posted 04-17-2010 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
Remember the saying that goes something like: Buck Rogers requires big bucks!

---

Keeping my tongue slightly in my cheek, if President Obama thinks that commercial launches are the way to put American astronauts back in orbit, why not encourage American entrepreneurs to bulk-buy Russian A-4 launchers and Soyuz capsules and set up Soyuz launch facilities at KSC? It's a tried and trusted launch system; it's already used to launch American astronauts; and if the vehicles are prepared and launched in Florida by American contractors, it becomes an American launch-system launching Americans instead of current plans for a Russian launch system to launch Americans from Russia. The American astronauts wouldn't even need to train in Russia or learn Russian! And Florida is further south, so the Earth's rotation will allow a bigger payload. (That's one of the reasons why Soyuz is already being prepared for launches by ESA in French Guiana, so don't say it isn't possible!)

posted 04-17-2010 06:15 PM               

Of course, China uses Soyuz capsules, also, bypasssing years of R&D. But it's not a bad idea provided we put a bag over it (UGLY...)

posted 04-17-2010 06:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
Buzz Aldrin to pretentious English judge on "Dancing with the Stars".

---

posted 04-17-2010 08:45 PM               

And then he actually pulled out the Tang reference. Really? I'd pay fifty dollars to anyone who could positively identify the NASA worker that he claimed brought that up backstage. Some speechwriter probably invented that story to get a laugh from the underwhelmed 200 "VIP's".

But Jeff Kluger described it best in his aforementioned Time article with these two passages:

But in the end, he may have succeeded only in applying very, very pretty lipstick to what remains, alas, a pig...

For all this, the only thing that may not materialize is the whole actually-traveling-in-space part of the manned space program. For that, sadly, we may have to wait.

posted 04-17-2010 08:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
We keep hearing "NASA operates best with a specific goal." BS. You mean YOU want a Kennedy-esque speech. It'll never happen. Deal with it. Apollo 13 wasn't planned.

---

If you believe a fixed goal and objective are not required, please list successful businesses, operations, etc. that do not have one.

posted 04-17-2010 08:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Some speechwriter probably invented that story to get a laugh from the underwhelmed 200 "VIP's".

---

posted 04-17-2010 09:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
If you believe a fixed goal and objective are not required, please list successful businesses, operations, etc. that do not have one.

---

The goal is deep space, specifically Mars... at least that's what I heard.

posted 04-17-2010 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
Actually, it's "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".

---

Yes, I know that's the original quote, but the other way round, sadly, is equally true. That's the point. Obama has retired Buck Rogers, so the flow of dollars will become unnecessary (or so Congress will eventually realise).

posted 04-17-2010 10:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
I would guess that this web site would never exist were it not for the owners' plan and goal.

---

collectSPACE grew to what it is today based largely on the support and feedback it received from its readers. Its success was largely based on taking the slow development path rather than rushing into building "The Source for Space History & Artifacts" from the start.

Oh, and the goal-oriented projects that were the initial catalyst for this site? All but one has fallen by the wayside as their goals were not flexible and were subject to the whim of changing management.

posted 04-18-2010 01:29 AM               

As for only seeing melodramatic statements - this is rather ironic as it's the nearest that you've come to a melodramatic statement yourself. There have been numerous lengthy reasoned posts and responses - and interestingly the less answerable the objections raised the more likely that they were ignored by supporters of the new plan.

posted 04-18-2010 01:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
As for only seeing melodramatic statements...

---

That said, repeated declarations that this is the end of U.S. manned spaceflight, that even the suggestion of going to Mars or any other destination than the Moon is without any merit, that the plan is aimless, and that the U.S. has generally surrendered its leadership in space are specious arguments at best and outright exaggerations at their worst.

quote:

---

If you're waiting to answer these points I'm happy to read back through and flag up those posts?

---

Assume the plan is the only option. Suggest how you would make it work without changing its basic tenets. Be constructive rather than disparaging.

posted 04-18-2010 02:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
The one problem that consistently stood out was lack of direction/lack of a plan/lack of a goal. Without a plan and/or near term objective, nothing will be done.

---

That's the paradigm shift of the revised plan. It does not hold NASA hostage to one particular destination.

The Moon isn't the only heavenly body out there worth visiting and nor is it imperative to get there by 2020 (which is what doomed Constellation)!

posted 04-18-2010 05:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Assume the plan is the only option. Suggest how you would make it work without changing its basic tenets. Be constructive rather than disparaging.

---

1. Revive X-38 as a CRV and also a vehicle which can safely return science experiment samples in a more gentle re-entry. (I met Mario Runco at the STS-126 launch and this was his biggest concern, that we were losing this capability.) If the DoD can build and test the X37B then the X-38 can also be resurrected.

2. Keep the Moon option open. Saying "we've been to the Moon: is like the Kings and explorers of Europe saying "Columbus visited the New World, there's no reason to return." I personally would want to test equipment and procedures of a Mars mission 3 days away on the Moon.

3. Build an American Soyuz, ie: a "simple" vehicle whose only mission is to get people and cargo to LEO. The President should have announced a new space race for American companies to compete in. Those of us who follow the space program closely get it - that this is his idea, but the general public doesn't. No one wants Space X or Orbital to succeed more than I do, but (and I've asked this before) what are we going to do if they don't? Is our plan to continue paying for rides from the Russians until Dragon can carry crew? Or are all the commercial players invited to the table - and have they been given a deadline to meet?

   This is what makes the public nervous and angry. We have all had to meet deadlines in our jobs, we understand how a deadline can focus energy to complete a project. Without a deadline, people feel the plan has a good chance of being like the employee who wanders around the office chatting up coworkers and never actually does anything.

posted 04-18-2010 08:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
The countries that make up ESA were the leaders in exploration 500 years ago. In fact we noisy Americans are your heirs. What happened?

---

Because at the time, there was no competition.

Because there were resources to be exploited by force. Until that proved to be unsustainable. Or when the locals stood up and said "no more".

And today there are no resources worth using (or that would justify the expenditures). "Space tourism" is a service industry.

And past and present "empires" are too busy burying themselves into debt anyway to see anything happen.

posted 04-18-2010 10:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
Build an American Soyuz, ie: a "simple" vehicle whose only mission is to get people and cargo to LEO.

---

posted 04-18-2010 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
Build an American Soyuz, ie: a "simple" vehicle whose only mission is to get people and cargo to LEO. The President should have announced a new space race for American companies to compete in.

---

Obama did when the budget was released last February. But certain politicians hysterically accused him of wanting to kill-off NASA!

I always felt the president's plan was going to be either modified or revised. And I shall go further by claiming that Orion WILL launch with crew from the outset on either a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V.

ATK should not feel hard-done. Obama has not said Ares V is dead and buried. In fact, as I stated before Ares V (or a variant) should become NASA's heavy-lift booster.

posted 04-18-2010 03:00 PM               

Going to the moon shouldn't be a goal. THAT was 50 years ago. We haven't begun to explore all of it, an we should set up some ops there, sometime.

If the Chinese get there first, that will still be 50 years after it was already done. And how are they going to get there? In a rented Soyuz on a Long March? They'll have to build a lander, and their own HLV. Can't buy them from Russia.

Earth, not the moon, is a better (and cheaper) testbed for an extended Martian stay. Remember Biosphere II?

Here's what I would propose: a mission to Phobos, which would combine an asteroid mission, and Mars orbital mission in one.

posted 04-18-2010 06:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apollo Redux:
If the current American president manages to convince any Americans of his *ahem* plan for NASA, I think that says more about America, than about him.

---

posted 04-18-2010 07:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
who plans to build the commercial craft... for them to show that they have the capital to design and build the craft, the knowledge to build the craft, and that their plan will allow them to make a profit with the craft.

---

"Boeing's knowledge of the space station and our long history of supporting NASA with proven human-rated systems should allow us to work closely with NASA to develop a commercially viable, yet safe, crew transportation system," said Keith Reiley, Boeing program manager for the CCDev proposal. "Boeing has a lot to offer NASA in this new field of commercial crew transportation services. To show our commitment, we are willing to make a substantial investment in research and development."

Boeing's crew module concept will be based on previous company efforts. It will be compatible with multiple launch vehicles and configurable to carry a mixture of crew and cargo on short-duration missions to and from the International Space Station, orbital habitats by Bigelow Aerospace and other future destinations in low Earth orbit. The size of the system is expected to be larger than the Apollo-era space capsule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
If the government is going to pay any company to design, build and operate a craft, sort of a cost plus contract, how is that commercial space?

---

posted 04-18-2010 09:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
"Boeing ... [is] willing to make a substantial investment in research and development."

---

Secondly, Boeing is certainly a viable company more than capable of building a manned spacecraft. However, please note that they did not offer to do this. They have stated they would underwrite some up front work. Implicit in this statement is they expect the government to pay for the balance, which would probably be a very high percentage of the cost (maybe 90% or more??). I obviously cannot say how Boeing plans to recover their investment, but it would be their intent to recover through the subsequent contracts, which is obviously OK. Again, this is not commercial space. This is exactly what exists today with the exception of Boeing being the design agent rather than NASA.

If Boeing sets up a company to fund the design, build, and manufacture of manned spacecraft like they do aircraft, a true commercial space company, I am sold. I predict that they will not.

I do not believe Orbital is a viable manned spacecraft company. What I would type to back that up might be taken to defame the company.

posted 04-19-2010 12:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
Implicit in this statement is they expect the government to pay for the balance, which would probably be a very high percentage of the cost (maybe 90% or more??).

---

To take SpaceX as an example, they have said in interviews that NASA is providing only 30 to 40 percent of the total funds required for Falcon and Dragon research, development and construction, with the company footing the rest of the bill. Earlier statements put the figure closer to a 50/50 to 60/40 split, but even that's far below the 90 percent you assume.

quote:

---

Again, this is not commercial space.

---

posted 04-19-2010 02:01 AM               

For example, NASA will be given an additional $6 billion over the next five years to develop the technologies to take human beings to the Moon and beyond. So let's get real. Since a mission to Mars is conservatively costed at $500 billion, the money will pay for a few blueprints.

Perhaps the fence sitters in the member poll are right. That's what the President is doing.

posted 04-19-2010 02:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
Since a mission to Mars is conservatively costed at $500 billion

---

posted 04-19-2010 07:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Fortunately, Boeing (nor any of the other companies) need to meet your personal definition of commercial space to provide NASA with commercial launch services.

---

posted 04-19-2010 07:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
It's not commercial space, at least not the way we in the US are used to defining something as commercial.

---

posted 04-19-2010 08:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So, by extension, do you not consider United Launch Alliance's launch services on Delta and Atlas vehicles as commercial?

---

posted 04-19-2010 08:43 AM               

The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

posted 04-19-2010 08:45 AM               

Looks like we could go around on this plan forever, and we (US) still would not be on Mars!

I would like to one last time bring up Buzz Aldrin, a person who says he is for the President yet his plan is nothing like what the President wants to do. If you support the President's plan, you will still be 25 years from Mars in 2020. If change is what you demand, then please take a second look at the Buzz Aldrin plan.

Unlike the current proposal, it's a real vision for the future. (Constellation was, good or bad, a real plan too.) Watch his interview on This Week in Space a few weeks back. His plan keeps the US in manned space flight, develops a real commercial spacecraft, has heavy lift in three years, not just a decision, and for a lot less money, and gets one on the surface of Mars in 25 years. It's not perfect... but the time to implement his vision is very short.

posted 04-19-2010 11:11 AM               

There are so many factors in this "new vision"; it seems that Orion will continue but not Ares. I am so confused! I have already put the "keep the Space Shuttle alive" spirit to rest and am up for developing a new type of Soyuz-esque spacecraft. I don't think it can be that hard to develop such a spacecraft at a very low cost. Let's have the Russians help us! Or maybe even the Chinese! We NEED a way to get into space and we need it fast and we need it to be reliable and inexpensive.

posted 04-19-2010 12:18 PM               

I do not think that is going to happen.

I have hopes Orion will develop into a full fledged spacecraft rather than an CRV. A spacecraft that could be launched manned or unmanned by an Atlas, Delta of Falcon 9 booster and could also be adaptable for long duration flights to say the moon or an asteroid when (if) the heavy lift booster comes on line.

posted 04-19-2010 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanh_7:
While I find the idea of purchasing or developing an "American Soyuz" interesting. Asking the Russians to help the U.S develop or allowing the U.S to build a Soyuz vehicle under licence would be asking the Russian Space Agency to put themselves out of business....

---

Why? If I produce a successful product and someone in another country asks to buy the right to produce copies of my product under licence, why does that put me out of business? Is it not more likely to boost my business? The Russians are trying to develop a replacement for Soyuz. If American entrepreneurs were to take President Obama's advice and seek funding to set up a Soyuz production line in Florida to put American astronauts back into space, the money would help the Russians to build their Soyuz replacement. Everyone's a winner! (Except, I suspect, American pride.) And isn't that the problem? Instead of that clunky little Redstonesque rocket sitting on the pad at KSC, there is a launch system that is ready, waiting and proven. How does Soyuz fail to meet the commercial test of success? Why could it not be the commercial vehicle to keep Americans in space pending a better system in another decade? Unlike all of the commercial proposals mentioned in connection with the Obama Plan, Soyuz is real. It exists. It works. And it already puts Americans in orbit. Why not embrace it? After September, it's the only available ride. Why not make it an American launcher launched from KSC? If there's a flaw in this argument that doesn't apply to other proposed launch systems, can someone point it out?

posted 04-19-2010 08:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
How about his plan as a compromise? How about someone out there who can "bend a few ears" pushing his plan?

---

posted 04-19-2010 08:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Instead of that clunky little Redstonesque rocket sitting on the pad at KSC

---

quote:

---

Why not embrace it?

---

posted 04-19-2010 11:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
You think you've got problems? We've got the now self-titled "Space Mandy" (Mandelson) to deal with in the UK!!

---

That's assuming his lordship will still be in government after the general election on May 6.

posted 04-20-2010 12:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You seem to be citing the estimate that was drawn up by NASA for President George H.W. Bush's Space Exploration Initiative, though even then the per mission cost was pegged closer at $80 to $100 billion.

---