|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-27-2010 02:38 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
...by simply taking longer... it's one of the rationales that is being deployed to help kill Constellation and it rankles to see it accepted.
The "perfect storm" has been cited when the debate is centered on achieving a return to the Moon by 2020. Remove the deadline and you are correct, there is no comparison to Apollo.But if you are agreeing that no set deadline is necessary, as was the case with shuttle and station, then it is fair to acknowledge that with those two programs, we first spent years doing research and development before any hardware was built or flown, and that the full plans for shuttle and station were not announced on "day one" but rather evolved as the technology matured. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-27-2010 05:23 PM
Two points. First, can I remind everyone of the full quote from Goddard. He said words to the effect that as old dreams die, new ones take their place and pity those who do not find fresh dreams to follow. [The actual quote is in this thread a page or so back.]Second, Armstrong was not denying that funding was the pivotal point. What he was pointing out that certain conditions needed to come together (his four curves converging) to make it likely that the nation would be prepared to consider a programme such as Constellation. All I was attempting to point out that this just ain't about to happen in the current climate. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-28-2010 03:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
NASA could return to the moon.
So what is this pressing need to "return to the moon" anyway? I have not read any valid reason from a supporter of Constellation. Perhaps that's why no American is protesting on the streets of Washington DC about its demise. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-28-2010 05:51 AM
Well I don't know, maybe we could... explore it a little? Gain new insights into our nearest planetary neighbour and expand our understanding of the solar system thereby, that sort of thing? Just as Spirit and Opportunity have used new technology and capabilities to learn more than Viking and Pathfinder before them.Schmitt stumbled across the orange soil on the penultimate EVA of the whole program. Had he not would we have deduced it's existence? The moon is more than the six tiny patches of ground covered by the Apollo landing sites. And as for "pressing need" and "no protests in the street" - I'd say that was a very shaky road for any fan of the ISS to go down. It may as well be invisible for all the interest it has ever aroused in the general public - and the same goes for it's much vaunted scientific program. The absence of ticker-tape parades rejoicing in the news of the station's extension are also notable by their absence. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-28-2010 09:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
Just as Spirit and Opportunity have used new technology and capabilities to learn more than Viking and Pathfinder before them.
That's precisely why robots are better suited to lunar exploration. Let them drive down into those permanently-shadowed craters and find the ice, physically.In the meantime, let's prepare the world's astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts for a fossil hunt on Mars. ISS is ideally placed in acquiring the necessary medical data for a round-trip to the red planet. And also test the life-support systems for such a voyage. All we need now is for those politicians on Capitol Hill to do what they do best and persuade Obama of the merits of sending humans to Mars. The money exists. But not the will. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-28-2010 10:24 AM
It's going to be a very austere time for U.S. manned missions. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-28-2010 02:14 PM
No need to have your mind changed - you're right. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-28-2010 04:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
The money exists
Where? The only money the government has to spend is in the pockets of the American tax payer. Taking it out of their pockets has huge consequences both politically and economically. Lesson in basic economics to follow if necessary.  |
StarDome
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-28-2010 05:50 PM
As I mentioned in part on another thread, with all the discussion going on about the future of US manned spaceflight, the issue at hand remains, once the shuttle retires, the US, for a longer period of time than I think we all expect, will have NO way of launching its own astronauts into space and for some time to come. I find that sad, but not totally unexpected.Maybe the private sector will come through, who knows,if they were as quick as this forum thread was there would be no problem that's for sure. I certainly hope so. As for me personally I see a long hiatus between shuttle retirement and a new US manned launch program on US soil, whether NASA or private. A gap a lot longer than the break between ASTP and STS-1. What the US has achieved in space is without rival and that's not in any sort of question or dispute, and WOW what a record it remains. However, it is true, as Bolden, I beleive said, that if China gets to the moon they will find six US flags already there, that's not the point, the point is that the Chinese have momentum and launch capability on their side and who's to say that they will just stop at the moon. Underestimate them at your peril. I think it's this capability more than anything else with any other nation involved in space that maybe worries the US the most. There seems not to be any momentum going forward with a proper solution at the monent, just plain old speculation and rhetoric. As has been said in the past, maybe a new space race is whats required to take the US forward? A good friend of mine who worked at NASA in the 60's sent me a message recently, he said: My feelings about the scrapping of the moon/Mars program are mixed. Sure, manned space flight is great for stimulating young engineers and taxpayers who enjoy the idea of "going where no man has gone before." But the Chinese seem to have the money and the support of a government out to prove they have arrived in the world of science and technology, not just reverse engineering other folks inventions. I say to them -- go for it.
Can you imagine the exploration of the Western Hemisphere would ever have happened so quickly without the discovery of gold in South America and California? Would the Spanish have thrown as much money at exploration if the only return was the conversion of pagan indian souls to Christianity?
The Augustine Commission ruled that given the proposed budgets there was no way we would get to the moon or Mars in the comings several decades. They were probably correct. Our society is unwilling to pour more good money into a program that cannot meet its objective. I think Obama courageously pulled the plug. He ought to do the same thing with the space station as it has yet to show any real return on its huge investment.
I was around NASA for many years after Apollo and watched as an agency focused on planetary exploration, both human and robotic, turned increasingly inward because that's where the immediate payback was. Sure they kept JPL and Ames centers alive with inexpensive robotic missions but the big bucks went to satellites for weather tracking, communications technology, and similar earth-bound pursuits, the shuttle and space station. It looks now like history is going to repeat itself as NASA goes for the immediate payback.
There may be a silver lining to this cloud in that NASA money could now be redirected to a lunar mission that might have some economic return which would make the whole effort self sustaining. There are folks at the University of Wisconsin working on a theory that the moon is coated with a material known as Deuterium 3 which has great potential as a source of nuclear energy. It has been flowing from the sun in the solar wind and depositing itself on the surface of the moon for eons. Send an unmanned robot to the moon with the mission of scraping the surface of the moon for Deuterium 3, return the material to Earth where it could eventually become a source of nuclear fuel. Could it be economically justified to do that? That is what the folks at the University of Wisconsin are trying to determine. Ex-astronaut Harrison Schmitt is working with this team. So there is a view from an older guy looking from his point of view. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-28-2010 08:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
But if you are agreeing that no set deadline is necessary, as was the case with shuttle and station, then it is fair to acknowledge that with those two programs, we first spent years doing research and development before any hardware was built or flown, and that the full plans for shuttle and station were not announced on "day one" but rather evolved as the technology matured.
This is simply not true. Both the space shuttle and the space station had deadlines. The shuttle did not meet the initial launch deadline due to construction problems (remember the tiles?). The station had a deadline of 10 years (remember President Reagan's speech?). In fact, it has one now: complete construction before the shuttle program ends this year. Yes, there were technical problems that had to be solved before the shuttle was finished and the design was refined as the program developed, but not in the way you imply. If what you imply were true, then one could also say the same about the Apollo command module, the lunar module, the Saturn V, or for that matter, any vehicle anyone had ever developed. Making such a claim would be untrue here also.However, for the sake of argument, let's say the station did has a history as you say. It's been approximately 25 years since its approval and the station is finally operational as intended... 25 years! Is that what you want next... another 25 years or maybe more before something is "finished" and fully operation? I, for one, do not. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-01-2010 12:10 AM
We might be better off by using timetable (or milestones) as opposed to deadline, the latter having an Apollo-style connotation, as illustrated by statement like "landing a man on the Moon by 2018". Nobody will die if it happens in 2020 or later. Deadline is similar to a crash program (Apollo), subject to cost overruns, "unlimited" funding, bi-partisan support etc..It happened once; I'm not sure it will happen again. I don't recall that the shuttle had to fly by 1979 or the program will be terminated. By setting unrealistic deadlines, you're bound to fail. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-01-2010 02:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
The only money the government has to spend is in the pockets of the American tax payer.
Indeed. But a few billion out of DoD and its Black Ops budget into NASA each year would do no harm. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-01-2010 03:26 AM
Maybe, but unfortunately there are many in the US military who disagree. Wasn't it Reagan who said, "Negotiate but hold a big stick." Regrettably the world situation demands that nations still need the big stick more than they need a manned space programme. This was an aspect of Armstrong's 'threat' curve.
|
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3415
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-01-2010 04:39 AM
When you're spending 41% of the world's total defence spending yourself, what's a billion here or there to keep manned spaceflight alive? Or more importantly why is dependence on an erstwhile enemy for launch capability not considered a strategic faux-pas? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-01-2010 07:06 AM
Because in the current economic climate it makes sense to let them pay for a manned spaceflight capability so releasing funds for other areas which your elected government considers to be more important.It's quite simple really - political expediency and sound economics. Incidentally, the defense spending might seem large but this has to be set against the returns from sales and contribution to the GNP. Again, simple economics. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-01-2010 07:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Regretably the world situation demands that nations still need the big stick more than they need a manned space programme.
If that attitude is pervasive in this world, irrespective of ideology or nationality, then we are certainly doomed.I feel that Professor Stephen Hawking has the best argument for continuing a "manned space programme." |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3415
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-01-2010 08:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Incidentally, the defense spending might seem large but this has to be set against the returns from sales and contribution to the GNP. Again, simple economics.
Ah, I knew I'd missed something in my mere twenty years in financial services... SIMPLE economics!  |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-01-2010 08:46 AM
Ouch!! However, I did see this bumper (fender) sticker in Florida - "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."Perhaps NASA should organise a few bake sales.  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-01-2010 09:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Perhaps NASA should organise a few bake sales.
CraftLass: Bake Sale for NASA . |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-01-2010 10:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Regrettably the world situation demands that nations still need the big stick more than they need a manned space programme. This was an aspect of Armstrong's 'threat' curve.
And this is further illustrative of why it must be so although a strong national space program is also an essential component of the "Big Stick"
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-01-2010 10:40 AM
I found this on the NASA website, but was not that surprised China isn't mentioned.Until there is less bellicosity and more compromise between the two governments, we will go nowhere beyond LEO. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project is the example to follow. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 03-01-2010 01:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project is the example to follow.
Please explain. Apollo-Soyuz got the US no where. At the time, it was a significant technology gain for the Soviets since their systems were far behind US systems. Besides that, nothing came out of it. The US and Russia began working together later when Russia was broke. Russia wanted into the US program because they could not afford to go it alone... and they wanted US technology too. Money, or the lack thereof, forced the partnership (along with the space shuttle, BMD testing, etc.) Again, please explain. Thanks. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-01-2010 03:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
If that attitude (...world situation demands that nations still need the big stick more than they need a manned space programme) is pervasive in this world, irrespective of ideology or nationality, then we are certainly doomed.
Actually we've been doing pretty well under that paradigm for a long time now (the greatest goodwill generator the world has ever known: a vast and superior U.S. arsenal - with a vibrant space program running a good close second).As for Stephen Hawking having the "best argument" for continuing a manned space program, I'd say his ideas as outlined in the linked article are better suited for science fiction, or beginning several hundred years from now. The best "argument" for opposing the Obama plan I've come across is this very recent and comprehensive one by Walt Cunningham. I was also heartened to learn recently that, by law, work on Constellation will continue unless Congress actively votes to kill it; I had previously thought it would die if not funded on a continuing basis. Fortunately this means Congress must actively accede to Constellation's demise, something I think (perhaps optimistically) is somewhat unlikely. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 03-01-2010 05:08 PM
As for the issue of whether Congress has money to pay for an active manned space program is yes, the problem is that there is so much waste. Just a few items -- $3B for the highway to nowhere in W. Va., $70 million for a wind tunnel in Montana that no one asked for, several million to develop a rain forest in Iowa (later ended), not to mention the military weapons programs that far exceed cost. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-02-2010 02:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Please explain. Apollo-Soyuz got the US no where.
I was in fact alluding to a joint Sino-US spaceflight to the ISS. Something to cut the ice with.Obviously, both nations possess WMDs which they like boasting about. So how about combining their resources for something that will benefit the world? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-02-2010 03:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
As for the issue of whether Congress has money to pay for an active manned space program is yes, the problem is that there is so much waste.
Now there's the rub - you may consider it waste but the Government, the elected representatives in Congress and therefore the voters do not. A $3 billion highway going nowhere to them is better value than Constellation.The key question asked by Congressmen/Senators I believe is the old Washington DC ethic - "What's in it for me and the people I represent?". Manned spaceflight supporters need to find a compelling answer to that question. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 03-02-2010 06:29 AM
Don't forget the waste of money that NASA is accountable for.Increased spending for NASA should not happen until they reform their entire business model. Too much money is wasted within NASA to trust them with additional money. Congress needs to recharter NASA to be a space agency not spend ridiculous amounts of money on global warning studies that are meaningless. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 03-02-2010 08:04 AM
I agress totally that NASA must also use every penny wisely, the best examples might be the two Mars probes lost in the 1990's. As for other wasteful government programs, I wonder how much people are aware of how their tax money is spent. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-02-2010 09:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
"What's in it for me and the people I represent?". Manned spaceflight supporters need to find a compelling answer to that question.
Politicians have their own vested interests (pork) in constituencies where NASA and its contractors are located.But that what of those places where voters do not believe Constellation was ever a priority in their daily lives? There is one element of Constellation I do like - the Orion CEV - which is worth saving. And if these politicians care about "Manned spaceflight" then convince Obama that Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V can be man-rated as it launcher. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-02-2010 10:35 AM
The fact is... we are broke. ALL our spending is borrowed. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-02-2010 11:12 AM
This additional confirmation of substantial quantities of water on the moon should further incentivize retention of Constellation. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-02-2010 11:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
And if these politicians care about "Manned spaceflight" then convince Obama that Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V can be man-rated as it launcher.
Congress doesn't have to convince Obama of anything... HE has to convince THEM if he wants other vehicles man-rated in place of Constellation, as it (Constellation) will continue unless Congress votes specifically to kill it. quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
The fact is... we are broke. ALL our spending is borrowed.
Fact is our racking up of debt is still (but not for very much longer at our current pace) a manageable percentage of GDP. As for government waste, yep, there's plenty of that, which will continue as long as politicians are in charge of spending other people's money. But the U.S. is far from broke; we CAN be entirely energy self-sufficient, for example, yet stupidly continue to simply choose not to be. And don't forget the budget NASA receives, especially for the ROI it produces, is one of the most paltry and poorly thought out areas of Federal spending - - (not enough of NASA's budget going to swarming D.C. with lobbyists??) |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-02-2010 12:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
This additional confirmation of substantial quantities of water on the moon should further incentivize retention of Constellation.
Will protesters of the future "exploitation" of the moon's resources be called "Greys"? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-02-2010 12:36 PM
"Regolith Huggers" |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3415
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-02-2010 03:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Ouch!!
Sorry - no offense meant. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-02-2010 04:19 PM
None taken. One shouldn't dish it out if one is not prepared to take it. Besides, have great admiration for anyone who can fly a plane backwards.  |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-02-2010 04:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
This additional confirmation of substantial quantities of water on the moon should further incentivize retention of Constellation.
The actual quote from NASA is, "After analyzing the data, our science team determined a strong indication of water ice, a finding which will give future missions a new target to further explore and exploit."The words 'strong indication' worry me. Is this another example of a possibility becoming a fact in one simple step? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-02-2010 04:43 PM
Judge for yourself, but keep in mind the science teams assessment is augmented by LCROSS results which employed a different method of detection (spectroscopy). |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-02-2010 11:48 PM
If Constellation is dead, why is Lockheed Martin still working on developping Orion (see thread regarding Orion's heat shield)? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-02-2010 11:58 PM
Constellation is canceled in the President's proposed FY2011 budget; NASA is still operating under its FY2010 budget, which includes funding for Constellation. Further, Congress included a clause in the FY2010 authorization bill that prevents NASA from ceasing Constellation activities until approved by Congress. And with that all said, even if Constellation is canceled, Orion development may still continue as a commercial project by Lockheed... |
Topic Closed
advertisement