posted 02-01-2010 08:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
How can we expect the general public to support the space program when the enthusiasts on this board are having such a hard time getting a handle on the positive aspects of this change in direction?

---

posted 02-01-2010 09:19 PM               

• In 2020: Space Adventures' Eric Anderson says private citizens will be circumnavigating the moon.

• In 2020: Robert Bigelow says "we, as a company, have lunar ambitions... And we also have Mars ambitions as well."

• In 2020: SpaceX's Musk says: "There will probably be very serious plans to go to Mars, with people."

• Nelson doesn't characterize NASA budget as DOA, in fact, he suggests it would be "very difficult" to turn back Constellation cancellation.

• Sen. Nelson acknowledges Ares 1 was a "nonstarter"; hopes HLV will move ahead quickly; seems to feel more at ease with FlexPath.

• Nelson: "The hope is, and I hope the Obama bet is correct, that the commercial boys will accelerate this" with the help of NASA money.

posted 02-01-2010 10:44 PM               

An accomplished shuttle pilot recently described to me one of these start-up's as "trying to do Mach 3+ aerodynamics on laptop computers." This is exactly the problem that this administration doesn't understand.

I hope that Congress, in this coming election year, will see past this short-sightedness and let NASA continue on it's current path. I don't know if Bolden firmly believes in this path or is just going along for now, but given his tearful reaction to the Ares 1-X test flight, I find it incredulous that he didn't think it was a step in the right direction.

When CNN reviewed the current budget tonight, it put NASA in the "Big Losers" column. Aside from space activities, the point was made that "a real power shift is underway away from the U.S. and toward China."

It might take that for some future President to realize what we have proposed to give up today.

posted 02-01-2010 11:34 PM               

Bolden and Garver certainly have their hearts in the right place. I don't think they are just being good soldiers, following OMB's orders. I hope they will explain their positions better in the next few days.

posted 02-02-2010 12:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I welcome the paradigm shift from government to private sector.

---

Unless it falls under the usual rhetoric of "do as I say, not as I do" that we've heard so many times before.

Back to sleeping mode (again). And let's wait for something to awaken the US (Pearl Harbor, Sputnik, 9/11- style). The US is great at playing catch-up. If nothing happens, then if you think the shuttle/ISS programs were boring, the upcoming years will be tough to live.

posted 02-02-2010 01:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
My interest has already started to wane.

---

posted 02-02-2010 01:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Some sample comments (via MSNBC's Alan Boyle @b0yle) from today's telecon with commercial space companies:

---

I'm not sure that I can think of anyone to ask for comment who would be more biased than the CEOs of these three companies. If the cheque from NASA required that they commit to go to Mars then maybe (call me a cynic) they'd be absolutely confident about being in Martian orbit within 10 years too.

Still, with that whole $50 million burning a hole in their pockets I'm sure they'll be whizzing up to orbit very shortly. It's a pitiful sum and one of the few measurable facts about the 'new approach'.

posted 02-02-2010 02:10 AM            

It was obvious from the outset Constellation was not going to put an astronaut on the Moon until the mid-2020s. Hardly breaking news Senator Shelby. And the first flight of Orion wouldn't occur till 2017, near the end of the ISS lifespan.

I'm pleased the COTS programme will evolve from beyond mere cargo-runs into crew transportation. NASA cannot continue to be the bureacracy it has been since 1959.

posted 02-02-2010 02:35 AM            

Now it has time and money to develop this critical system. Or you can forget about a base on the Moon. I'm not as cynical as some who write-off the potential increase in the budget to develop those essential technologies that would otherwise have zero chance of being developed while the rockets and capsules consume the cash.

posted 02-02-2010 04:50 AM               

My interest in manned spaceflight has waned completely, but I keep my fingers crossed that China will have Taikonaut moonwalkers in my lifetime!

posted 02-02-2010 05:01 AM               

One need look no further than the Russian space program to realise how resilient a space program can be. During the late 90s I had my doubts their rockets would continue to fly - look how wrong I was.

I also welcome more Voyager style probes should that be the way to go. Just because a underfunded moon return program is cancelled doesn't mean nasa is going the way of the dodo just yet. There is so much that has been discovered post Apollo and there is more to come.

Let's not forget that there are several space faring nations and it makes damn good sense to work together rather than elbow one's way to a short lived moment of glory at the top.

My passion is Apollo. It always will be. I am thankful it happened in my lifetime and I am certain Cernan's footprint will not forever be the last one on the moon.

posted 02-02-2010 05:45 AM               

NASA stops dead a program they have invested $5 billion dollars and trade it for an increased budget without any plan, no rockets to launch people in and lacking goals.

posted 02-02-2010 05:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
How can we expect the general public to support the space program when the enthusiasts on this board are having such a hard time getting a handle on the positive aspects of this change in direction?

---

It's a waste of money.

NASA has spent $5 billion dollars on Constellation. That's a lot of money. If the program was flawed, why was $5 billion spent?

Either NASA is a lethargic bloated government operation that can't see it's feet due to it being too fat or it is a goal oriented forward thinking organization.

Positive aspects to this new direction? Nobody has given any. What rockets are they using, where are they going and who is going and when is the launch date? If it is LEO, why bother, we have been there for 50 years.

posted 02-02-2010 06:19 AM              

"If it had been our intention merely to go to the moon, bring back a handful of rocks and then forget the whole venture, then we would have been history's biggest fools"

"...and as we leave the moon at Taurus Littrow..."

The problem, as I see it, is that NASA is funded by taxes and is a political chestnut. It has always been used and abused by politicians who continually keep moving the goal posts.

The setting and then resetting of "national goals" for the space program has been a mainstay from the White House since the beginning. If you want examples go read your space history.

I work for the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. For those of you who do not understand how the NHS works I will try and explain.

Free health care is given to all UK citizens; the Govt allocates budgets to various health trusts who then decide how that money will be spent; Targets and goals are set nationally for all the trusts to achieve and hospitals and trusts are evaluated on performance by Govt and independent bodies.

It's an institution that has grown out of a straight forward idea to achieve a goal (provide free health care) and is now a monster of biblical bureaucratic and political proportions.

Thirteen years ago there were less than 10 Health Boards in Wales, responsible for regional distribution of the budgets etc. Then a "new directional goal" was formulated and many more boards were created. The reason given was to decrease the workload by creating more centres and therefore more managers and staff to oversee the distribution of the budgets. It cost # millions to change the system and the change came just after a new Govt was elected.

Today there are just five health boards. The others have closed in the past year, putting lots of people out of work and increasing the workload on the ones that remain.

Why?

Because the NHS is a political chestnut filled with bureaucrats. Politicians keep moving the goal posts to satisfy their own agendas.

It is ridiculous and an appalling waste of money. How much did it cost to make the changes and then undo the changes that had been made to a system that didn't need changing? #Billions...!

Sound familiar?

Some people on here have said that "today we lost the moon." Well, yes and no. We actually lost the moon in 1972 and that was somewhat of Nixon's doing.

Or was it?

As most space authors who have written the history of Apollo have consistently stated - By the time of Apollo 14 the world was bored by space. We had done it, why were we doing it again? How fickle is the human race?

If we said that about an airliner we would never go on holiday abroad twice. We would fly it once, say, "yep! really works good, now what? Let's scrap the thing and stay home!!"

As I remember it, after Apollo we were supposed to start the push to Mars, I was going to be able to book my vacation on an orbiting Space Hotel and robots were supposed to be bringing me my morning coffee and cleaning my lounge. As for the car, well it would be a museum thing and my hover car would take me wherever I wanted to go. Someone would have invented the teleport. A Brit would have won Wimbledon.

All fantasies now, but back then everything seemed possible.

The space related goals are still unfulfilled now because there has not been a political reason to achieve them. And when there has (Bush Jr's speech) there has been no backing up of those goal promises with a good enough budget.

With Presidents coming and going over periods of 4-8 years they keep "inheriting" space programs they didn't approve or cannot sustain or won't support because the "other guy" did. And this will continue ad infinitum until something changes.

Perhaps the new budget announcement will take NASA in a new direction. Perhaps the Congress won't agree to it. Perhaps Constellation will be cancelled. Perhaps the ISS will be crewed with US astronauts for at least the next 10 years. Perhaps we will hear of a new program for human spaceflight to aim for over the coming months as more details emerge. Perhaps we will spend the next 20 years in LEO. Perhaps commercial business will work alongside NASA. Perhaps there is a prospect that no new American spacecraft will be man-rated for the next 30 years... Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Nothing solid there is there?

Perhaps history has shown us all that with the way things are, "Perhaps" is all we will ever get. The dream is perhaps alive? Is that good enough?

Someone said on this thread that with no specific goal "we will be beaten by the Chinese" to the moon.

If the USA had the goal of beating the Chinese to the moon I am sure they would revel in it. It might be seen as another cold war in space, the fight for good or evil in space... again. And they might even beat them to the moon 1st (or would that be 7th?).

But we did that already. Do we really need stated goals to make this thing work? And what happens when you reach that goal? You might do exactly what you did last time. You would then go looking for the next goal to accomplish. Where does this having to beat someone or country goal thing end?

Constellation had, in my opinion, a stated goal; To move from LEO out to the moon and beyond. And it seemed fine to me. It wasn't pitched against something else or another political system. Or is that the problem?

Why can't the program continue alongside the newly proposed budget? Why do they keep moving the goal posts?!

What if all this was taken out of political hands? Wouldn't that work better?

If the NHS was disbanded tomorrow I doubt the health care system of the UK would work. Despite its frustrating bureaucracy, it functions and anyway to stop it now would be impossible in both monetary and economic/social terms.

Both NASA and the NHS suffer because of the political aspirations of the party in power.

I think this is where the change is needed. NASA needs a special mandate to ensure that if its programmes are ratified that they are funded and supported no matter what happens in the White House/Congress/Senate/World.

I am not saying approve a program, give them a blank and wait for them to deliver. But give the space administration time and "space" to achieve the goals set for them. It should be politically exempt but still accountable. If that can't happen scrap it, it doesn't and cannot function the way it needs to.

Someone has said on this thread that in three years time there might be another change of direction as another President takes office, who might then reverse this decision. And you think that will help or hinder the program?

The circle of change and reverse decision making has to stop sometime, why not now? This would also apply to the NHS! (I wonder if my boss reads this?!)

And then there's the cost.

In 1971 a US Senator stated "I cannot justify approving the funds for a probe to see if there are microbes on Mars when I know there are cockroaches in the apartments of Harlem." A nice sound bite; And Joe Public has always likes the sound bites.

You would never hear a Senator say "I cannot justify spending $1.5 Billion on one Stealth Bomber when I know there could be microbes on Mars and we could send a probe there." Why is that?

Space, it seems, has no votes but is such an easy target. It is so expensive but takes only a fraction of the national budget.

A friend of mine said to me recently that he thought the moon landings had been staged, that all space spending was wasted as it didn't help anybody or anything and anyway what was the point? In 200 years time, he said, the human race won't be here anyway so it's all a waste of time. If that's the general attitude then there's no hope for any of us.

Thank goodness there are people like those who read and contribute to these threads and who work, live and breathe the space programmes of the world that do care.

I believe that in 200 years time it won't matter a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys (to paraphrase the great Douglas Adams) what is decided now and for the next 20+ years. By then things will be a whole lot different and space will be the routinely accessed/exploited/explored place we all want it to be. Teleports might be in use!

But what does matter is how we proceed. There are no conclusions for me on this subject. I will leave that up to others.

Whether the USA works by itself through NASA, or in partnership with commercial business or/and with other countries, the time has come to get busy doing it.

Constellation can work, with or without co-operation. Constellation can be scrapped and a new direction found. The two can work alongside each other. There are many options. Take the politics out of space and give it a proper direction.

posted 02-02-2010 07:23 AM               

My view is that while the images transmitted back from machines are amazing to see and listening to people talk about how they have analysed the data to further our understanding of the universe is also fascinating, it just isn't the same as hearing someone like Gene Cernan or Al Bean describe their experiences of walking on the moon or seeing the sights of space up close.

The data collected by machines may be more significant but I guess they just lack the personal touch. It's nothing to do with autographs or collecting flown items, for me it's all to do with hearing about their experiences first hand.

posted 02-02-2010 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
This issue (as is the growing budget deficit itself) is definable as a National Security problem for the country and nothing more greatly energizes the America populace then knowing the US is faced with an existential threat (particularly one that is internally precipitated).

---

posted 02-02-2010 08:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lasv3:
Just please don't stop to give us the announcements on the new publications.

---

posted 02-02-2010 08:52 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Stop living in the past and embrace the future!

---

posted 02-02-2010 09:15 AM               

What this course change has done in the press is start a campaign of finger pointing and brought serious doubt into the minds of the readers about our role in human spaceflight. There is no inspiration, no goals, nothing to spark anyone's imagination, just a retreat.

When the president says, "NASA, you are unable to do this, so I'm giving these start-ups a chance," it is insulting to the thousands of people who have worked so hard to get astronauts going someplace again. And quite frankly, it's disrespectful to those who have given their lives in the effort over the past 40 years.

I've already seen a political cartoon of a Chinese astronaut standing on the moon with the American flag knocked over and the Chinese flag in its' place. How sad is that?

Regardless of how Obama, Bolden, Garver, or whoever else spins this with grandiose phrases of how great it MIGHT be, the reality is being conveyed in the media that this is a huge step backward. And a vast majority of us here came to that conclusion before we read it in the press.

posted 02-02-2010 09:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
And a vast majority of us here came to that conclusion before we read it in the press...

---

I was poking around a couple of NASA fanboy sites (collectSPACE, among others) and they're acting as if someone shot their dog...

posted 02-02-2010 09:53 AM               

We are already starting to form tiger teams that will help us come up with a schedule for how we're going to go about developing a new plan, a bold plan for exploration.

If you ask me about destinations, I get in trouble when I say it but I will tell you anyway, anybody who talks about exploration beyond low Earth orbit, there are some places that just naturally come to mind: the moon, Mars, asteroids and other near Earth objects. So those are some of the definite destinations.

Laurie Leshin, who is one of my executives, keeps reminding me that I am limiting us when I talk about Mars instead of places other than the solar system, but I am just talking about in my lifetime. So I will limit it to moon, Mars, asteroids and places like that.

We hope very soon to be able to give you a very definitive time schedule that we hope to reach some of these destinations.

posted 02-02-2010 10:04 AM            

From a personal and selfish point of view, I am incredibly disappointed in the announcement.

posted 02-02-2010 10:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
My interest in manned spaceflight has waned completely, but I keep my fingers crossed that China will have Taikonaut moonwalkers in my lifetime!

---

posted 02-02-2010 10:14 AM               

This is all emotional. The reason I started my comments by thanking the Constellation team is because you have to understand, everybody has had a death in the family (chokes up), to people who are working on these programs, this is like a death in the family. Everybody needs to understand that and we need to give them time to grieve and then we need to give them time to recover.

I have an incredible workforce of civil servants and civilians. They have been through this before. This is just part of the life of being in NASA. And everytime we manage to pull through it and we manage to recover and we go off and do great things. And this time will be no different.

That doesn't make an employee at the Kennedy Space Center or the Johnson Spaec Center or Marshall Space Flight Center or a contractor that any of these seven people represent, that doesn't give them a great sense of solace because they are facing reality. What I tell them is, look we're going to get through this.

Stick with us if you can, some of you will decide this is just not exciting enough for you and you want to go do other things and I appreciate the service you have given and allow us to help you in your transition. If at all possible, let us help you find some work somewhere else that is going to be passionate to you.

I am a big person for passion. I'm here because I am passionate about space and exploration, otherwise I would be sitting in Houston, Texas or I would be in San Diego with my three granddaughters. I am here because I am passionate about this. I cry about it sometimes. So what? (chokes up)

This is my life. This is their lives. Give them a little time, they'll come back and they are going to be as great as they have always been. Just bear with them and give them some time.

posted 02-02-2010 10:24 AM               

The new approach sets the basis for short-term goals. They may not seem grandiose, or give you the rush you'd like to feel, but they don't depend on future administrations that will surely kill them.

Here's the paradigm change. Develop a spacefaring society in steps, rather than waste money on unfinished projects that never had a chance of succeeding in the first place.

posted 02-02-2010 10:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
We are a bunch of fanboys crying because we've lost a toy promised by an unreliable uncle. Let's try to get over it and work for a realistic and achievable future in space.

---

Look at it this way - what could NASA do if someone told them - I have $5 billion for you, want it? They blew 5 billion dollars on nothing.

If the planning/goals were flawed why did it take so long to discover that? The NASA director has to be gracious, it's his job to support the decisions of those above him.

posted 02-02-2010 11:01 AM            

I was poking around a couple of NASA fanboy sites (collectSPACE, among others) and they're acting as if someone shot their dog...

I was happily gestating when Armstrong walked on the Moon and can remembering thinking -- believing -- that NASA would make space flight cheap. It hasn't. Whether the shuttle ever could have with a reusable booster stage or something else is a dead letter. But I believed NASA through Challenger, through the ISS (When I worked on Capitol Hill in 1993, I pitched hard and got my member to vote for ISS, at no small professional expense.). But I gave up some time between Columbia and VSE.

Ares/Constellation would have been a half a billion to a billion dollars a throw, when you amortized the program. Maybe more. And would have sucked out all of the federal budget for manned space flight away from private competition and toward a dead-end program.

Even if all of this had gone as scheduled, does anyone really believe that cost to LEO would be significantly cheaper if we built a base on the Moon? Cost to LEO is the only thing that matters if any of us still want the things we want in the long term - colonies on Mars, manned missions to the Asteroids and beyond, a space-faring civilization. Ares/Constellation was a *guarantee* to keep that cost high and manned orbital space flight strictly the provence of governments - a spectacle for the many, an opportunity for the very very very few.

The President has this exactly right. Didn't vote for the guy but I'll take him at his word that he doesn't want to smother manned space flight with a pillow. I'd rather give the private sector a run - Elon Musk is getting there, they're bending real metal on Dragon, not spending $50M of taxpayer money on a design study - than wait *another* thirty years to see America give up on the moon again. It is not enough for me to see men on the moon on IMAX. I want to *lose count* of how many people have been to the Moon. The way to do that is to make LEO access cheap. Everything else is nonsense.

This didn't disappoint me. I'm elated. The NASA veterans have served us well and did great work, but nothing is "owed" to their contributions -- certainly not decades more of the same by- for- and of-NASA approach to manned space flight.

I really admire everyone's enthusiasm for NASA -- and, as always, Robert, I appreciate you trying to get facts out and admire your business as I have commented to you in the past. But I stopped believing in NASA years ago. I'm sorry that this has saddened so many of you. But, as Rand Simberg says, I want a space industry, not a space program. This needed to be shot. I'm glad it was done quickly.