|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-07-2010 12:54 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
What I find truly depressing is that there is more of an effort to build rockets to carry all manner of weaponary, but none to launch people into orbit.
And that is no different from what it was in the opening days of the space race. Every large booster developed as far as I know (even the Saturn V and the space shuttle SRBs) has been a derivative of a weapons system or something built originally for DoD uses. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2010 02:23 PM
For news and discussion about Obama's upcoming April 15 space conference, please see: Presidential space summit in Florida April 15. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-07-2010 05:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
What I find truly depressing is that there is more of an effort to build rockets to carry all manner of weaponary, but none to launch people into orbit.
I'm right there with you... imagine if we didn't have to built weaponry to defend ourselves... but unfortunately that's the world we live in. I would disagree though when you state there are NONE being built to launch people into orbit. |
jhtech2
Member Posts: 21
From: New Mexico
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-07-2010 05:46 PM
Interesting discussions and very interesting to see the President's space summit. Which brings me to the question, what is the time line now? The President's event will doubtless push his Administration's proposals while also showing President Obama's personal involvement and interest, but does anyone know if new a new bill will be drafted in the House as happened in the Senate, and what sort of a time line we are looking at with the proposals? Also, about the great link to Wayne Hale's blog, this is the entry from Wayne that I like! So appropriate, in light of the current proposals to destroy the logical, solid, Moon-and-then-Mars goal which we had been working for. So appropriate, with China's contemplation of a Saturn V class rocket, as part of a rapid rise that most analysts say will have China eclipsing the U.S. in the next 15-20 years. Hale's post featured a beautiful Robert McCall work. And those famous Apollo 13 movie words from Capt Lovell, "I often find myself looking up at the moon and wondering when..." |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2010 05:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jhtech2:
But does anyone know if new a new bill will be drafted in the house as happened in the Senate
A companion bill authored by U.S. Reps. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, and Bill Posey, R-Rockledge is due for introduction into the House later this week.
|
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 03-09-2010 01:38 PM
Let's face it, in reality we were all born 150 - 200 years too early to witness any great space exploration beyond earth orbit and the moon. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-09-2010 05:01 PM
You mean manned exploration right? The unmanned probes to the rest of the planets have certainly produced some exciting space exploration in their own right.I know what you mean, but "great" is a relative term anyway. In my own case, I don't necessarily want to see "great" space exploration per se, but rather I just want to see it continue without a long pause since that in my opinion is what ultimately leads to discovery. What will be discovered? We don't know. But that is why one should explore rather then waiting another 100 or 200 years for an FTL drive to come along (no guarantee one will come along anyway). Did the early ocean going explorers wait for steam powered self propelled ships to come along before they set sail for parts unknown? Nope. They went with what they had and did the best they could. |
Rob Joyner
Member Posts: 1308
From: GA, USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-09-2010 06:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
Let's face it, in reality we were all born 150 - 200 years too early to witness any great space exploration beyond earth orbit and the moon.
Ah, but assuming cS will be around forever, (and why wouldn't it?!) I imagine that in 150 years a lot of future cSers will check out the archives and think, "Wow! Those guys actually shook hands with Moonwalkers! Saw Apollo 11 on live TV! Watched a shuttle launch in person! Dang it! I was born too late!"I think I'd still opt for the future and my own space car though.  |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-10-2010 11:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
What I find truly depressing is that there is more of an effort to build rockets to carry all manner of weaponary, but none to launch people into orbit.
Don't forget that the Mercury and Gemini programs relied on rockets built for defense purposes in order to put those capsules into orbit. In that respect, development of rockets to carry weapons greatly accelerated our ability to reach the moon in the 1960s. Also, many of the rocket pioneers (like von Braun) who made Apollo possible got to do much of their development and testing work for military applications first. For better or for worse, the technology of rocketry was greatly accelerated by wartime. While it's unfortunate for the human race that military funding often greatly outweighs funding for programs like space exploration, I think both manned and unmanned spaceflight have greatly advanced as a result of the development of rockets for military applications. Call it a silver lining in a very dark cloud. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 03-10-2010 05:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DChudwin:
Former shuttle manager and NASA blogger Wayne Hale has written a fascinating blogpost about what it takes to man-rate a spacecraft...
What's misleading about this is that most people aren't familiar with federal regulations. Take a look at some of the FAA regulations on airworthiness of aircraft in the Code of Federal Regulations. Pages and pages of technical gobbledygook, and yet, airworthy planes are still being manufactured every day. Engineers actually understand this stuff. That's why they're hired by the private companies who are vying to establish commercial spaceflight. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-10-2010 06:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
What's misleading about this is that most people aren't familiar with federal regulations. Take a look at some of the FAA regulations on airworthiness of aircraft
Why misleading? - man rating a spacecraft isn't equivalent to achieving airworthiness (there is at least an order of magnitude difference in engineering, design complexity, fault tolerance, testing and cost; a disparity which results from the spacecraft's more challenging operating envelope). |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 03-10-2010 06:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Why misleading?
Misleading because it gives a link to the specs without putting them into context with the kind of specs that are routinely required by federal regulation. Despite the difference in complexity, the specs are understandable to engineers, and the craft will be designed to the specs. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-13-2010 07:12 AM
While I agree with some arguments by Constellation proponents, I think they're being shortsighted in deriding elements of the new proposal.Even a legendary Apollo astronaut like Eugene Cernan seems to want to recapture past US glories. If Obama were to make a compromise, I hope it will be to retain Orion with a view to launching it atop either a man-rated Delta IV Heavy or a variation of Ares V (Ares Lite?). Mars must also be the long-term destination. I'm not averse to an extension of the shuttle either, until SpaceX or Orbital are ready to proceed with LEO crew transportation flights. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-13-2010 06:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Mars must also be the long-term destination.
Call me selfish, but I'd like to see humanity aiming for a target that can be reached (or reached again) in my lifetime. |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-29-2010 09:07 PM
Bolden can't even take advice from someone like Neil Armstrong. He's all for the new budget. Need another von Braun to run the show. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-30-2010 04:16 PM
EE Times - Edgar Mitchell: Let's fix NASA, then explore the solar system The Obama administration, boxed in by a collapsed global economy and corporate excess, has made the correct, albeit unpopular, decision on reinventing the nation's space agency while providing a needed course correction for manned spaceflight. I only wish the President and his advisors hadn't been forced to make their decisions under the present economic circumstances.I would have preferred that the U.S. attempt to maintain a leading position in returning to the moon, then going to Mars. After spending nearly three decades in low-Earth orbit, it is time to refocus NASA's priorities and get the space agency back on track to explore the solar system... |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-31-2010 08:37 PM
It would be nice, as Edgar Mitchell says, if NASA could concentrate on a heavy lift vehicle, while private contractors work on low orbit with NASA's supervision on safety.I don't understand why, with the cancellation of Constellation, work couldn't continue on the Ares V. Ares I was too sweet. Do you know if it, at least, may survive? |
mensax
Member Posts: 861
From: Virginia
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 04-01-2010 06:52 AM
A YouTube video well worth watching... Still Report: NASA and Big Banks |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-05-2010 09:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ross426:
I don't understand why, with the cancellation of Constellation, work couldn't continue on the Ares V. Ares I was too sweet. Do you know if it, at least, may survive?
You need a destination first. Saturn V wasn't built first and then a decision to go to the Moon made. But it's unlikely that anybody in the decision-making process will step up and say: the objective is the Moon (or anything else) and we need a heavy lift. Oh, ooops! George Bush did so. And that failed miserably. By the way, go and watch this video of Neil deGrasse Tyson (via NASA Watch) Quote: "NASA knows how to dream about tomorrow" - at least it used to. That's why I became a volunteer. As for the gap in shuttle flights due to the lack of external tanks - 2 years - well, take the decision to build them now, fly one shuttle this fall, one in the spring and fall 2011, and comes the spring of 2012, tanks will be there to fly. This would reduce the gap between the shuttle and whatever comes next (if something comes next...) and the reliance on the Russian. It's sad to throw away a vehicle that now seems to work perfectly well. It's Apollo all over again. The ISS is "complete", so even if the shuttle would still fly, why should it fly? And we've come full circle with the need for a heavy lift. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-05-2010 11:02 AM
Neil deGrasse Tyson should be NASA administrator! I don't know about the rest of the people on cS but I am a little saddened with each shuttle launch and hearing things like, "only 4 more left," or "For the last time NASA is launching 7 astronauts." |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-05-2010 02:07 PM
I'm as much a Neil DeGrasse Tyson fan as anybody and I agree with you he's one of the best at articulating the passion we feel for space exploration.But please don't disparage Charlie Bolden. In today's political climate Tyson wouldn't have any more success than Bolden at moving NASA one way or the other. He would still have to take marching orders from the White House. It's a thankless job but I've met both men and I'm glad they're on our side. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-06-2010 12:36 AM
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Bolden's career as an astronaut. However, I am disappointed in him as NASA administrator. He must agree with the administration's plan or he would simply resign. I don't believe for an instant that he is a puppet just saying what he is told -- listen to him at the Congressional hearings, he is well-spoken and articulate. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 04-06-2010 11:00 AM
quote:
I don't know about the rest of the people on cS but I am a little saddened with each shuttle launch and hearing things like, "only 4 more left," or "For the last time NASA is launching 7 astronauts."
Hearing all the "finals" is as annoying as hearing all the minor "firsts" - first time XXX women, first time xxx nationality, first time...None of the firsts are all that noteworthy. It's what you do when you need to generate your own accolades because most others don't see anything happening to be enthused about. I can't wait for the shuttle to be finished. It has ceased to be relevant for manned exploration in many regards other than trucking equipment back and forth. The US has done LEO for too many years (decades), leave it to the less experienced nations and let's move on. While it will be sad that there is nothing in the pipeline for manned exploration once the shuttle is finally mothballed maybe it will place NASA in the position of either moving forward in a bold fashion or turn out the lights. NASA and the taxpayers deserve a clear statement of purpose and bold set of goals. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-06-2010 12:52 PM
I agree with you. The Shuttle has done everything it was asked to do and now it is time to move forward with a bold intiative. Like you, I forgot most the forgettable firsts! |
Fezman92
Member Posts: 1031
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 04-06-2010 03:05 PM
Let's say that they do get some kind of manned program back up in the near future. Would it be unwise for NASA to say something to the affect of "As with any thing, there is a good chance that we will have astronauts die in this thing. Because of that unfortunate fact, we have created a plan that would cover that. We have a 'built in' time if needed for the investigation of that event along with at least a one year hiatus from launches"? Or would that get viewed as being fatalistic by NASA? |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1527
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 04-06-2010 03:34 PM
Whenever I see the crew photo for STS-61C, with Bolden in the front row and Bill Nelson standing directly behind him, I wonder about what kind of conversations they have now compared to those that they had back then. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-06-2010 07:54 PM
I have found that interesting as well. I talked with Hoot Gibson at a conference a few days before his appearance on the Hill so I had some idea of his position and what he was going to say.When I watched his testimony, he was wearing a 61-C lapel pin. So the irony of crewmembers from that one mission being actively involved in our current strategy was not lost to him, either. Bolden is the Administrator, Nelson is the politician looking out for thousands of Florida jobs (and votes), Chang-Diaz is offering the new propulsion technology, and Gibson has everyone's ear. All the makings of a great book.... |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-09-2010 12:53 AM
I got to speak my piece on the Lou Dobbs radio show this afternoon about this new vision for NASA. He agreed that NASA is headed in the wrong direction. It was a fun experience and I encourage everyone out here on cS to voice their opinion in some forum -- phone calls, letters, etc. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 04-09-2010 06:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I encourage everyone out here on cS to voice their opinion in some forum -- phone calls, letters, etc.
This Congress and this President have already demonstrated a contempt for public opinion. Even if the majority of Americans wanted a vibrant and bold NASA they would still ram through what they want because they believe they know best.Simply put, NASA as we have known it is gone. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-09-2010 12:40 PM
I do not have a great deal of faith in the people running our country as well. However, we must try -- not just simply give up. I think you are underestimating the amount of opposition there is to this plan. If we simply throw up our hands and give up entirely, then we have no right to complain. In addition, if the powers that be were to see that it is easily to gut NASA since there is no opposition, it would encourage them to perhaps end the unmanned aspects as well. "Do not go silently into the night..." Remember this nation was founded by troublemakers! |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1625
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 04-10-2010 01:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I do not have a great deal of faith in the people running our country as well. However, we must try -- not just simply give up. I think you are underestimating the amount of opposition there is to this plan. If we simply throw up our hands and give up entirely, then we have no right to complain. In addition, if the powers that be were to see that it is easily to gut NASA since there is no opposition, it would encourage them to perhaps end the unmanned aspects as well. "Do not go silently into the night..." Remember this nation was founded by troublemakers!
Well said .... VERY well said |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-10-2010 02:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I think you are underestimating the amount of opposition there is to this plan.
Although it does not apply to those here who have devoted the time to read the budget details and policy documents that detail the new plan, it does seem that many of those opposing it elsewhere (off-site) are not well-informed, and that they often appear more content to wallow in their own assumptions (and melodramatic prognostications) than spend any time seriously discussing the points of the plan. For example, under the new plan, Kennedy Space Center will have program office assignments that manage nearly $8 billion in funds over the next five years. Under the previous exploration program, KSC had program office assignments that managed about half as much (source: Bob Jacobs, NASA Headquarters). And yet this Sunday, there will be a "Save Space" rally on the Space Coast. What exactly are they rallying to save? Money? Would they rather the $4 billion in new funds be awarded to a different center? Johnson Space Center director Mike Coats made an astute observation about those who criticize turning low Earth orbit manned flight operations to commercial providers. Speaking at a press briefing on Thursday, he said that the sooner NASA can turn over low Earth orbit to commercial companies, the sooner NASA can get on its way to exploring the solar system. Many here who have said they oppose the new plan have also bemoaned that NASA has been stuck in low Earth orbit for too long. Constellation didn't solve that problem; instead it left the U.S. without any ability to operate in low Earth orbit by walking away from the International Space Station and doing away with any type of spacecraft that could support low Earth orbit operations (i.e. extravehicular activities and downmass capability). Worse, its planners didn't learn from the Apollo or space shuttle programs, in so much that it put the U.S. on a direct path to either reaching the Moon and then abandoning it soon after the race (with who?) was won, or getting us stuck on the Moon, with no clear path forward (or back). quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Simply put, NASA as we have known it is gone.
Maybe so, but the assumption that this is an entirely bad thing is overlooking how we got here in the first place. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-10-2010 07:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Remember this nation was founded by troublemakers!
That is probably correct. However, I think you'll find that they were few in number and that most of the population were quite content under British rule, albeit with the odd grumble now and again.I wonder who in the cS community sees themselves as a Franklin, a Jefferson or a Washington? |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 04-10-2010 08:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Maybe so, but the assumption that this is an entirely bad thing is overlooking how we got here in the first place.
Well, NASA got where it is (especially it's manned program and being stuck in LOE running trucker missions) through inept management, an antiquated shuttle system that produces too little, lack of vision/clear purpose, a money pit called the ISS and especially congress (and Presidents) who control it all without any real desire or ambition.I have no problem NASA turning LOE over to the commercial concerns as long as NASA at that moment of announcement is able to articulate a clear, well defined and ready to of set of goals and programs that actually do something. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-10-2010 09:00 AM
From everything I've read on other sites, any consideration of a compromise is now off the table. And as far as the "town hall" with all of those good people affected by this decision he was originally planning, it has been cut down to this: - KSC Arrival - 1:45 p.m.
- Live remarks - 3 p.m.
- Depart - 3:45 p.m.
Bolden announced that Obama would use the visit to make a "major space policy speech," and would hold panel discussions with invited space experts. Two whole hours! And who is invited? This is going to be nothing more than a sales pitch. How does one go about selling a plan to a large group of people who will, by definition, not be involved in it? |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2235
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-10-2010 09:45 AM
There are a couple of very good articles in the BIS May issue of Spaceflight: "Orion could be ready by 2013" by Ken Kremer and "Losing the will to explore space" by Walter Cunningham.Well worth a look. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-10-2010 09:49 AM
I suppose it would be fair to wait until after President Obama's visit to KSC before we comment at length, but I want to ask one question and make one general observation.The question: Robert and others keep reminding us that the new plan includes $6 billion in extra funding over the next 5 years as if that was a set-in-concrete done-deal. What is to stop this President, or the President elected in 2012 (less than 3 years away!) or the Congress deciding to cut that funding next year, or the year after, or the year after...? I seem to remember this President saying he supported Constellation. The observation: Robert, it's not about the fine print of a detailed budget plan. It's about vision. It's about something to look up to, something to look forward to, something to inspire. I see nothing in President Obama's proposals, now being articulated by NASA paper-shufflers, that will inspire any sense of wonder or any real interest among the American public or the people of the rest of the world. Nobody outside of a dwindling special-interest group will give two hoots whether NASA manages to simulate (or achieve) the transfer of rocket fuel from one unmanned spacecraft to another in orbit. It won't make the news and the public won't know about it or care about it. When the next budget comes round, which will be the easiest target for cuts? Education, defence, health, or tinkering in orbit? People often say "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." I suggest it makes equal sense the other way round: "NO BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS." I'm sorry to have to say this, but President Obama has retired Buck Rogers. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-10-2010 10:14 AM
Great post! Part of that "inspiration" that people feel comes from actually seeing something come to fruition. People (voters, taxpayers, elected officials) will NOT be inspired by all of this talk of technology development over many years with no timetable for the ultimate goal.We watched on another thread as the launch tower for Ares was stacked up section by section. I would imagine that standing at the base of that looking up would be inspiring to the aforementioned people. It is a powerful symbol of real progress toward a real goal. Visual progress. This plan proposes mostly paper progress, with very uninspiring technical targets. While I certainly understand and agree that this is technology that needs to be developed, it should not be considered NASA's primary mission over the coming years (decades?). In order to support ongoing funding for manned spaceflight, we need tangible accomplishments that are recognizable and understandable by the public and Congress. Otherwise, one politician after another will come along and "punt" any real exploration and the cost of doing so to the next incumbent. I hear what they are selling, but I'm just not buying it. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-10-2010 11:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
What is to stop this President, or the President elected in 2012 (less than 3 years away!) or the Congress deciding to cut that funding next year, or the year after, or the year after...?
There is no guarantee, but then nothing any administration proposes, funds or even signs into law is immune to such. That is just the nature of the U.S. budgetary process.Which, by the way, is one of the selling points of moving low Earth orbit access to commercial suppliers. Once established, short of being outlawed as an illegal activity, it cannot be simply canceled at the whim of Congress and/or the President, and it makes it a whole lot harder for them to pull out from using such services (existing law demands that NASA cease its own activities if it directly competes with commercial services, which is why, for example, all parabolic, or "vomit comet," flights are now commercially flown and operated for the space agency). quote:
I see nothing in President Obama's proposals, now being articulated by NASA paper-shufflers, that will inspire any sense of wonder or any real interest among the American public or the people of the rest of the world.
First and foremost, it's an urban myth that the public needs to be inspired by the plans to do something in order for there to be a space program. The majority of American voters disagreed with the plan for sending astronauts to the Moon. The majority of American voters disagreed with the plan for building the space station. Yet, both were accomplished and people were inspired by both once done. Plans need not be inspirational; rather they need to realistic and well-funded. The Vision for Space Exploration was a vision only for the space community. The general public did not share in that vision. quote:
Nobody outside of a dwindling special-interest group will give two hoots whether NASA manages to simulate (or achieve) the transfer of rocket fuel from one unmanned spacecraft to another in orbit. It won't make the news and the public won't know about it or care about it.
I couldn't disagree more. The public still gets excited by watching in-flight refueling of airplanes, which is hardly a new activity. The general public doesn't care about much outside of what directly effects their lives, but they've shown time and time again that no matter what you do in space, if there is the promise for pretty pictures or good video, they will watch. People watch ISS spacewalks, Hubble being serviced, tethered satellite systems being tested, satellites being launched and many more activities that are in no way different than the proposed technology demonstrators. quote:
People often say "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." I suggest it makes equal sense the other way round: "NO BUCK ROGERS, NO BUCKS."
And there is where I believe are you wrong. There are far more dollars to be raised and made in bringing the average joe and jane to space than there are keeping space reserved for only those with the right stuff... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-10-2010 11:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
Visual progress.
And where do you think "visual progress" begins? As paper plans. The launch tower you mention was a paper plan for longer than it has physically stood to date, and it inspired very little, if no one during that time. Does that mean it wasn't worth building? quote:
While I certainly understand and agree that this is technology that needs to be developed, it should not be considered NASA's primary mission over the coming years (decades?).
NASA's primary mission over the next couple of decades, as proposed, is to conduct research on the International Space Station, launch robotic probes for science and human-precursor missions, and send humans to Mars. That the last point in that list cannot be conducted overnight does not mean that it is not without merit. quote:
I hear what they are selling, but I'm just not buying it.
And that's the thing, you need not buy it for it to succeed. NASA reached the moon without the majority of the public buying into its plans. Sometimes, if not often times, what needs to be done is not what is popular. |
Topic Closed
advertisement