posted 04-10-2010 12:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The public still gets excited by watching in-flight refueling of airplanes, which is hardly a new activity.

---

When and where do the public get to watch in-flight refueling? The last time this was shown in the UK was as a news item following the loss of a Nimrod over Afghanistan - hardly something to get excited about.

posted 04-10-2010 04:14 PM            

With the Presidential address this Thursday, I was thinking again about the China card. People try to downplay this. Yet it's accepted that China will surpass America, and that they are producing 10 times the number of engineers as the US.

People have downplayed China's lunar ambitions as well. It seems destiny that nations will be on the moon, and I go along with the arguments that returning America to the moon and establishing a permanent NASA/allies science outpost there (partly to do science and engineering related to the inevitable tourism bases that will come on the moon) is a far more solid, "doable" goal then the vastly more complicated, expensive and vulnerable flexible/Mars talk.

posted 04-10-2010 05:03 PM            

There is such a thing as "whistling in the dark" and this is the darkest dark that the American space programme has ever experienced. After the pain of Apollo 1 there was a determination to press on. Even amid the deep wrenching pain (felt not just in the USA but all around the world) immediately after the Challenger disaster, there was a firm, defiant resolve that NASA and its space programme would bounce back.

When the last shuttle returns to her home port later this year, it will unquestionably be the end of an era, and I seriously question whether the United States will be capable (with public or private funding) of putting astronauts into Earth orbit by 2020, let alone reach for the Moon, Mars or the asteroids.

posted 04-10-2010 05:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
And if I am right, this web-site won't be around in 2020 because there will be nothing to inspire people to log into it.

---

posted 04-10-2010 05:59 PM            

Several pages ago (I can't find the exact quote) you made a point about people whose sense of their own mortality gives them a heightened sense of urgency for great things to be done as soon as possible. Well, yes, guilty as charged (although nobody knows the day or the hour....) but it's more than that.

Those of you who have known nothing but Earth-orbital missions simply cannot make the unfavourable comparisons that those of us who witnessed men walking on the Moon can make. After Apollo, the shuttle and the ISS have been a 30-year pause in what should have been the onward and upward march of human progress.

Now the President of the Unites States unveils the latest plan for the future... and it is a giant leap backwards. It's so sad, and for those who cannot or will not see how sad it is, I envy your optimism, however misplaced it may be.

posted 04-10-2010 06:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...you made a point about people whose sense of their own mortality gives them a heightened sense of urgency for great things to be done as soon as possible. Well, yes, guilty as charged...

---

posted 04-11-2010 02:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...it's time to stop drawing comparisons to the popularized, overly-romanticized view of Apollo and consider the plan as proposed on its own merits.

---

posted 04-11-2010 09:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Better to concentrate on what we can afford until such times arrive when it makes sense to send men back into space.

---

posted 04-11-2010 10:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
...unless your implied meaning of the words you wrote are at odds with mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
The whole point is that the U.S. can no longer afford both.

---

posted 04-11-2010 10:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And where do you think "visual progress" begins? As paper plans.

---

We had a program moving forward that many knew was in trouble, but hardware was being built. I will never be convinced that Constellation was beyond saving, and no one can predict what would have happened if Obama came in and said "I am fully behind this program, and here is the money to make it successful."

It was a program of clear near-term goals, clear accomplishments that the public could see, and tangible hardware that needed skilled, employed people to process and maintain. This new plan has none of that.

What is more inspiring? Seeing Ares I roll out for the first time under the spotlights last summer or reading more studies on the possibilities of flying yet-to-be designed spacecraft?

This is a program of largely behind-the-scenes technical development which will excite the small group of engineers working on it, but no one else. All for some far-off goal of "fanning out across the solar system" which sounds like pie in the sky. As previously pointed out, this could easily lead to a lack of public support and ultimate failure.

I few months back I was flying down to Florida with some kids in the back and we crossed over the Cape at about 14,000 ft. I took a little turn a gave them a nice view of the launch pads, VAB, and the new launch tower. I gave them an explanation of that being the beginning of us going back to the moon and all.

You should have seen those kids! They wanted me to turn around and go back for a lower pass (so did I, but there are rules...)

After Obama's cancellation of the program, I happened to be down that way again. No kids this time, but even adults like to see stuff like that. But this time I didn't have the heart to even point it out. What was I going to say?

"Hey folks, look down there at the Kennedy Space Center...where after 4 more flights, we won't be sending people to space for a long time. And see that big new launcher? That's the symbol of a $9,000,000 investment this country made in nothing."

Same structure, but it had two entirely different meanings before and after the announcement. I'd be somewhat more inclined to "buy" this plan if there were even a dime for accelerated development of a heavy-lift vehicle, but there isn't. By Bolden's own admission that piece of hardware is a few decades (and presidents) away.

posted 04-11-2010 11:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And yet this Sunday, there will be a "Save Space" rally on the Space Coast. What exactly are they rallying to save? Money?

---

We ARE grateful for the expenditure the President is proposing for KSC but we've never seen job numbers attached to it. You correctly mentioned that we've all known about the end of the shuttle program for years and should be prepared. That's true but when Constellation was next up we at least knew how many jobs it was providing. With this new proposed plan and there is a lot to like about it there are no job numbers attached and it is viewed as too abstract. We're going to invest in new technology but when will we see a return on that investment?

The other part of the plan to turn over LEO to the commercial sector that makes us nervous is that there are still more questions than answers. We all want them to succeed but until they have a track record we're still nervous. I'm referring specifically about Space X. If Falcon 9 is successful will they hire a few thousand people and assemble boosters here? What happens to their projected timeline if the F9 booster fails? Will Orbital bring jobs here or will they still be based (and launched) from Virginia?

The President could make us a bit less nervous by announcing the following:

1. Extend the shuttle program by two years (four flights) utilizing the hardware already built.
   
2. That the Orion spacecraft will be built and launched on an Atlas V or a Delta IV. We need redundant access and our own "Soyuz" program.
   
3. Detail his "vision" and a timeline. We need less ambiguity and more details.

We both agree that Constellation was starved from the beginning and never really given a chance to succeed. The fault for that lies on both sides of the political aisle. All this noise we're hearing now should have been made in 2005. Saturns were being launched and test flown during the Gemini program.

If the President's plan does not realize at least as many jobs as Constellation or if by 2012 there still is no imminent plan to launch American astronauts from the United States, then expect to see Florida become very much a red state for a long time. Right or wrong people will always vote with their wallet

posted 04-11-2010 11:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
I will never be convinced that Constellation was beyond saving, and no one can predict what would have happened if Obama came in and said "I am fully behind this program, and here is the money to make it successful."

---

quote:

---

This is a program of largely behind-the-scenes technical development which will excite the small group of engineers working on it, but no one else.

---

Under the new plan, the same type of missions are funded.

quote:

---

"Hey folks, look down there at the Kennedy Space Center...where after 4 more flights, we won't be sending people to space for a long time. And see that big new launcher? That's the symbol of a $9,000,000 investment this country made in nothing."

---

Were I in your position I would say, "Hey folks, look down there at Kennedy Space Center... where after three more flights of a 30 year program that opened space to many more types, but only 350 people, they are now focusing on opening space travel to you, me and the masses over the next five to ten years. And see that big new launcher? That's a symbol of the first $9 million invested toward sending NASA astronauts beyond low Earth orbit, not just to the Moon where we've already been, but to the asteroids, Mars and other destinations throughout the solar system."

quote:

---

...this administration has decided for us.

---

posted 04-11-2010 11:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
Extend the shuttle program by two years (four flights) utilizing the hardware already built.

---

In theory, you could spread out the remaining missions to fly through the gap [push STS-134 and STS-133 into 2011 and STS-135 into 2012), but that plan doesn't come without its own issues.

quote:

---

That the Orion spacecraft will be built and launched on an Atlas V or a Delta IV. We need redundant access and our own "Soyuz" program.

---

quote:

---

Detail his "vision" and a timeline. We need less ambiguity and more details.

---

posted 04-11-2010 12:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If we are really to be successful in space exploration, then we need to stop using our own lifetimes as the frame of reference and start embracing a multi-generational approach.

---

In principle I agree, but in practice this is called "passing the buck." Kennedy and Johnson said (in effect): 'The buck stops here.' The result was Apollo.

posted 04-11-2010 12:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...in practice this is called "passing the buck."

---

posted 04-11-2010 12:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Constellation could have been saved... but... any resulting moon landing would still have been delayed for years beyond 2020 and it would still have left us with an Apollo-like outcome: we'd be back on the Moon but with no plans or means to go beyond.

---

If President Obama had said (or if next week he plausibly and believably says) that a super-booster WILL BE built within a tight time-frame to allow missions to reachable destinations with very shallow gravity-wells, then that would be something to stir the blood.

If it takes a bit longer for Altair, so be it.

But crews returning from anywhere beyond LEO would still require an Orion-type capsule to re-enter the atmosphere. Hey, what if the "Orion-type capsule" is actually Orion? Or is it expecting too much that the work already done on Orion might actually be built on, rather than dumped?

posted 04-11-2010 01:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
"...we are accepting the challenge to build a lasting foundation, rather than "passing the buck" to future generations to start over when our short-lived programs run their course.

---

The Altair lander concept allowed for various payloads (crewed ascent stage or a bulldozer) to be attached to what could have been a powerful but relatively straightforward descent-stage.

This basic technology could have provided the backbone of NASA's push into space, good for many decades even as more sophisticated deep-space vehicles were being developed and flown.

It may seem odd to refer to a proposed lunar landing vehicle as "straightforward" but as I recall, the engines were "off-the-shelf" and the vehicle would not have suffered from the mind-blowing complexity of keeping the Apollo LM's weight within the limits of the Saturn V's capabilities. No paper-thin walls needed on Altair!

The Russians have been using basically the same launcher for 53 years, even as the payloads have become more sophisticated. In the same way, Constellation could have provided the basic architecture to get back to the Moon and go beyond.

posted 04-11-2010 02:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
For the United States not to have their own access to at least LEO and the ISS is absolutely ridiculous.

---

posted 04-11-2010 02:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Plasma won't get you into Earth orbit. NASA needs a heavy lift booster tomorrow, not some time in the distant future.

---

posted 04-11-2010 03:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The whole point is the U.S. can afford both...

---

posted 04-11-2010 04:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Regrettably Robert, Obama and Congress seem to think that you are wrong.

---

posted 04-11-2010 06:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Were I in your position I would say, "Hey folks, look down there at Kennedy Space Center...

---

The "the been there done that" argument doesn't hold water with me either. Imagine exploring Mars in the limited amount of time Apollo spent on the moon. There is MUCH more yet to discover there. Calling a landing at Tycho crater or at the lunar poles "going back to the moon" is akin to saying Lewis and Clark wasted their time and money because we already knew the Earth.

And the kids today don't remember us going to the moon. They read about it in history books. Paper plans for exploration decades off in the future don't grab a child's attention and steer him or her toward a career in aerospace. Real progress that they can see and the opportunity to experience themselves does.

I'm going to step away from this debate now. I'll watch the "Big Policy Speech" in Florida and laugh at all of the happy faces the White House plants in the stands behind Obama.

posted 04-11-2010 06:26 PM               

Yes it is disappointing that Constellation has been cut but it is also interesting to see that there is in a way a new way to get people into space that is in the private sector. That is something we haven't had before with Apollo and our other programs.

With all things, developing a new way to get into space is going to take time, which I think is one of the things people don't like. It seems that for many Americans, we want everything now and we don't want to wait. We need to realize that we are going to have to wait 5, 10, possibly 15 years before the United States has the ability to launch it's people into space under it's own power.

Another problem is that NASA is, well, NASA. Because it is funded by the government, it is subject to the whims of politicians which is a major problem. All politicians need to stop changing what they think is best for NASA every election. Instead of telling NASA what to do every 2-4 years, let NASA tell Congress and the President what they (NASA) needs to do. Have the NASA heads appointed by NASA instead of the President and Congress.

The only reason Congress and the President should get in NASA's business is if NASA goes to them and says 'we need x amount of funding to do such and such. With that money to do such and such, we can do this which will be good because it will get us to here.' We shouldn't have the future of our space program decided by politicians who don't know what they are talking about. We need NASA to make those choices for itself.

posted 04-12-2010 01:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The whole point is the U.S. can afford both, and can do both (manned and unmanned) exploration well.

---

posted 04-12-2010 08:51 AM               

The Obama administration claims that its proposed space policy enables a “flexible path.” In reality, it is a prescription for yet another wasteful random walk. Four decades of stagnation in space is enough. If any progress is to be made, a course must be set. Leadership is required. President Obama should reject the timid proposal his administration floated in February, which would mark the end of the American human spaceflight program, and should instead take the side of audacity and hope -- by committing NASA to reach for Mars in our time.

posted 04-12-2010 09:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
That's why there are no plans to extend the life of the shuttle and Constellation was cancelled.

---

posted 04-12-2010 09:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Robert Zubrin's take: Going Nowhere (The New Atlantis)

---

This is the fairytale at the heart of the 'technology-demonstrator' fallacy; that NASA will develop all the technology needed for Mars missions and then simply click it all together when an administration says "go to Mars." As Zubin says, heavy lift requires no technology breakthrough, it just needs building. Spec the mission, build the vehicle.

The alternative, that dozens of centres produce dozens of new technologies that may or may not be required to work together in any one of several possible missions is clearly going to have proved wasteful and needlessly time consuming when a specific mission objective is finally laid out.

It's analogous to asking an orchestra to play in several different rooms without the benefit of a conductor - and with a choice of scores. Far better to pick your tune, get your players together, rehearse it, perform it.

(I'm enjoying this analogy too much to stop but please skip on to the next post. )

What you shouldn't do is fire your conductor, hire a new conductor who then fires most of the players, and throws some of their extremely expensive instruments into the landfill. Further to that it's probably an even worse idea if the new conductor then goes out to the nearest start-up violin maker, asks him to build new violins as good as the ones he just tossed out and (when the start-up guy admits he doesn't really have that level of expertise) then commissions at great expense all the necessary research into making good violins, gives that expertise to the violin start-up guy for free - and then pays top dollar for the lovely new violins.

posted 04-12-2010 10:32 AM               

Your orchestra really wants to play Carnegie Hall, but has a standing commitment to play every night at the local community theater.

Getting to Carnegie will require a lot of practice (as the old joke goes), but with their daily performances booked for years to come, your orchestra has neither the time or resources to do both.

They've tried, but they've become so overworked that the end result has been their making mistakes costing them musicians and weakening their overall performance.

The theater owner recognizes the orchestra's desire to go to Carnegie and agrees it's a good idea, but he still needs someone to play nightly. He's aware that for many years now, several garage-band orchestras have been organized but in this one-theater town, they have had no prospects for a steady gig and therefore haven't had a strong reason to perfect their set.

The theater owner then has the idea: if he hires not one, but multiple garage-band orchestras, he can not only allow his town's orchestra the time and resources they need to reach Carnegie, but also grow the garage-bands into multiple professional orchestras -- orchestras he can use to play his theater but also compete with other town theaters' orchestras, bolstering his own town in the process.

posted 04-12-2010 11:07 AM               

Now it'll be their kids or the garage bands' kids who'll get to try, because the original orchestra got so busy giving free music lessons to the garage band (and in some cases even paying their pupils for the privilege of teaching them) and rehearsing to give their own occasional amazing solo recitals that they never did rehearse together, just played scales in separate rooms and wondered which score to learn, and so, not knowing which, they learnt dozens rather sketchily, just to be on the safe side.

Years passed, the big day finally came - the conductor revealed the score, counted off "1-2-3-4" and - oh dear. They sounded exactly like a bunch of old guys who hadn't played a major symphonic piece for decades. Not bad, but not Carnegie Hall standard, maybe not even as good as those garage guys had got.

"If only we'd picked the score twenty years back" they all said, their voices thick with emotion & regret for their misspent lives. "If only we'd elected Matt T from collectSPACE as the conductor" lamented one wise and universally admired bassoonist. "Yes" they all chorused sadly, "we were very very wrong".

posted 04-12-2010 11:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
I think the conductor needs far more faith in his orchestra.

---

posted 04-12-2010 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The decision to end the shuttle program was driven by the loss of Columbia, not by the budget.

---

The Shuttle's Future. The foam-shedding event during Discovery's launch and the resulting decision to suspend further shuttle launches, plus the funding shortfall in NASA's out-year projection, adds to the complexity of decisions about the shuttle's future. Prior to Discovery's launch, discussion was focused on President Bush's January 2004 directive that the shuttle be retired as part of his new "Vision for Space Exploration" where NASA is to focus its attention on returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and someday sending them to Mars (see CRS Report RS21720). Under the plan, the shuttle -- in its current form -- would be terminated in 2010, primarily so that its funding can be redirected towards achieving other aspects of the Vision. The 2010 date also coincides with the CAIB's recommendation that if the shuttle is to be flown longer, it should be recertified. Two key issues raised by the decision to end shuttle flights by 2010 are the extent to which the United States wants its own ability to launch astronauts into space, and the importance of completing ISS construction and meeting U.S. commitments to other ISS partners.

The shuttle is the only U.S. vehicle capable of taking astronauts to space today. As part of the Vision, NASA is building a new "Crew Exploration Vehicle" (CEV). The original schedule called for it to be available for launching crews to Earth orbit by 2014, meaning there would be a multi-year gap between the end of the shuttle program and the availability of CEV. During that time, NASA would be dependent on Russia for human access to space. Dr. Griffin wants to accelerate CEV availability to reduce the gap as much as possible in part because he believes the United States should not be dependent on any other nation for human access to space. NASA's current target is 2012. The Senate adopted an amendment to the FY2006 Department of Defense authorization bill (S. 1042) on November 15, 2005 expressing the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States to maintain preeminence in human spaceflight. Initial versions of the NASA authorization bill (H.R. 3070/S. 1281) contained conflicting language about the future of the shuttle. The Senate bill originally directed NASA not to terminate the shuttle until a replacement was available, while the House version originally directed NASA not to fly the shuttle after December 31, 2010. The final version of the act (P.L. 109-155) states that it is U.S. policy to have human access to space on a continuous basis, and directs NASA to submit several related reports to Congress.

posted 04-12-2010 04:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It wasn't the conductor, or theater owner, that lost faith in the musicians, but the loyal audience who had been coming to their performances nightly.

---

posted 04-12-2010 04:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
The following extract from a January 2006 report by CRS to Congress would seem to contradict you Robert.

---

...based on its in-depth examination of the Space Shuttle Program, the Board has reached an inescapable conclusion: Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because that design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit.

posted 04-12-2010 04:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
Many of the audience had been listening for years, and were finally enjoying the Carnegie Hall rehearsals.

---

Sure, there were some musicians among the audience that could raise valid critiques of the orchestra's new arrangement, but the majority seated around them seemed to be more concerned with losing their own seats than they were with what was best for the orchestra.