posted 02-02-2010 11:05 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.

posted 02-02-2010 11:11 AM            

I would, however, point out two things:

1. During the Bush presidency taxes were cut drastically, which meant a lot less federal money to go around, including for NASA, which I believe led to the poor performance of Ares et al.

2. This new direction has got to be a Republican dream - the privatizing of a government run program. Isn't that their capitalist's desire, to wring every ounce of profit out of what the government created?

posted 02-02-2010 11:11 AM               

I just saw an interview with Gene Cernan, who was not very happy. "I'm disappointed, angry at times. We're putting the (Apollo) investment on the shelf." He said that America was no longer a space exploration country. "There are so many ramifications", citing that cancelling Constellation will kill jobs for Americans. "I don't understand the logic."

The newscaster reminded Gene that not all astronauts agree, and read a quote from Buzz in support of the president's plan.

Gene replied "Buzz and I have disagreed about a lot of things", but that he was in agreement with Buzz's wish to go to Mars. He supports the private sector, but pointed out "it will take 10 years" and in the mean time we are at the mercy of the Russians to get back and forth to the ISS that was built primarily with US dollars.

posted 02-02-2010 11:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
It would appear that this decision may well have left superfluous astronauts too?

---

At this time, I do not think it right to speculate one way or another.

posted 02-02-2010 12:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
No, the disgust is not fanboy tears, it is disgust with the government and NASA because I firmly believe neither are competent.

---

Being human institutions, neither are perfect. I disagree as to their competence. The mistake is in continually setting longterm goals that will never be accomplished due to human nature and changing conditions.

posted 02-02-2010 12:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patch_Designer:
During the Bush presidency taxes were cut drastically, which meant a lot less federal money to go around, including for NASA, which I believe led to the poor performance of Ares et al.

---

quote:

---

This new direction has got to be a Republican dream - the privatizing of a government run program. Isn't that their capitalist's desire, to wring every ounce of profit out of what the government created?

---

posted 02-02-2010 12:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
This decision has gutted the manned exploration on space from the US to the point that it may never recover.

---

The problem with Constellation and the programs that preceded it was that NASA was tasked with wrapping an R&D effort into an operational program.

The result was either that NASA hit an impenetrable technological blockade (e.g. X-33), was faced with increasing delays as a result of insufficient funding (e.g. Ares and the development of J-2X engine), or once successfully accomplished, was left without the ability to go elsewhere (e.g. Apollo).

Much worse, as identified by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, it resulted in the loss of crew and vehicle.

posted 02-02-2010 02:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
Yeah, let's kill NASA by giving them more money and goals they can accomplish.

---

posted 02-02-2010 02:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
The Obama plan just goes against everything we know to be true in the science community, not to mention human nature.

---

Take for example, the electro-magnetic thruster, otherwise known as the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR. Former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz developed the concept in 1979, first at the Draper Labs, then at MIT, and then at Johnson Space Center before ultimately starting his own company, Ad Astra to take it commercial.

VASIMR has now matured to the point where it is ready to be tested aboard the International Space Station (a flight contract has been signed), a precursor for its use as a "game-changing" technology to get humans to Mars faster.

A 12 MegaWatt VASIMR-powered craft could reach Mars in less than four months. A 200 MegaWatt ship could make the trip in as few as 39 days.

posted 02-02-2010 02:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
The Obama plan just goes against everything we know to be true in the science community, not to mention human nature.

---

I'm not so sure of this. Think back to the scientific explorations and discoveries during the Age of Sail. Cook didn't wait to go on his voyages of discovery until a ship could be built to his specifications -- The HMS Endeavour had been built five years earlier for another purpose. Darwin didn't decide to formulate a theory of evolution, then wait until a ship could be specially built to take him to the Galápagos Islands.

posted 02-02-2010 02:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apollo Redux:
Yeah, a billion dollars extra for each of the next 5-6 years. That'll get it done. While the defense gets a record 708 billion dollar budget - just for 2011.

---

I'd much rather devote 708 billion dollars to the NASA budget. But that's not going to happen under this or any other president.

posted 02-02-2010 02:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
This is so basic that I cannot make someone understand if they choose not to get it.

---

posted 02-02-2010 02:52 PM            

For example, a speech by President Obama spelling out his reasons for thinking the moon mission did not best serve America and he instead wanted us to have a manned mission to land on Phobos and wanted multiple robots to scour Europa for life.

He could spell out that we were taking the next 10 years as a time out to develop the technologies to achieve these goals and in the mean time develop commercial ships so the ordinary American could one day fly in space and go from New York to Japan in a matter of hours.

posted 02-02-2010 02:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
Hmmm 1979 -2009 ...that is exactly what I am saying, if Ronald Reagan had inspired America to set the course to land on Mars by 1990 that very invention would probably be in its 9th or 10th generation by now.

---

The first President Bush tried to set that very goal, not long after, and we're no closer to Mars now than we were then.

No offense, but this is so basic that I cannot make someone understand if they choose not to get it.

posted 02-02-2010 02:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
You have already made up your mind to embrace the Obama plan...

---

posted 02-02-2010 03:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
The first President Bush tried to set that very goal, not long after, and we're no closer to Mars now than we were then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I have no more made up my mind to embrace the plan as you have made up your mind to reject it.

---

posted 02-02-2010 03:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
...how much of the budget currently allocated to the shuttle program will be freed up once the shuttle stops flying... and where that money will go.

---

posted 02-02-2010 03:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
I will clarify my position then, I 100% reject it.

---

posted 02-02-2010 03:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercury7:
Kind of why I picked Reagan in my comment, the first president Bush couldn't inspire a turnip.

---

Awhile back, I commented that I no longer believe that a "legacy" space strategy can succeed. Kennedy's legacy of reaching the Moon in the next decade was an aberration, never to be repeated, due to the shepherding of his legacy by Johnson and the circumstances of his death. Unless those elements are repeated, any president who tries to set a longterm goal is doomed to disappointment.

I also mentioned that I wasn't fond of the "flexible path" option as proposed by the Augustine Commission -- which is apparently what Obama is embracing. However, though not my choice, I do believe that it is a viable path forward, and does not represent an abandonment of human spaceflight.

posted 02-02-2010 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
However, if, in the course of Congressional negotiations, the plan is changed, then I remain open to reassessing it as it then stands.

---

It is my opinion that the plan is doomed to fail as far as any exploration beyond LEO, mostly due to my belief that you have to have a plan and deadlines. I do believe the commercial sector will be successful, they already are, just not human rated yet.

posted 02-02-2010 03:44 PM               

I have become increasingly annoyed with NASA for not utilizing what it has better and for Congress not giving the program the money it deserves.

I was watching the TV show "Life on Mars" (U.S. version) final episode today and saw in the background an Ares patch and got quite sad about that it will not happen a trip to Mars. I am so sad about this all and for the spaceflight workers who work so very hard and that they have been failed.

However, I believe an opportunity exists and that something pretty amazing is going to come from this given the correct budget and time. NASA is not dead and the people of NASA (the managers rather than the workers) have had a wake up call.

I agree with a previous post saying shame on you who said NASA is dead. The future will be bright. Until then Energia and ESA will be our friends and partners helping us out.

posted 02-02-2010 05:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
Kennedy's legacy of reaching the Moon in the next decade was an aberration, never to be repeated, due to the shepherding of his legacy by Johnson and the circumstances of his death.

---

Not to mention the fact that the confluence of forces and events --political, historic, technological, and economic-- that made Apollo possible was, and remains, utterly unique in human history.

That's why pining for "another JFK" to "inspire" us, or another "sense of national unity of purpose" to once again set us on the road to the stars is both melancholy and pointless. It ain't happenin', folks, and even if it did...Apollo was many things to many people, but it is NOT a relevant template for creating an affordable, flexible, and politically sustainable human spaceflight program.

I am a space enthusiast. My fascination with spaceflight history, and Apollo in particular, borders on obsession. But I think that many of us have grown so heavily invested emotionally in the mythology of Apollo that our minds have essentially closed to the possibility that there might be ways to get back to the moon (and beyond, of course) that don't require a government monopoly and expenditure of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Like many other cSers, my initial reaction to the cancellation was a mixture of sadness and outright anger. I was born in 1975, and I'm increasingly despairing of the idea that another American might walk on the moon in my lifetime. This struck me as a serious blow to the chances of that happening. But after a few days of (mostly) sober reflection, and a lot of bouncing around the Interwebs reading the reactions of others more knowledgeable than myself, I've arrived at a VERY cautious optimism.

posted 02-02-2010 05:36 PM               

NASA's 7 new space pioneers are companies

A half century ago the Mercury Seven embodied America's space future. Now it's the merchant seven - space companies for hire.

Mimicking a scene 51 years ago when the Mercury astronauts were revealed, NASA's boss beamed Tuesday as he introduced the "faces of a new frontier:" representatives of the seven companies that NASA is funding to develop future private spacecraft.

posted 02-02-2010 06:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The problem with Constellation and the programs that preceded it was that NASA was tasked with wrapping an R&D effort into an operational program.

---

Look at commercial aviation. Both Airbus and Boeing are working on projects that hope to help them with their airliner sales, the A380 and the 787 Dreamliner. One is operational now, the other is only just entering the flight testing phase. But BOTH have had their share of delays and problems as they have been trying to push the technology envelope.

I would say if NASA were to become an R&D agency after Constellation had operational hardware built and commercial firms had some viable manned spacecraft, then I could see NASA taking a role similar to what the old NACA did for aviation. The big thing is, you need hardware to fly first IMHO. Without Orion/Ares and commercial designs which at this point are more paper project based then actual hardware, we don't have that.

posted 02-02-2010 07:02 PM               

It opens so many possibilities for NASA and NOT ONLY. I really hope that this will make space-travel something more common in next 20 years. Perhaps in my late 50 I could even afford a trip to LEO... who knows. Things usually change faster than we are willing to admit.

Going to space is relatively simple anyway [I do understand that this is a simplification]. Going to the moon probably wouldn't provide thrills to general public as well. We do have our fantasies and dreams but they are far from those of general public. But going to space on your own? Common, that would give thrills to every one and would certainly increase public appetite for more.

NASA alienated space and people. Private sector should and will bring space closer to us. All of us, not just the astronaut 'elite'.

I think that Constellation, a copy of Apollo era to large extent, was not ambitious at all.

posted 02-02-2010 07:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
I just saw an interview with Gene Cernan, who was not very happy.

---

Of course there are points in this decision that are positive for the long-term. Unfortunately, by taking away Constellation, there is no program getting on-going funding. Can you imagine a future president going to Congress and asking for $100 to $200 billion for a flight to somewhere when nowhere near that has been spent for years? Not going to happen.

I have tried desperately to find optimism in this decision and just cannot find it. Once U.S. human space exploration winds down, nothing short of another Sputnik will fire it up again. To think that our astronauts have to hitchhike on another nation's rockets repulses me.

posted 02-02-2010 07:23 PM               

What we have in its place today are Obama's fuzzy goals of developing new technologies to take us to a different spherical destination altogether - a place called pie in the sky.

As much as some may not want to read it, Obama unfortunately is already (just one year into his presidency) a man with a pretty sorry record of poorly thought out initiatives, pronouncements, policies, programs and proposals... to be able to put too much faith in anything he puts forward these days.

posted 02-02-2010 07:29 PM            

The whole reason the US (human) space programme as a whole failed to touch the popular imagination was that people perceived it as belonging to a kind of 19th century heavy-engineering technology of giant engines and vast outputs of physical power belonging to that age which threw railroads across the world and liners across the oceans.

The Apollo programme's Saturn rockets represented not the start of a new era but the end of an old one. People already knew that the future of technology lay in invisible streams of data pulsing down post office lines to produce an invisible loom of world commerce and information. They knew at the time of the Apollo landings that this was already a nostalgic enterprise.

posted 02-02-2010 07:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cjh5801:
Yeah, let's kill NASA by giving them more money and goals they can accomplish.

---

posted 02-02-2010 07:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
...it is going to be a recipe for disaster for all involved and make such a NASA the perfect agency to experience the budget axe even further.

---

posted 02-02-2010 07:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Let's try this from another approach

---

Do you truly believe that canceling Constellation will suddenly right all that is wrong in NASA?

Getting men back to the moon does get men closer to Mars. If nothing more, it gets them out of the pit of LEO.

posted 02-02-2010 08:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by neke:
Popular Mechanics editorial by Tom Jones

---

But the president rejected the most important of the Augustine observations, that a great nation must fund an exploration program worthy of its vision.

Just look at the budgetary outlay for Earth Science -- $1.4B in 2009, increasing toward $2.3B in 2015. Those are just the directly-allocated dollars, I am sure there will be more allocated in that direction. Why?

To fund things like:

• Re-fly the Orbiting Carbon Observatory
  
• Accelerate development of new satellites to enhance observations of the climate and other earth systems
  
• Expand and accelerate Venture-class PI-led missions (hmmm... might those principal investigators be involved in studying... climate change?)
  
• Enhance climate change modeling capabilities to enhance forecasts of regional and other effects
  
• Operate 15 earth-observing spacecraft in orbit...

Everyone who thinks there won't be "incentives" for ISS research to concentrate efforts on validating "climate change", raise your hands?

Spacecraft flying to the moon and Mars would cost money that the President sees better directed at validating "climate change"... so, there you have it.

posted 02-02-2010 08:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
NASA's new vision! Something we can all be proud of.

---