|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-01-2010 12:49 PM
   
Perhaps Congress will believe more in our future in space than this plan does. This reminds me of when a company lays off 50,000 workers and calls it a fresh start. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 12:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
We, the voters. We put these people in office.
Again, let me say I put him in office because I believed him. It is in black and white that he said he would support Constellation and return American astronauts to the moon by 2020. Robert suggested that the Augustine committee changed his mind and it was a rational decision to make. I say it was obvious back when candidate Obama made this promise that Constellation was going to require a huge influx of money to get it back on track for a 2020 landing. It is my opinion that it was a calculated lie to get people in Florida and people like me to vote for him, and by the way, the economy was on this cliff already when the promise was made, it has actually improved since then. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 12:54 PM
Statement from Buzz Aldrin: A New Direction in SpaceToday I wish to endorse strongly the President's new direction for NASA. As an Apollo astronaut, I know the importance of always pushing new frontiers as we explore space. The truth is, that we have already been to the Moon - some 40 years ago. A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster, is just what our Nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century. We need to be in this for the long haul, and this program will allow us to again be pushing the boundaries to achieve new and challenging things beyond Earth. I hope NASA will embrace this new direction as much as I do, and help us all continue to use space exploration to drive prosperity and innovation right here on Earth. I also believe the steps we will be taking following the President's direction will best position NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other exciting destinations as quickly as possible. To do that, we will need to support many types of game-changing technologies NASA and its partners will be developing. Mars is the next frontier for humankind, and NASA will be leading the way there if we aggressively support the President's plans. Finally, I am excited to think that the development of commercial capabilities to send humans into low earth orbit will likely result in so many more earthlings being able to experience the transformative power of spaceflight. I can personally attest to the fact that the experience results in a different perspective on life on Earth, and on our future as a species. I applaud the President for working to make this dream a reality. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 12:55 PM
To all of you who are saying NASA died in 2010 - shame on you. It didn't die in 1972 after Apollo 17 and it's not dead today.I supported Constellation as much as the next guy. I was looking forward to sharing the experience of astronauts walking on the Moon with my grandson.
When Geroge Bush (41) announced we were going "back to the Moon and this time to stay" in 1989 and NASA didn't get the funds what did YOU do? I wrote to my congressional delegation and asked them to support it. But there was no organized effort so it ended up as a nice speech and photo op with the Apollo 11 crew. When Congress came within one vote of canceling ISS in 1993 - what did YOU do? I joined the Chamber of Commerce campaign to lobby Congress in support of the ISS. If we had lost the ISS would have been another nice State of the Union speech (Reagan, 1984). When George W. Bush announced Constellation in 2004 and the funds weren't allocated to support it either in his budget or by Congress - what did YOU do? NASA has done an outstanding job with less.
This budget cancels Constellation and that sucks. But I'm already out of a job. This budget proposes serious dollars to invest in the KSC infrastructure. While not "sexy" it will pay off in the long run when it's a busy spaceport again. Maybe I can find work when that happens. I was in that auditorium when the President made the promise to shorten the gap in 2008. I voted for him because I believed he at least had a plan. Senator McCain endorsed the status quo. The stark reality is the status quo was not good enough. NASA needed more money to develop Ares while flying out the shuttle manifest. It wasn't given that money. I think we should keep Constellation AND develop the commercial sector. I think the next human spacecraft should be able to be launched on a Delta, an Atlas, a Falcon, and Ares. We should not keep our eggs in one basket. We learned that lesson in 1986 when military and commercial satellites were grounded after the Challenger accident. Thats why we have Deltas and Atlas' today. What happens if we don't develop new launch vehicles or man-rate our ELVs and the Russians suffer a serious launch failure? What happens if the Soyuz is grounded? We have to invest to ensure access to space. Believe me I am just as upset as the rest of you. But if we're going to sit on our hands then nothing will change. I for one am sick and tired of politicians more interested in fighting the other side then doing their job. Of government committees and commissions discussing our options. I hope this Augustine Group is the last one for a generation. Let's make a decision, fund it and go fly. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:01 PM
In five years time what will NASA be doing? |
OV-105
Member Posts: 901
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:04 PM
Well I bet Obama will not be making any calls to the ISS or STS-130 crews. A sad day, but when I heard his State Of The Union I knew this was going to happen. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
Will NASA be disbanded?
An odd question. Obama asks for a budget increase, and people wonder if it means the end of the agency. What would have happened if he had asked for a decrease?It looks to me like he's asking for a change in direction -- one that Buzz Aldrin apparently agrees with. I've had my differences with Aldrin's opinions in the past, but I've never considered him to be anti-space. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:11 PM
We end up with a future emulating the barren years of '76 to '80. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
To all of you who are saying NASA died in 2010 - shame on you. It didn't die in 1972 after Apollo 17 and it's not dead today.
There are those of us that believe NASA did die in 1972, that the Constellation program perhaps should have been named Phoenix, an appropriate name to resurrect what was truly the end of manned exploration of the solar system. Today President Obama put a bullet through that birds head.Now I know the space shuttle was cool and a lot of stuff was learned and still will be from the International Space Station, but it was not the right stuff, it did not inspire the way the moon landing did. So if you really want to debate, then debate on whether Nixon or Obama killed NASA... but one thing is for sure, for the foreseeable future NASA is dead. They will not be doing anything in the next decade that will inspire my children and the number of kids saying they want to grow up and be an astronaut will plummet. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:17 PM
I've read through a good number of the press reports (here and elsewhere) and the fact is, this leaves NASA afloat with no real goals or plans.The last five years they were working towards something and that has cost how many hundreds of millions (if not more) and it is now being tossed out the door. Another smart move by a politician(s). NASA now has to do what is has been doing for decades, go back to the drawing board, come up with a safe little program that will fail to excite and never really do much of anything. My hope is Congress steps in and throws this budget out the door. With no super majority they will need to have a dialog. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As one person who works at Johnson Space Center put it, "We may have lost the Moon in 2020, but we've just gained the ability to go anywhere we want..."
That's not a comforting statement from NASA. They have seen fit to keep the US stuck in low earth orbit for 40 years. Go anywhere we want?!?! Right. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:21 PM
This is just the beginning of the announcements coming out of NASA. As was stated during the teleconference, in the upcoming, NASA will be announcing specific flagship missions beyond low Earth orbit and the technologies that will be used to accomplish them. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:24 PM
I want to restate something, I am not saying, and I do not think anyone is saying the Administration's ideas are bad I am just saying these are the backroom things that
NASA should be doing anyway in conjunction with our space program. And yes, it is expensive, but a drop in the bucket when put in to perspective. All of these thing should be funded separately from Constellation, not instead of... and in reality it would be a very easy case to make that a lot of this stuff in the new plan could be funded under the Department of Defense with NASA as a beneficiary. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:28 PM
I got to witness two shuttle launches and both were fantastic events. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:31 PM
Buzz Aldrin's statement does little to help Obama's case to those who keep up with him. He has been more concerned with his own legacy and making a buck then he is with America's space program. I am not just saying that because he is not supporting my position, it's just that his exploitation of his position in history has put a bad taste in my mouth for years. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
...its just that his [Buzz's] exploitation of his position in history has put a bad taste in my mouth for years.
One of the reasons I've had my differences with his opinions as well. But again, he's never been anti-space. His own ego seems to get in his way sometimes, but I believe Aldrin wants us to be a spacefaring nation as much as anyone does. |
AstroAutos
Member Posts: 803
From: Co. Monaghan, Republic of Ireland
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:41 PM
A very sad day for space fans everywhere.I firmly believed that NASA would indeed return US Astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and when Mr. Obama stated before his election that he would support the idea, I felt that the Constellation program was indeed going to be the Apollo equivalent of my generation. Although I'm not an American and so have no say in politics across the pond, I would have voted for Obama for this reason and if I had, I would feel betrayed right now. He shouldn't have let the Augustine Commission sway his opinion - sure it was going to be expensive and risky... but so was the Apollo program expensive and risky. America needs a daring President like JFK who is prepared to push the boundaries of exploration - I honestly thought America had that person in Barack Obama, but I think I was sadly mistaken. Here's hoping NASA will indeed come up with some more daring plans soon so that we don't lose all hope. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
I would just like to say that although the shuttle program is no moon landing program, the astronauts that flew aboard those missions achieved a heck of a lot.
I am in no way suggesting the shuttle/ISS program was not a remarkable achievement, I was truly excited during the first launch of Columbia in 1981. I was just graduating from high school and it was inspiring but Apollo was grand. I will never forget the feeling of looking at the moon as a child at the precise moment Apollo 11's Columbia was in orbit around it. I think I fooled myself a couple of times thinking I could see it (I was six).
Something like that is what makes inspiration a feeling of greatness, not just something cool that motivates you. Apollo was like a religious experience for those of us who lived through it. Does anyone remember Apollo 8, it is truly the stuff that dreams are made out of. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:47 PM
Oh dear! Having read the postings I get the impression that 'excitement' only comes from astronauts and Moon trips.How can any space enthusiast not be excited by some of the unmanned adventures of NASA ventures. Galileo, Spirit, Opportunity, Cassini, Surveyor, Ranger, Mariner to name just a few - they all had excitement and wonder in full measure. Who knows what fresh discoveries wait for us as NASA continues to probe our universe. I'm with Buzz for the moment. Yes, one day man will return to space but for the time being lets just continue to have that sense of awe and wonderment that NASA will continue to bring into our lives on its new budget. But then... I'm a real space enthusiast.  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Yes, one day man will return to space...
A minor correction: unlike the gap that followed the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, there will be Americans, as well as other nations' citizens in space every year through at least 2015, if not 2020, aboard the International Space Station, regardless if Constellation is reinstated by Congress or the President's plan goes forward. Both branches of government and both parties have expressed strong support for continuing involvement on the ISS. |
sfurtaw
Member Posts: 108
From: Saginaw, MI USA
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:54 PM
When giving to space program presentations to schools and Boy Scouts for the past six years I have pointed out that while the shuttle program may be ending, an exciting new program to return to the moon, go to Mars, and maybe asteroids is beginning. Now we are still canceling the shuttle with no plan for US human spaceflight for the future, except for a few trips to the ISS until 2020. How is this inspirational? I waited until today to form an opinion, and I am deeply disappointed. No goals. No milestones for which to reach. No inspiration. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1121
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:56 PM
While Constellation would have eventually gotten us back to the moon, it would not have been until 2028 or later with realistic forseeable funding. Stretched-out government program always cost more. The ideal solution for space enthusiasts such as myself would have been to follow the Augustine Commission's recomendation to increase NASA by $3 billion a year. However, this is just not going to happen with U.S. budget deficits at $1.6 trillion per year. NASA unfortunately is in the small portion of the budget described as "discretionary spending." For NASA to get any increase is remarkable. So John Holdren and Charlie Bolden decided to start all over again by develpiong a technological base for the "Flexible Path" described by the Augustine panel. The key issue is whether NASA will actually apply these new technologies to develop a heavy lift vehicle and manned spacecraft to leave low earth orbit. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
How can any space enthusiast not be excited by some of the unmanned adventures of NASA ventures.
Robots have their place as scouts for places we can not go or places we want to go but that is a whole different discussion altogether. No one is advocating doings away with robotic missions or questioning their value. But no they do not inspire the same way as manned spaceflight, never have, never will. |
Michael Davis
Member Posts: 559
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:59 PM
As I read the reports, I see a solid budget increase for NASA for the first time in forever. There is also a determination to develop advanced engines and funding for technologies to make fuel from the soil of destinations we want to go to. Plus there is money to keep the ISS in orbit until 2020 rather than watch in become another Skylab as it plummets into the Indian Ocean.We are all nostalgic for the Apollo program. But returning to the moon just for the sake of doing so never really made sense. Particularly since the administration that made it a goal failed to even ask for the funding that was required. What we actually obtained was pretty animations of Orion and a few opportunities to meet with the press and talk about the vision thing. Better to have a solid budget to support the stated goals. There are just so many problems to be solved to get somewhere meaningful that a long term and serious effort needs to made to solve them prior to building hardware. Otherwise we just gather more rocks on the moon with no real reason to do so. Heck, the radiation exposure alone on a three year Mars mission will probably kill the crew unless new solutions to shielding and propulsion are developed. Apollo got past the problems by using two week missions. The long duration issues out of LEO will be much harder to solve. And frankly, the knowledge we have of the universe now versus when I got physics degree back in 1982 is hard to comprehend. Most of that knowledge came form unmanned probes. Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars are now understood in detail. That was not done directly by humans, Spirit and Opportunity did what we could not. Why be upset that even more money will be sent on their successors? And why are we upset that there may actually be a strong incentive for companies to get us to orbit as opposed to governments? People always use the “man must explore” argument. But this country was not founded by people exploring just for the sake of exploring. It was done to gain vast wealth for men and countries. The goal was to acquire enormous tracks of land to harvest timber, raise tobacco and market sugar cane. It was done to own goldmines and spice fields. It was done to create wealth. Find a way to make human space flight highly profitable and the problem will be solved. We have already done that for unmanned flight with communication, weather and military satellites. So the programs for those are robust. Unless we finally find solid reason to go outside of LEO, we will remain here. I think the budget actually moves us in that direction. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 01:59 PM
Both manned and unmanned missions are the best means of space exploration. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1733
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:04 PM
The VAB might make an excellent indoor bungee-jumping emporium.  It will be for future historians to tell if this turns out to be a terrible decision, a mere blurp in mankind's expansion into the cosmos, or the turning point that resulted in the shackles of government inertia being removed from the inevitable forces of exploration and exploitation of space. At this point, I believe any of those is possible. Right now there are some people thinking that this is a positive step toward socio-economic justice and setting our priorities straight. They are wrong, as this will have a negligible effect on the bottom line of programs designed to deal with those areas. If this turns out to be a mortal blow to our nation's space program, all we will have accomplished is robbing our future generations of the benefits that inevitably would result from such an adventure, and they are substantial in my opinion. For what amounts to a handful of coins in the grand scheme of things. I doubt this is a done deal yet, as I'm sure there'll be serious push back by members of Congress and other influential groups. And administrations come and go, so it could be as little as 3 years before a new President is determined to reverse this course. We will have lost valuable time, of course, but a couple of centuries from now a decade will be looked at as a mere hiccup. We need to stay tuned. And stay involved. Ad Astra! |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Davis:
But returning to the moon just for the sake of doing so never really made sense.
We were not returning to the moon just for the sake of doing so, it was to be a test bed for Mars. Just keeping it factual. quote:
Originally posted by DChudwin:
While Constellation would have eventually gotten us back to the moon, it would not have been until 2028 or later with realistic forseeable funding. Stretched-out government program always cost more.
Although this is speculation, I disagree with this statement. If President Obama had decided to fulfill his promise to return us to the Moon by 2020 I believe he would have found the money, either by moving some stuff to fall under the Department of Defense or using stimulus money. There were any number of creative ways to make it happen, the least of which would have been a motivational speech insisting we make the deadline. We have ten years, we could have made it. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Or there may be many, only a short time will tell. Space X has said they can have a manned version of their Dragon taxiing Americans to and from the ISS within two to three years.
That is WAY optimistic Robert and with all due respect, I don't believe they have the numbers to back it up, even if they got the funding to go carte blanche with it. On average in Apollo, it took about four years to build each spacecraft by hand on the production line (even assuming that all the design and testing work was done). With today's design work, you could probably cut that time to maybe two years. But one still has to design and test a capsule, verify that everything was working and certify it for flight. That of course means building test hardware and doing all the testing. Secondly, you need available rockets to fly the unmanned version of the craft for final certification. One of the problems with using a booster for both unmanned cargo and manned flights in the testing phase is you have to build more boosters to accommodate both. Early on if the budget is small, then the decision will likely come down to a revenue flight of cargo or testing the manned hardware. If boosters can't be built fast enough, or if the budget is not there to build what is needed, then the program will stretch out just as bad as it has with Ares 1. The other factor is that Falcon 9 (the Dragon capsule carrier) is also unproven in flight. Granted so is Ares 1, although Ares 1-X did give it some data points to refine the design. Assuming the first Falcon 9 flight goes off well, there would likely still need to be at least one or two more flights to show it is a mature system that can deliver cargo. Then when a man rated Dragon capsule is available for testing, there would likely have to be at least two proving flights for Falcon with that system onboard. Granted the Dragon unmanned cargo carrier can test and prove some of the elements (just as some docking elements have been tested on shuttle flights), but certifying the manned design is going to almost require some flights with the whole manned system BEFORE people get strapped into it. As such, in my opinion it would take a MINIMUM of two years to build the first all up testing flight ready capsules (not counting design refinement, testing of systems before integration into the final design and extensive checkout of the first vehicles). Throw the design and testing elements in and you probably would add another 12 to 18 months to that schedule, and that is assuming everything is going right without delays (and delays WILL happen in designing and building a spacecraft). Then you have to fly the (ideally production spec) craft on at least one or two unmanned test flights to make sure it all works. If those flights go off without a hitch, THEN you can put people inside and this is assuming Falcon 9 has been launching cargo to the ISS for the past two to three years without any mishap (which would cause an investigation and another delay if one does happen). Add up the numbers and two years is not bloody likely. Three is possible, but ONLY if things go perfect and considering the engineering team is relatively inexperienced, delays will happen. As such, it will likely be five years. And by that point you would have a spacecraft that can only go to LEO. |
StarDome
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:20 PM
I can't say that I am surprised by the cancellation. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
That is WAY optimistic...
NASA would seem to agree. During the telecon today, it was said that 2016 was the initial operational capability (IOC) for commercial crew as arrived at by the Augustine committee and the agency is, for now, accepting that as their target. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
There are those of us that believe NASA did die in 1972, that the Constellation program perhaps should have been named Phoenix, an appropriate name to resurrect what was truly the end of manned exploration of the solar system.
It's kind of staggering to see how some people here have so little perspective about NASA's history overall... and only equate the program with manned spaceflight. I would expect that kind of comment to come from a member of the general public who knows little about the space program. But it's truly sad to see members of the cS community who are oblivious to the accomplishments of NASA since 1972. Wow. |
rocketJoe
Member Posts: 103
From: Huntsville, AL USA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:42 PM
"The truth is we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon's surface, and as we focused most of our efforts and funding on getting back to the moon we were neglecting investment in key technologies to get us beyond," -Charlie Bolden Yeah, the critics will say that he was told to say this, but even a casual review of the Constellation program history would seem to support Bolden's comment. It will probably be years before we know if canceling this troubled program was the right thing to do, but in the meantime I'm not sure what all the gloom and doom regarding NASA is based on. As it has been previously stated in this thread, the president's budget will increase NASA's funding overall. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rocketJoe:
I'm not sure what all the gloom and doom regarding NASA is based on.
How many manned flights have NASA got planned for 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
How many manned flights have NASA got planned for 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014?
Sixteen. Four Soyuz flights per year, each with American astronauts on-board.What's that? You don't count Soyuz? Then nothing has changed, because nothing in the President's budget canceled flights during those years. To the contrary, the budget makes it possible that U.S.-based manned launches might resume in 2014 (albeit optimistically). |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
How many manned flights have NASA got planned for 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014?
Or better yet, how many missions has NASA had planned that do not involve ferrying people and supplies to the ISS for the last 20 years? |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
...accomplishments of NASA since 1972.
You are misguided. If you had been reading the discussion all along you would know that I and others have acknowledged NASA's accomplishments throughout the years, we are just pointing out that they are no where near as inspiring as the moon landings were. Your attempt to start infighting will not work here.On a brighter note, I am posting a link to all of the email forms for the U.S. Senate, I have started writing each and every one of them. I am asking them to help keep Constellation alive. Will it work... probably not, but if you want to help let them know we care here is the link. |
rocketJoe
Member Posts: 103
From: Huntsville, AL USA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 02-01-2010 02:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
How many manned flights have NASA got planned for 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014?
I understand the concern about the lack of a manned flight vehicle, however I am willing to take a wait-and-see approach with the commercial ventures.Personally, I am looking forward to more advances in robotic space exploration and other space sciences. I just hope the funding freed up from the Constellation program doesn't just serve to increase the NASA bureaucracy... |
tegwilym
Member Posts: 2339
From: Sturgeon Bay, WI
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-01-2010 03:08 PM
Blue Origin of Kent, Washington This is just a few miles south of me which is pretty cool, but why Blue Origin over SpaceX? Jeff Bezos hasn't flown anything yet. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-01-2010 03:11 PM
I really do hope that NASA will announce a new manned space initiative. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2010 03:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tegwilym:
...why Blue Origin over SpaceX?
SpaceX already has a Space Act Agreement with NASA and has submitted a proposal for commercial crew services. Blue Origin and the others identified are new partners.Blue Origin has flown a few atmospheric tests of its Goddard development craft as part of its New Shepard program. |
Topic Closed
advertisement