|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 02:25 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
So why must this thread be steered again, needlessly, in a political direction?
Why then are some accusing Obama of wanting to do something that he never intimated? It seems to me that opponents of the new proposal are deliberately misportraying it. Even Bolden is being accused now! |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 07:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
If Miles O'Brien... And I didn't know that he was an elected official and representative of the American people and thus speak in your names as to what you can/cannot and should/shouldn't support.
It's strange too in that if you watched him (Miles O'Brien) only a couple of months back on Spaceflightnow.com he argued AGAINST what he was testifying FOR in Congress. For those on this thread who want to make every comment about politics and loving or hating the President as the only reason for comments made, maybe Mr. O'Brien's apparent about face in his opinion of NASA's direction is more an indication of an over-riding political affiliation.On a separate issue, it is interesting to note that the military will soon fly their own reusable shuttle-like "space plane" test bed vehicle, and do so in an aeroshell because the wings on the vehicle create problems during launch. I mention because it affects the new NASA "hope" plan in that DOD will not be a customer of any manned spacecraft a private company may develop. Secondly, the aeroshell cover means that any private company which tries to fly a similar vehicle (and there is one receiving money from NASA, your and my money) will probably have the same problems. A small company will not have the capital required to "fix" such a major design problem if it exists. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-26-2010 07:44 AM
Can I throw something that Neil Armstrong said (or did) whilst at Cincinnati which is worth considering in this current discussion.He went to a blackboard and drew on it four curves. These he labeled Leadership, Threat, Good Economy and (World) Peace. He then postulated that when all these curves lined up you could do something like Apollo. It can be said that today, when all the curves line up, something like Constellation will happen. According to Gerry Griffin, Armstrong was so right. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 07:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
It seems to me that opponents of the new proposal are deliberately misportraying it.
I strongly disagree. It is an exceptionally bad policy decision. If you agree with the "hope" and "change you can believe in" (this was used by Mr. Bolden in his pre-STS-130 launch KSC news conference), then please state how it will be good and back it up. quote:
Even Bolden is being accused now!
Mr. Bolden is the head of NASA... like it or not, it goes with the job. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-26-2010 08:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You needn't be an elected official to testify before Congress and as chair of the NASA Advisory Council Committee on Education and Public Outreach, O'Brien is qualified to address issues related to how NASA is perceived by the public.
My remark was specific to this paragraph: "But that is the hand we have been dealt. And trying to recreate the past - on yesterday’s technology - is not something the public can or should support." I didn't know that Constellation was yesterday's technology since some of it will be used by SpaceX, per Bolden in his testimony. And I'll stick to what I wrote regarding the self-attributed spokesman role he pretends to have regarding what deserves to be supported or not. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 09:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Mr. Bolden is the head of NASA... like it or not, it goes with the job.
It's not whether I "like it or not", but it isn't right to accuse Bolden of being some sort of accomplice.And since you ask what "good" the proposal does, at least it offers the ISS a lease of life it would otherwise not have had. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 09:36 AM
When the ISS program funding by the US was about to come to an end, I believe the US lifetime of the station would have been extended regardless of the status of the Constellation program and regardless of the political party in power. In spite of the usefulness or lack thereof (another thread to be sure) of the ISS, the US has too much invested to just drop it for no reason other than dollars. That is, they both would have existed. I do not see any gain by the new policy. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 10:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
the US lifetime of the station would have been extended regardless of the status of the Constellation program and regardless of the political party in power.
That's just not the case. Constellation's continuation depended on junking both the Shuttle and ISS on schedule (2010 and 2015) to free up the budget.Not only has Obama given the ISS the extension many hoped for, but additional funding for NASA. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2010 10:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
I mention because it affects the new NASA "hope" plan in that DOD will not be a customer of any manned spacecraft a private company may develop.
The X-37B, to which you refer, is being developed as a reusable, unmanned spacecraft for the Air Force. It is designed to stay on-orbit for 270 days before returning to earth autonomously. It is essentially a satellite with wings.The X-37B program in no way negates the Air Force from desiring a manned capability, as demonstrated by the on-going use of the space shuttle to fly Department of Defense payloads and minisats. Your statement that the "DOD will not be a customer" lacks basis. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-26-2010 10:58 AM
A number of people seem to believe that good leadership only exists when you agree with the direction being taken by the leader. But a good leader isn't necessarily a person who leads you where you already want to go. Sometimes a leader is one who recognizes a better way forward and actually "leads" the people in that direction.My opinion, and I already know that a number of people on this board will disagree with me, is that Obama's greatest weakness as a leader is that he seldom takes the time necessary to explain why he has made a particular choice in leadership. Instead, he makes a decision on a contentious issue, then immediately moves on to the next pressing issue, leaving it up to the rest of us to figure out why he made the choice that he did on our own. In the present case, I was initially disappointed in the proposed NASA budget. After doing the background research into the muddle that has become the current Program of Record, and coming to the realization that the Constellation program had practically zero chance of success, I've come to the conclusion that Obama has probably made the sensible decision from the available alternatives. And while risky, it does appear to me to have a greater chance of success than the existing Program of Record. But it took me a few weeks to figure all of this out, and I've been a space enthusiasts for the greater portion of my life. I think much of the opposition to the new plan could have been avoided if only the Obama administration had taken the steps necessary to explain why this direction is the best. If Obama ultimately fails as a leader, I believe it won't be because he made bad choices, it'll be because he hasn't made it clear to the people why those choices were necessary.
|
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The X-37B, to which you refer, is being developed as a reusable, unmanned spacecraft for the Air Force. It is designed to stay on-orbit for 270 days before returning to earth autonomously. It is essentially a satellite with wings.
Your sources are very good. According to Aviation Week, I am under the impression that the goal (test and any follow-up) for the vehicle - X-37B, to which you refer - is secret.Regarding any private manned spacecraft and DOD...where would the DOD go? ....and what do small satellites use have to do with manned/crewed spacecraft? Are you trying to say DOD would fly a manned mission to deploy a small satellite? Please explain. Also, for an analogy, where does the DOD currently use any "off the shelf" vehicle for military missions? |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:18 AM
Just read Miles O'Briens fascinating Damascene conversion - sorry, testimony. It's curious that Constellation's detractors keep referring to two things - that it's a repeat of a previous goal and that it's using archaic technology (and if that doesn't describe the bulk of the latter day shuttle missions I don't what does, but I digress). By the same reasoning there shouldn't be an ISS, as it's just Skylab-on-steroids, (albeit rather slow-burning steroids that took over two decades to yield a complete station rather than achieving it with a single launch - but again I digress).Same goes for Endeavour - been there, done that. Same goes for delivering crews to and from Mir (oh look - another space station!), servicing Hubble etc. It's an entirely fallacious argument as my examples show - returning to the moon would no more be a repeat of Apollo than delivering one ISS module is a repeat of delivering the last. And archaic technology - why yes, compared to nascent technologies only just leaving the drawing board ANY existent technology will seem archaic. But that's always been the case - so why was it previously deemed acceptable to set a baseline and develop vehicles from that point, but now it's being characterised as nostalgic and retrograde. By all means get out of the manned space exploration business because you deem it financially necessary/politically expedient - but have the integrity to admit it. Constellation was no less worthy a goal than any other the agency has set itself and achieved - the current administration simply chooses not to continue down ANY path of manned exploration until unspecified technological goals have been achieved. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
According to Aviation Week, I am under the impression that the goal (test and any follow-up) for the vehicle - X-37B, to which you refer - is secret.
The military has issued a fact sheet about the X-37B, per Spaceflight Now: The X-37B's mission is to "demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the United States Air Force," the military fact sheet says. "Objectives of the OTV program include space experimentation, risk reduction and concept of operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies." As far as your other questions: - Where would the DOD go?
Anywhere it wanted... - What do small satellites use have to do with manned/crewed spacecraft?
They demonstrate an established use by the DoD of a crewed spacecraft. - Where does the DOD currently use any "off the shelf" vehicle?
They use United Launch Alliance (ULA) off-the-shelf launchers. You know ULA, the same company entering the commercial crew services market.
My point remains: your claim that the DoD "will not be a customer" for the commercial crew services is not supported by your example of the X-37B program. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
A number of people seem to believe that good leadership only exists when you agree with the direction being taken by the leader.
You are going under the assumption Obama is a leader, a position he has already failed at. He's a politician. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Why then are some accusing Obama of wanting to do something that he never intimated?
My only point was to not say that someone was making claims purely on partisan or political grounds. For example, if Mr. X is a Republican and Mr. X says something that isn't true, it isn't (necessarily) partisan politics to call out Mr. X on his false statement.And by the way, kudos to everyone here pointing out the fallaciousness of the claims that Constellation was (paraphrasing) just going back to the moon using old technologies... are we really supposed to wait to develop Ion propulsion engines to make what was just a three-day trip during the 60s? |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
My point remains: your claim that the DoD "will not be a customer" for the commercial crew services is not supported by your example of the X-37B program.
My previous post was poorly worded.DOD has no where to go with a manned vehicle. (If they had a place to go, this would present international political problems. I do not believe we, the US, want to go there.) Using a manned/crewed vehicle to launch a micro-sat, etc. would be a waste of resources when they could probably "piggyback" on an existing satellite launch. Unless they rebuilt any "service module" like latter Apollos, what would they do? Open the hatch and toss it out? Regardless, as the only purpose for launch, this would not be done. Regarding off the shelf... I should have said "manned" vehicle. The obvious response would be the space shuttle, but shuttle capabilities are far above any capsule, no matter who builds it: government or private enterprise. Regardless, your analogy is flawed. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-26-2010 11:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...are we really supposed to wait to develop Ion propulsion engines to make what was just a three-day trip during the 60's?
Yeah, what were those fools thinking who spent so much time developing automobiles, trains, and airplanes? A horse will get you there, it just takes a little longer. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2010 12:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
DOD has no where to go with a manned vehicle.
What about satellite servicing? They have a significant investment in their satellite network that could be well served by manned servicing missions. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-26-2010 12:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Yeah, what were those fools thinking who spent so much time developing automobiles, trains, and airplanes?
And as we all know from history, the day DaVinci first sketched out the idea of a car all men stopped riding horses and sat about waiting. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-26-2010 12:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
And as we all know from history, the day DaVinci first sketched out the idea of a car all men stopped riding horses and sat about waiting.
We're a bit further along than the DaVinci stage. A working ion thruster was developed in 1959, and there have been 100s in use since then. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 01:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
What about satellite servicing?
While in the early history of shuttle operations some satellites were designed for on-orbit repair, I do not believe recent satellites have this feature. Obviously, that could change for future generations of hardware. However, there would then be the problem of reaching the satellite orbit (performance limitations of the launch vehicle, etc.) coupled with the likely design of any commercial capsule (i.e, small, etc.) would not allow such operations. Then there is the obvious limitation of cost. Do you want to spend the money for the manned vehicle, launch vehicle, designing and building the repair hardware, training for the repair, etc.? Probably cheaper and better to replace with a new more capable satellite.However, if repair were an option, the best way to do has always been, in my opinion, at a space station, with the use of a "taxi" to move the satellite from/to it's orbit and "dock" it to a station satellite capture fixture. There are lots of details that I will skip in the interest of reply space. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-26-2010 01:08 PM
The Chang-Diaz engine, as far along as it may be, still needs a heavy-lift vehicle to get it into earth orbit.Bolden has himself acknowledged there isn't enough funding in the new proposal for such heavy-lift capability, stating "there will come a time when I will ask for more money on heavy lift". Bolden also acknowledged "We'll develop a plan over the coming months," insisting there had not been enough time since the announcement to create "a complete plan on something as important as how we get deeper into the solar system." This is the planning basis on which Constellation should be scrubbed? Sure sounds to me like the decision to kill Constellation was made before any other considerations. Talking about orbiting fuel depots, and landing men on asteroids and moons of Mars, while deriding our chances of being able to return to a celestial body we already reached 40 years ago, because our heavy-lift capability just isn't there yet? Putting the cart before the horse would be sanity compared with the current proposal. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 01:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Yeah, what were those fools thinking who spent so much time developing automobiles, trains, and airplanes? A horse will get you there, it just takes a little longer.
I will take a leap here that may be inappropriate...but I do not believe anyone "here" believes that orbital commercial manned space flight will not happen and that it's development should not be encouraged. The question is: will you have commercial orbital manned/crewed spaceflight in 5 to 10 years? I say in 25 to 50 years, maybe. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-26-2010 01:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
What about satellite servicing?
Only problem with manned satellite servicing is the vehicle has to get to high enough orbits to service or a space tug will be needed to truck a satellite down to LEO to service. This was one of the things that hobbled shuttle as Congress in the 70s approved shuttle funds, but killed the space tug. Without that, nothing could be ferried to LEO or from LEO to higher orbits.The satellites also have to be servicable in orbit. Solar Max and Hubble are designed to be and others could be retrofitted to a certain extent, but for the most part satellites are not intended for on orbit service. Personally, it would be nice to see some sort of manned capability to the higher orbits or a space tug. At the very least, it might help to remove some of the satellites and space junk sitting in orbits too high to decay in a timely fashion. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 02-26-2010 02:07 PM
A question for the rocket scientists among us. If the decision were made and fully funded today, how long would it take to man-rate the Delta and Atlas? |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-26-2010 07:29 PM
I'm certainly no rocket scientist (literally, figuratively or any other way), but I'd venture it would not take 5 years -- where are you going with this? |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-26-2010 08:40 PM
From what I've picked up on some of the other web sites, there appears to be some support in Congress for the idea of extending the Space Shuttle out until 2015. Someone also reported that a consortium of the current shuttle industry participants have already approached NASA with the idea of having them assume shuttle operations at a cost of $1.8 billion a year. If true, this last idea would be a quick way to get the bigger commercial entities involved, with no gap in HSF. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2010 09:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
If the decision were made and fully funded today, how long would it take to man-rate the Delta and Atlas?
Per Lockheed Martin, Delta IV Heavy could be man-rated in three years. |
mikej
Member Posts: 483
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-26-2010 09:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
I am not aware of Mr. Rutan and/or associates building a winged reusable Space Shuttle-like orbital vehicle.
The Discovery Channel had a documentary from around the time of the X-Prize flights called Black Sky: The Race for Space DVD Set. At one point, they show Rutan in front of his computer describing an orbital spacecraft: "If it goes to Earth orbit, it's tier 2." Additionally, news reports from that time put the first space tourism flights in 2007. SpaceShipOne wins $10 million X Prize (Oct. 5, 2004): Just last week, Branson announced a deal to license the venture's technology that could be worth more than $21 million over the next fifteen years.Branson said he hoped five successors to SpaceShipOne, each with a five-person capacity, would enter service three years from now. SpaceShipOne Wins $10M After 2nd Flight (November 09, 2004): Last week, Richard Branson, the British airline mogul and adventurer, announced that beginning in 2007, he will begin offering paying customers flights into space. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-27-2010 01:57 AM
More media takes on the new direction of NASA.... |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-27-2010 05:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
It's an entirely fallacious argument as my examples show - returning to the moon would no more be a repeat of Apollo than delivering one ISS module is a repeat of delivering the last.
NASA has never presented any clear goal of why astronauts should be returning to the Moon at an even greater cost than ISS.If it's "manned exploration" you want then Mars is the place to go. Some have already spoken about mining the Moon for Helium 3 - a leap of faith more than a giant leap! How about tourism? It makes more sense creating resorts similar to Las Vegas and Dubai? An entrepreneur like Robert Bigelow has better plans for lunar "exploration" than NASA. And someone like Robert Zubrin can still get us (humanity) to Mars faster than Constellation ever would. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-27-2010 05:29 AM
This is not going to be popular, but guys it's time for a reality check. This thread is about the reasons for cancelling Constellation and the future of man in space. As I see it a lot of the arguments are about minor aspects that fringe on the main decision and have little bearing on why Obama (or his advisors) decided to follow the route they did.So, let's return to a posting I made earlier and one that has been studiously ignored as folks chase an individual tree rather than looking at the forest. Armstrong spoke about four things that need to come together to make something like Contellation happen. The first was 'Leadership'. Someone has mentioned that a strong leader not only inspires people to follow him but also persuades them to go with enthusiasm in directions they may not really believe in. He has to have vision and the ability to make others see that vision. The question is do Obama/Bolden measure up to this. Do they have the caliber of a Johnson/Webb? I don't think so. The Johnson/Webb partnership was strong enough to drive through Apollo, not so Constellation with Obama/Bolden. With the leadership missing, this is the first 'curve' not lined up. Armstrong's second curve was 'Threat'. One has to define threat. Threat from whom? The Russians? The Chinese? The Indians? And how realistic are these supposed threats? I don't intend to go into a detailed analysis, but I would venture to suggest that for the foreseeable future these nations pose a minimal threat to US aspirations in space. This is not to mention more earth bound threats - poverty, social welfare to mention just a couple. A second curve not lined up The third curve was 'Peace'. Iraq, Afghanistan are obvious war themes. But Obama has a war on health provision too. There may be others which combined push this curve out of skew. No curve lined up so far, so what about the last one. This was labelled 'Good Economy'. World recession and banks in crisis hardly make for good economy. Maybe in the future but not today. So, it was against this background with none of the curves aligned that the decision to cancel Constellation was made. At the end of the day, the US couldn't afford it and the conditions did not exist that would both make it affordable and a desirable national objective. I'll close with a return to another previous posting. The Constellation dream is dead so find another dream to follow. One dream dies, another is born. Remember what Robert Goddard said, "God have pity on the one-dream man." |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-27-2010 07:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
The first was 'Leadership'. Someone has mentioned that a strong leader not only inspires people to follow him but also persuades them to go with enthusiasm in directions they may not really believe in. He has to have vision and the ability to make others see that vision. The question is do Obama/Bolden measure up to this. Do they have the calibre of a Johnson/Webb? I don't think so.
It is precisely for this reason that I think Obama's proposed new direction for NASA will not secure buy-off in Congress and something closer to the Status Quo (perhaps with an increased level of funding for Constellation) is more likely to be the outcome. Even if the Administration's "plan" is the optimum way to go (I certainly don't agree), the President doesn't have a very good track record of demonstrating the ability to lead/convince the majority of the American public that any of its major proposals are worthwhile supporting. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-27-2010 07:39 AM
Yet again this misconception. With all due respect it doesn't matter two hoots about Armstrong's four curves because Constellation is NOT Apollo.The destination is the same. That's it. People keep confusing a return to the Moon with a return to the moon on the same agenda as Apollo i.e. a crash program with an eight year deadline, requiring a colossal investment concentrated into a short period. Going back to the moon could be achieved as incrementally and gradually as the ISS, thus reducing the need for perfect storms, four-curves and all that other hogwash that's only quoted in respect of Constellation. Did the shuttle program or the ISS require one? Over their lifespans each has cost NASA more than Apollo. So - point studiously not ignored. Maybe someone would do me the same courtesy and float a convincing framework within which the commercial sector is going to pick up on Obama's plan and lead deep space manned exploration in NASA's absence? If there is one point in this debate (both on this board and elsewhere) that is being studiously ignored it's that one. P.S. Regarding Goddard's quote - a curious bit of wisdom from a man who spent his entire life devoted to the development of a single goal. Maybe if he'd followed his own advice we wouldn't be having this debate - but the world could have thrilled to the death defying antics of Robert Goddard - tight rope walker!  |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-27-2010 08:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
Yet again this misconception. With all due respect it doesn't matter two hoots about Armstrong's four curves because Constellation is NOT Apollo.
No - not a misconception, neither again nor for the first time.Armstrong's remarks were made after Apollo and were a reference to the conditions necessary to commit a nation once again to an advanced manned space programme. A repeat of Apollo doesn't enter into the equation. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 02-27-2010 09:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Per Lockheed Martin, Delta IV Heavy could be man-rated in three years.
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...where are you going with this?
Shouldn't we be arguing for increased funding to do it all?Aren't we the pro-space community? My question is why are we willing to let Congress and Administrations give NASA so little? If NASA enjoyed funding levels in today's dollars like it did in 1966 at it's peak - how many people would be put to work? How much could be accomplished? How much could the gap be shortened? President Obama is proposing research in areas that are important. President Bush (both of them) proposed a return to the Moon and then onward to Mars. Those goals are equally worthy of support. Look - Congress voted the following amounts to a sector of the economy they deemed worthy of support to save jobs: - Wall Street Bailout; $700 billion
- AIG Bailout: $85 billion
- Supporting the merger of Bear Sterns and JP Morgan Chase: $29 billion
- Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac: $25 billion
- The Auto Industry: $25 Billion
Why should we be satisfied that NASA gets almost $19 billion and has to decide what mission it can accomplish? Isn't there a 7 to 1 return on our investment with space exploration? Why aren't we demanding that NASA's budget be doubled or tripled. Support commercial companies: SURE. Research new advances in propulsion: YES. Perform material research: ABSOLUTELY. Fly the shuttle two times a year in support of the ISS: YES if it can be done safely. Keep Constellation alive AND fully funded: YES. Politicians like to tout space program accomplishments when it suits them. Why shouldn't we answer them by saying imagine how many jobs and how many advances (that will benefit everyone) be made if NASA's budget was larger? SPACE = JOB$ = TAXPAYER$ = VOTES Oh and by the way Wall Street must have recovered okay in the past year because at the end of 2009 it awarded $20.3 billion in bonuses to it's top executives. I yield the remainder of my time. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-27-2010 10:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mikej:
The Discovery Channel had a documentary from around the time of the X-Prize
A nice picture to be sure... probably more "PowerPoint" engineering for getting money from "investors". However, for starters, there is no way the vehicle shown would take the thermal loads, not to mention a host of other problems. (I hope no one gave them money based on this computer graphic.) |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-27-2010 10:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
Shouldn't we be arguing for increased funding to do it all?
Great comments. I agree. I too do not understand why this (more money) is not being pushed. JOBS! |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-27-2010 02:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Armstrong's remarks were made after Apollo and were a reference to the conditions necessary to commit a nation once again to an advanced manned space programme. A repeat of Apollo doesn't enter into the equation.
So how did the shuttle get here? Where did the single most expensive item in history (the ISS) come from? Show me the leadership and perfect storms that created them and I'll buy Armstrong's remarks wholesale. Otherwise all we're left with is this fact - more costly programs than Apollo were achieved by simply taking longer.The only requirement (as highlighted over and over in this thread) is funding - with dependable and reasonable levels of funding (not national priority crisis funding) NASA could return to the moon. There's no trick or voodoo to it - you simply build the necessary equipment and go. NASA has achieved the two advanced manned space programs it chose to follow Apollo in exactly this fashion. Is this the best way for NASA to operate? Maybe not but the final results are more than a hundred shuttle flights and a space station on orbit. I'm not disputing this point for the fun of being argumentative - it's one of the rationales that is being deployed to help kill Constellation and it rankles to see it accepted. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-27-2010 02:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
P.S. Regarding Goddard's quote - a curious bit of wisdom from a man who spent his entire life devoted to the development of a single goal.
I can't say for certain, but perhaps Goddard was referring to himself when he said that quote. |
Topic Closed
advertisement