posted 09-28-2009 11:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
If a partner has responsibility for providing logistics support to a lunar/mars base the consequences are even more severe when it reneges or is unable to execute its responsibilities...

---

posted 09-29-2009 01:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
There is decreased risk of that occurring if responsibility is not de-aggregated across multiple partners (for reasons previously discussed related to issues with co-dependency.)

---

You've lost me there. How is the chance of a failure to one of our systems dependent upon whether or not we have partners? Did it decrease the risk of the Challenger or Columbia disasters because those particular missions were not related to any obligations to our international partners?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
Wherever feasible I agree the US should leverage supplemental support from partnership to eliminate single point of failure or reduce the resource burden provided such relationships do not result in mission failure if the partnership is terminated.

---

posted 10-05-2009 03:02 PM               

Space News: White House Seeks to Restore Human Spaceflight Funding

The White House has asked congressional appropriators to restore $670 million cut from NASA's nearly $4 billion budget request for human space exploration in a version of the 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill the House passed in June, according to congressional and administration sources.

posted 10-05-2009 09:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Maybe some good news....

---

posted 10-06-2009 05:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
The sooner we can get the Ares program in operation the better.

---

posted 10-19-2009 06:10 PM               

Human Space Flight Review Committee Report Available Thursday

Human Space Flight Review Committee Chairman Norman Augustine will hold a press conference at 1 p.m. EDT, on Thursday, October 22, in the Zenger Room of the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, in Washington.

Augustine will be accompanied by committee member Ed Crawley. Printed copies of the committee's final report will be available during the press conference and an electronic copy of the report will be posted to the committee's Web site at the start of the briefing.

The press conference will be broadcast on NASA Television's Media Channel and streamed on the agency's Web site.

posted 10-20-2009 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
Jeff Greason of XCOR is a member of the Augustine Commission. He recently gave a speech in Boston that gives an inside look at some of the thinking of the members.

---

The key point in Greason's presentation is this: "I knew that the reason why we go to space is because we are going to live there some day. We are opening a new frontier for humanity, we are creating new places and making them accessible for us. This is what the future is about."

He added that he was "stunned" that the rest of the Augustine committee agreed with him.

In a line that generated an impromptu round of applause from the Boston audience, he said: "It's time for the real justification for human spaceflight to come out of the closet."

Hear hear and amen!

posted 10-20-2009 07:12 PM               

However, I am very concerned about the growing US debt.

The US totaled a $1,409,000,000,000 (that's $1.4 trillion) deficit in the fiscal year that ended on Sept 30th (Source: the Congressional Budget Office), bringing the total US debt to $11,952,611,405,769.02 (that's over $11.9 trillion; source: US Treasury).

Also in 2009, the US spent $383,000,000,000 (that's $383 billion) in INTEREST alone on our national debt (that's more than 25 times NASA's total budget).

The insanity has got to stop.

If that means NASA does not receive the extra $3-5 billion it would need to move out of earth orbit, then I am ok with that. If we shave money out of the budgets of every other federal program as well to actually balance the budget, so much the better.

I know I will take heat by taking this stand. The argument is always "but NASA is such a small part of the federal budget".

posted 10-20-2009 08:01 PM               

There are many other areas to cut-- wasteful and outmoded government programs abound. Subsidies to farmers, financial institutions, and manufacturers can all be reduced. Defense procurement is bloated and inefficient.

Further, Congress approved a stimulus package of over $700 bilion dollars. Less than half of it has been spent. Let's take some of that stimulus money and invest in our future. The return on investment in NASA is high because it produces new technology and services and provides high tech jobs.

posted 10-20-2009 09:17 PM               

Point 2: Why not focus on the whole budget?

Of course, it is patently foolish to pretend that there will be any fiscal responsibility in the near future. Both major US parties have spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor [apologies to all the US Navy folks out there! 8^)], and it will only stop when the American people make their voices heard.

That is... IF the American people make their voices heard.

posted 10-20-2009 09:55 PM               

If you watched the proceedings of the Augustine commission and read their executive summary, then you know that they believe that at the current funding levels, NASA's manned space program will at best, stagnate, if not collapse. There is no viable path forward at the current budget levels.

So the choice is between properly funding the manned space program, toiling away to obscurity, or simply giving up. The two latter options result in layoffs, if not company closures, and a loss of capability.

It also results in less tangible losses, including the impacts that such a decision would have to the education of our youth and the effects it would have on international diplomacy and national security.

posted 10-20-2009 10:40 PM               

If we had spent 1/5 of the resources and funds that we've spent in the past 50 years on military programs on the space program, we'd have colonies on Mars and warp-drive engines by now. I'm not bashing our need for a hearty defense, but any advanced space-faring civilization observing us must come to the conclusion that we're an bunch of blooming idiots.

posted 10-20-2009 11:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delta7:
(...) but any advanced space-faring civilization observing us must come to the conclusion that we're an bunch of blooming idiots.

---

posted 10-21-2009 06:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I would suggest that the question is if withholding the $3 to $5 billion from NASA will ultimately save the United States money.

---

On your first point, regarding saving money by spending MORE... nah, I don't even need to comment on that.

Regarding the Augustine Commission, I have read the report. If I understand your interpretation of it correctly, NASA will stagnate or collapse if we continue to fund it at the current level, which in 2007 constant dollars (source: CBO) is higher than any year since 1970 with the exception of 1987, 1990-91 and 1993-94. I simply don't buy that premise.

Regarding layoffs or loss of capability, the layoffs will happen regardless of the choices made. Granted, some choices will result in more layoffs than others, but spending billions to save a few thousand jobs is foolish (IMO).

Finally, I am not suggesting that we place a "going out of business" sign on NASA's door. If Congress funds NASA at it's current level for the near future, NASA will adjust and make hard choices, just like all organizations must make when faced with financial issues.

My concern is not simply the total size of the national debt (although that certainly concerns me), it is with the rate of growth of that debt. I believe that growth rate is unsustainable in the long term, and the inflation it will cause will drive the prices of everything (including Project Constellation) ever higher.

posted 10-22-2009 12:05 PM               

NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made available or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted. Various options can be identified that offer exciting and worthwhile opportunities for the human exploration of space if appropriate funds can be made available. Such funds can be considerably leveraged by having NASA attack its overhead costs and change some of its traditional ways of conducting its affairs -- and by giving its management the authority to bring about such changes. The American public can take pride in NASA's past accomplishments; the opportunity now exists to provide for the future human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation.

posted 10-22-2009 08:25 PM               

It seems to me that there are three important decisions that NASA, President Obama, and the Congress will need to make:

1. Will NASA receive the increased funding recommended in the report? If it doesn't, then we will be stuck in low earth orbit for the next decade or more, and any plans to go to the Moon or elsewhere are distant dreams.

2. If NASA does get more funding, what should be the near-term goal? The leading contenders are "Moon first" or the "Flexible Path" which would take us to near earth objects, the Lagrange points, and the moons of Mars. I support the Flexible Path, which is similar to that proposed by the Planetary Society. It saves money by postponing procurement of landers, and it is more inspirational than just returning to the Moon.

3. What are the best launchers to get us out of low earth orbit? Contenders are the Ares 1/Ares 5; a smaller version of the Ares 5; man-rating of current rockets such as the Atlas 5; or a shuttle-derived, side-mounted launcher. I think NASA needs to do more detailed conparative engineering studies to assess the advantages, risks, and trade-off of each approach. This is a technical decision, although the politicians are weighing in to preserve the jobs in their districts.

Contact the President at:

posted 10-23-2009 10:33 AM               

Today the White House released a new report on the future of NASA. The Augustine Commission's report suggests several options for NASA's future beyond the space shuttle and International Space Station missions. But it says America's space program "appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory," and needs another $3 billion annually.

I've asked the president to use money from leftover stimulus funds to close the gap at NASA. I've also asked him to help minimize the job losses after the space shuttle is retired, in part, by transferring other NASA-related work to Cape Canaveral. He's assured me that NASA will get enough money to do what it does best: go explore the heavens.

Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee with a panel of scientists, academics, and entrepreneurs whose testimony presented a convincing justification for robust funding of the space program. You can watch the entire hearing by clicking on this link.

Whatever the president chooses, I will continue to fight to get NASA the funding it needs for the next generation of human spaceflight. It's critical for Florida -- and the country.

posted 10-25-2009 10:02 PM               

With this path, they envision a graduated approach to exploring the inner solar system, which sounds great. But some of the targets on their list sound, well, boring.

Lagrange points? L1 and L2...a good rationale is presented for going there, but seeing how the government and the media have handled manned spaceflight for decades, these will undoubtedly be labeled "missions to nowhere." No doubt, a great public eye roll at the price tag will follow.

Manned lunar orbit missions? As much as I want to see astronauts return to the moon, this is like going to the Grand Canyon and only taking the helicopter tour before departing for home. We have done this with robots, with humans, and recently with robots again. What more can be gained? If we are going to risk lives going to the moon, we should go all the way.

There is talk of "off ramps" to more extensive manned lunar exploration as we pass through these targets in the program, but this just sounds like passing the buck to the next group of politicians to decide if they have the guts to continue funding a past administration's program. Manned space getting too expensive? I can hear it now:

"Well, I'm from Vermont, and we don't have anything to do with the space program, and I'm up for re-election...we're at the moon, just get off here!"

Some of these targets do sound worthwhile and exciting. Asteroids, dead comets, and the moons of Mars are good solid places to go and explore, touch, and return treasured pieces to Earth. And there is much yet to be learned on our moon too. These are the kind of missions that will draw young students into science, math, and engineering.

posted 10-26-2009 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NASAROB:
Going to Mars is not going happen. Funding to go to the Moon will not pass Congress. We are going to have to count on Russia, Japan and Europe to resupply the ISS. I am not happy about this, but we have to face the facts.

---

Let's be sure to keep track of what is fact and what isn't fact. Much of what you said is not fact, but is an opinion (or prediction) about what will happen. One could argue the government has been broke for several years, but that doesn't necessarily stop congress from funding other programs of interest. If congress is given enough motivation and interest to fund NASA, they will do so. (Of course, that's the tricky part!)

We SHOULD count on the Russians (and others) to help re-supply the ISS, because it is an international space station. The USA cannot (and should not) be the sole suppliers/supporters of the station. As I see it, the balance is generally pretty fair so far...with the USA doing the majority of the heavy lifting and construction work, while the Russians have done much of the crew transport and re-supply work. It only makes sense that the Russians continue to provide the services they have already been providing (as they are better tooled to do so)...especially while the US re-structures its own space program.

Those who don't see the moon as an exciting target for manned exploration simply don't understand the great deal of science and research that can be conducted there. If the space program is only a game of reaching new targets to plant flags in increasingly distant locations, then it will always ultimately disappoint the fickle public. Once we plant a flag in Mars and return home, people will suddenly proclaim Mars to be boring and will want a farther and more difficult target to reach. That trend will continue until we run out of reachable targets and/or money...at which point we'll essentially be back to where we are now...with a lot of past glories, but no real foundation for exploration. Whereas, if we make sure to explore the worlds we visit sufficiently to make important scientific discoveries, then the payoff and the effort seems more worthwhile in the end. After all, very few people complain about the cost of Hubble these days, since it's proved to be such a goldmine for scientific discovery.

posted 10-28-2009 05:08 PM               

Sorry to be so honest but it just looks like another wrong step. The sooner it gets cancelled the better for US spaceflight!

posted 10-28-2009 06:17 PM            

• Delta 4: apparently unacceptable. Why exactly?

• Atlas 5: same question.

• Some compromise vehicle with two standard shuttle-type boosters: how long to get such a vehicle to the stage Ares 1-X is at? Would it even get astronauts into orbit in time to de-orbit the space station in 2020?

• Some unexplained commercial vehicle? Developed by whom? And when? This century or next?

posted 10-28-2009 10:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I admit I haven't read the Augustine Report...

---

If funded, Orion-Ares I will be ready to fly in 2016 (2015 at earliest).

Companies such as SpaceX have said they could have a manned spacecraft flying by 2014-2015 (SpaceX's first Falcon 9 is set to launch later this year early next year with a mockup Dragon capsule), though 2016 is considered more realistic.

A shuttle-derived vehicle, such as the side-mounted approach developed by the shuttle program, is projected to need 4.5 years for development.

posted 10-29-2009 01:16 AM            

I feel that NASA is taking a step back as it goes from capsule to spaceliner (Shuttle) back to capsule design. The media will not be very interested in live transmissions as a catastrophic event like Challenger or Columbia is highly unlikely due to the rescue possibilities, escape tower etc.

I for one feel good that our astronauts have an escape system with the new concept but the badly designed shuttle stack could have been been given a closer look and a redesign maybe would have taken us a step ahead rather than back. Why not put a space shuttle on top of a rocket? This way no falling foam can hurt it's fragile tiles and leading edges. At one point I saw drawings of design studies that show that this is possible.

I understand that the shuttle cannot go to the moon directly but it could transfer astronauts to the ISS and then they can reach the Moon and Mars from there in other means of transportation. Why can't we assemble a command module with lunar lander using the international crews of ISS?

The shuttle is an amazing flying spaceliner and I think instead of putting it out of service it should be further developed and given an escape system. This would be a wise step in the right direction and a giant leap for mankind.

posted 10-29-2009 09:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Playalinda:
I feel that NASA is taking a step back as it goes from capsule to spaceliner (Shuttle) back to capsule design.

---

Ares makes space access more affordable in a day where funding is hard to come by. It gains us experience in many technology areas. Particularly in flying composite materials and modern avionics in space.

Our original space programs were funded by military research and fallout from the Cold War. Redstone, Atlas, and Titan were all military vehicles modified for manned flight. NASA was responsible for Saturn and the shuttle but they were also riding the wave of the New Ocean.

posted 10-29-2009 10:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercsim:
It certainly is better than the alternative of not flying.

---

posted 10-29-2009 02:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
To the contrary: much has been learned over the past quarter century regarding the reliability of the solid rocket motor, which has led respected individuals such as Gen. Lester Lyles to endorse Ares I.

---

Why repeat the mistakes of 1972 (which we are still living with!) and make Orion fit a compromise booster when it should be the other way around?

posted 10-29-2009 02:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercsim:
The shuttle is not really a 'spaceliner'

---

We need people with vision in the space business but all we see is no vision and budget cuts for NASA. I don't think it's very inventive to use a modified shuttle booster for the new Orion capsule. Remember when the booster ignite it can't be shut down. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo all used non-solid fuel but rather liquid propulsion. Yes even the 60's were more advanced than '09. I don't mean the software and hardware which is way more advanced now than in the past.

In general I don't think that Ares with Orion looks right. It's way too tall and slim. It really looks rather breakable.

posted 10-29-2009 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Playalinda:
In general I don't think that Ares with Orion looks right.

---

Having now stood within a hundred feet of Ares I-X as it rolled to the pad, and having seen it glow in the pad's Xenon lights, and then watching it soar just yesterday, I can think of no other word for the Ares design than majestic.