelled, NASA's new approach |
Topic Closed
advertisement