|
Author
|
Topic: [Discussion] The President's revised plan for NASA
|
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-20-2010 08:31 AM
   
Let's take a look at the President's "bold" plan before Congress. (I will continue, if permitted to do so, through several posts.) Please note that I will assume the President has all the control, while in fact that control belongs to Congress. Increases the number of astronaut days in space by 3,500 over the next decade, extends the life of the International Space Station, likely beyond 2020. How? Last time I checked, the President can only be re-elected once. Currently, he has no control far beyond 2012, if re-elected the year will be 2016. Under the previous plan, the station was to be supported by the US to at least 2015. The President has kept the previous plan and only added one year. Launches a steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies... Is not NASA already doing that? Webb telescope? Mars lab? Is not this part of the bold plan just that the President does not cancel these programs? What is he proposing beyond what is currently budgeted and/or in work? Begins major work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015... Again, the President may not even be in office in 2015. Nevertheless, 5 years to "decide"? Decide what? When will the US start building it? ...then how long to build? ...and to lift what? Heavy lift vehicle work I am reading about includes more or less trying to copy an existing Russian engine for a late 1950s style Saturn like stage. What ground breaking technology is found here that will enable travel beyond LEO that was not done almost 50 years ago? Even the Indians are currently trying to do better than this with their new cryogenic engine.Over the years, NASA has spent a great deal of money looking into different launch systems, different "reusable" engines, different ways of recovery of booster hardware, different ways to make the systems more reliable, etc.. Besides what appears to be a technology step backward with a less efficient rocket stage, what is being proposed that is different from the track taken in the past? I honestly do not see anything. The "revised" part of the plan appears to be the words "decision in 2015."
a set of stepping-stone achievements in space that will take us further and faster into space While I see a list of bullet points in the plan, I do not see the "stepping stone achievements." Even if you do and I do not, how is this different from the idea behind Constellation, which was truly a "stepping stone" approach to travel beyond LEO? Why, if you support the President's "plan", are you willing to believe that his steps will somehow be observed over the next 25 to 35 years where others have not? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-20-2010 09:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
The President has kept the previous plan and only added one year.
It's difficult to run a space station, let alone an international one, on a year-to-year schedule. The U.S. needed to commit to its partners this year to extend the station's use by five years (to 2020), which it did with the caveat that Congress must approve of the President's proposal. If Congress does not approve of the extension, then U.S. involvement in the ISS will end in 2015 (there's little reason for concern though; Congress is as supportive of extending ISS as is the President). quote:
What is he proposing beyond what is currently budgeted and/or in work?
From Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions: One will likely be a lunar mission to demonstrate tele-operation capability from Earth and potentially from the International Space Station, including the ability to transmit near-live video to Earth...NASA will also select at least one additional robotic precursor mission to initiate in 2011, and identify potential future missions to begin in 2012 and/or 2013. Potential missions may include: - Landing on asteroids or the moons of Mars rather than orbiting these bodies would allow us to better determine whether they pose safety hazards to astronauts or contain materials useful for future explorers. Landing can also test technologies that could help future human missions.
- Landing a facility to test processing technologies for transforming lunar or asteroid materials for fuel could eventually allow astronauts to partially "live off the land.
quote:
Nevertheless, 5 years to "decide"? Decide what? When will the US start building it?
Construction will begin in 2015, per the President's plan. The decision by 2015 is which design to build, e.g. Ares V, Direct/Jupiter, shuttle-derived side-mounted, etc. A decision could come sooner than 2015, and then assembly could begin sooner. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-20-2010 11:30 AM
Wow, at least 5 years with no means to go up there. It's worse when you see that engineering marvel land so perfectly at KSC this morning. It's like taking a few steps backwards.  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-20-2010 11:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MrSpace86:
Wow, at least 5 years with no means to go up there.
The "by 2015" date is for heavylift research only; commercial crew development is expected to see first flights as early as 2014, although 2015-2016 is more likely. (Under Constellation, the first flight of Orion had solidly slipped into 2016 and was gradually edging into 2017, mostly due to being underfunded.)The U.S. does have a means though, of getting its astronauts "up there" during the next three to six years. It will purchase seats from a private company on commercially operated spaceflights. The company: RSC Energia; the spacecraft: Soyuz. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 04-20-2010 01:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MrSpace86:
Wow, at least 5 years with no means to go up there.
You probably weren't born yet, but there was a six-year gap between Apollo (ASTP) and Shuttle, and another 2.5+ years between 51-L and STS-26. We can make it through. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-20-2010 03:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The U.S. does have a means though, of getting its astronauts "up there" during the next three to six years. It will purchase seats from a private company on commercially operated spaceflights. The company: RSC Energia; the spacecraft: Soyuz.
A very sad state of affairs indeed - mind you access to non-organic lift comes with a price; subordinating US foreign policy interests. If a new administration takes power in 2012 and for example a robust European missile defense shield is back on the table (very likely as Iran by all projections is anticipated to be on the threshold of an operationalized nuclear ICBM capability), Russian support could very well dry up. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 04-20-2010 04:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Last time I checked, the President can only be re-elected once. Currently, he has no control far beyond 2012, if re-elected the year will be 2016.
I don't recall anyone on this forum being critical of the fact that Bush's Constellation program was set to accomplish most of it's goals well after Bush was out of office. Indeed, it's hard to think of a single significant space goal that was achieved during the administration of the president who initiated the plan (or was in office when the plan was announced). - Put a man in space: Initiated under Eisenhower, completed in Kennedy's term.
- Land a man on the moon: Initiated by Kennedy, fostered by Johnson, and completed during Nixon's administration.
- Develop the space shuttle: Initiated under Nixon, passed through the Ford and Carter administrations, completed in the Reagan administration (even if only by a couple of months).
- Develop the space station: Initiated in different forms by Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, construction completed during Obama's administration.
- Constellation program: Initiated by the Bush administration, not scheduled to have a manned flight within 5 years of Bush leaving office and not have a manned lunar landing within 10 years of Bush leaving office.
For better or for worse, significant space goals are something that tend to run across multiple administrations. Of course, that also makes them vulnerable to modification or cancellation too. But I certainly think it's reasonable for a president to establish goals/policy beyond their own terms. Otherwise, nothing would ever get done. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-20-2010 06:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
"Clunky," "little" and "Redstoneesque" are not words that come to mind when describing Atlas V or Delta IV (Heavy).
I think you know I wasn't referring to Atlas V or Delta IV Heavy. They are both very impressive beasts! I'm still not too sure why they can't be man-rated to launch Orion. Can you or someone else clarify this? I was actually referring to Falcon 9, although in the interests of fairness I have been reviewing the statistics for that vehicle. I still say it looks clunky, but it's not little, and with a thrust of over a million pounds at lift-off, it's clearly no Redstone. However, would anyone really want to fly on top of a Falcon 9 if Atlas or Delta was available? (This is not a rhetorical question!) |
bcrussell
Member Posts: 77
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 04-20-2010 08:28 PM
Yes, we prefer the F-9 launch for two reasons: - Engine out capability
- Cost
Americans in Orbit-50 Years |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 04-20-2010 10:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Spacefest:
You probably weren't born yet, but there was a six-year gap between Apollo (ASTP) and Shuttle, and another 2.5+ years between 51-L and STS-26. We can make it through.
I was born a few months after 51L, so yeah, I agree with you, if we made it through those tough times, we'll make it through these.  I don't want to sound negative about astronauts flying on Soyuz... I would rather have them fly on something safe, reliable, thoroughly tested, than for them to fly on something that can be more dangerous. I still don't like the sound of "commercial" spaceflights... makes it sound inexperienced. But we know that they are referring to companies with potential big time experience in spaceflight. Am I the only one that feels that way? |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 04-20-2010 11:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MrSpace86:
I still don't like the sound of "commercial" spaceflights...makes it sound inexperienced. But we know that they are referring to companies with potential big time experience in spaceflight. Am I the only one that feels that way?
Well "commercial" refers to some sort of monetary profit (or loss), but with players like Boeing, Rockwell-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, or even Energia, experience would give you a leg up. But SpaceX for example, is relatively new, but very active and well-funded. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 04-21-2010 12:41 AM
Hitchin' a ride!!! |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 06:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Russian support could very well dry up.
I'm sure Russia will fulfil its obligations to transport NASA astronauts to and from ISS right through 2014, regardless of who wins the next US presidential election. The Russian Soyuz was NASA's saviour after Columbia (and during the Iraq War) and will continue to be so until a new US spacecraft is ready. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 07:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
I don't recall anyone on this forum being critical of the fact that Bush's Constellation program was set to accomplish most of it's goals well after Bush was out of office.
The point being, which apparently is not obvious: what is happening to the existing plan? Why do you believe suddenly this new "plan" will stand the test of time? I find such a belief in most who would profess it to be based on partisan political ideology with respect to the current Presidential office holder, not based in reality. With all the faults of the Constellation program, it did have a goal at the start of doing something that would last through political cycles... that was a large part of why it was constructed the way it was (that and budget). I see no evidence that a similar long term view, with respect to politics, was used in constructing the proposed "what ever". Or is that the "beauty" that some see? It's "flexible" so the next President can change it to whatever they want and the next President and the next... Guess what gets done. My answer: nothing. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 08:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Landing a facility to test processing technologies for transforming lunar or asteroid materials for fuel could eventually allow astronauts to partially "live off the land"
Again, an idea that has been in the works for a long time. Nothing new or "bold" here. That is not to say it's a bad idea. "Living off the land" is a great super far term goal... something that hopefully will happen by the end of the century. Now is as good a time as any to start. But it does nothing to get us where we want to go near term (next 10 to 25 years).But wait a minute; I did not think we were going to the moon? After all, implicit in the President’s outline is that to go to Mars, etc., we do not go to the moon first. But now... I am confused. Could it be that this is an exceptionally bad plan? Why would you care if you can process lunar regolith when you are going to Mars? From "soil" color alone, I would say that the material properties are completely different. Soil analysis to date also confirms this. One needs to learn to process Martian soil. First step: it's called sample return. Where is this long lead item in the plan? Did I miss it? The first missions to Mars or an asteroid will not be "live off the land" missions. People will go with everything they need to stay and safely return. Again, a great very long term goal, but not needed on the initial missions. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 08:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Construction will begin in 2015, per the President's plan. The decision by 2015 is which design to build, e.g. Ares V, Direct/Jupiter, shuttle-derived side-mounted, etc. A decision could come sooner than 2015, and then assembly could begin sooner.
Five years to decide to build shuttle C? or the other? This is so bad it's laughable. (I am laughing at the plan, not you or anyone "here")I see no where in the written proposal that a build out of the vehicle will start no later than 2015 as you imply. Yet again I will ask: why? You will have no use for it: you will have no known payload to use to size the vehicle, etc. The budget people will kill you on this one. I would predict that congress will not authorize money to build a vehicle which has no use... and from a taxpayer viewpoint, I would hope that they would not. I also see this part of the "revised plan" mainly as a way to win over Senator Nelson and other Democrats with job concerns, "vision" concerns, etc. I do not see the Administrator altering the stated plan on building the vehicle 15 to 20 years out. One last thing today, does not it concern everyone here that Mars is always 25 years away? With the exception of Vice President Agnew's July 16, 1969 stated goal that the US would be on Mars by 1985, it's always 25 year away. It truly is 25 years away if we start working very hard now. There is a lot to do: more Mars Landers, several sample return missions, building an orbital "launch" platform, having a Martian satellite communication system, developing nuclear propulsion, etc. The work plate is full to make it happen in 25 years. The President's ideas do not start the process. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 09:55 AM
How about micromanaging everything and putting NASA human spaceflight infrastructure in one location?Shut down JSC in Houston and transfer astronaut training and Mission Control to KSC in Cape Canaveral, Florida? Florida will see a hitherto boom in jobs and investment for decades. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-21-2010 01:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
How about micromanaging everything and putting NASA human spaceflight infrastructure in one location?[/B]
Unless you live in Houston, or any other city NASA is located.There has been some off the cuff remarks over the years that suggest NASA should, perhaps become a civilian entity of the DoD. Sometimes I think that might actually make some sense. Any thoughts? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 01:45 PM
While not wishing to diminish the city or people of Houston, it makes no practical or economic sense having the command/control and manned launch facilities of NASA a thousand miles apart.If they were in one place, just how much money could NASA pour into programmes? But I don't think NASA should be merged with the DoD. It can only lead to the militarization and weaponization of space. There's enough trouble down on Earth without creating new theatres for war in orbit. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-21-2010 02:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Why do you believe suddenly this new "plan" will stand the test of time?
There are multiple reasons why one might believe in the new plan (none of which are sudden; the tenets of this plan have been discussed for more than a decade; some even started under prior administrations) but above all else, the one that seems most prevalent is that the plan attempts to accomplish the same goals as earlier programs, but through a new approach, in an effort to avoid the pitfalls and failures that have plagued NASA for four decades. The Vision for Space Exploration, like the Space Exploration Initiative and even Space Station Freedom all faltered for similar reasons: lack of budgetary support by the administrations that proposed them, but also "bold" proclamations backed no political support, and artificial time lines with no clear explanation as to the "why," only the (vague) "how." This plan at least breaks from that mold, establishing programs that fit the (increased) budget provided, and offering a clear definition as to "why" -- to extend our capability to explore multiple space destinations while opening low Earth orbit to many more people at the same time fostering a new growth industry. quote:
Why would you care if you can process lunar regolith when you are going to Mars?
Granted, under the President's plan, one of NASA's manned spaceflight goals is to send astronauts to explore Mars, but that in no way rules out robotic exploration of the Moon, or for that matter, commercial utilization of the Moon. As cited earlier, NASA's charter mandates that the agency "seek and encourage... the fullest commercial use of space." Therefore, it is within NASA's interest to demonstrate lunar-based technologies that can then be applied to commercial applications. quote:
The first missions to Mars or an asteroid will not be "live off the land" missions.
And you know this definitively how? quote:
Yet again I will ask: why? You will have no use for it.
Well, there's a great reason to take the next few years before building a heavy lift launch vehicle based on a single purpose payload. As part of the research process, you would want to survey both manned and unmanned program needs and come up with a design that could meet as many different mission requirements as possible. Otherwise, regardless of how fast you build it, it will die an even quicker death (e.g. Saturn-Apollo). quote:
There is a lot to do: more Mars Landers, several sample return missions, building an orbital "launch" platform, having a Martian satellite communication system, developing nuclear propulsion, etc.
In other words, advance robotic precursor missions and breakthrough space and propulsion technologies... or to put it even more simply, fund research and development. It's a shame that the administration's plan doesn't account for that... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-21-2010 02:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
If they were in one place, just how much money could NASA pour into programmes?
My guess, relatively little would be saved. You would still need the same staffing levels, same facility support and infrastructure currently located at multiple locations to be duplicated at your proposed all-in-one Kennedy Space Center.With communication capabilities what they are today, the costs of operating across multiple locations is not as large an impact to the budget as it once was. Further, what happens in the case of an emergency if your entire space program is based at one location? Kennedy Space Center/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was located where it is to take advantage of the planet's rotation when launching spacecraft into orbit, but that also puts it squarely in the path of hurricanes. Houston is subject to hurricanes as well, but the chances of both centers being taken out in the same season is much lower than if all your proverbial spacecraft are in one hangar. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 04-21-2010 04:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...it is within NASA's interest to demonstrate lunar-based technologies that can then be applied to commercial applications...
I'm actually quite hyped about this possibility. If lunar exploration is as essential as the advocates for the old plan seem to think, why haven't we seen more interest in robotic exploration and exploitation of the Moon in the past? Given the lower cost of robotic missions, and the success of rovers on Mars, you'd think the Moon would be infested with various rovers, robotic stations, and remote processing plants by now. Even without a human presence, I'd think that near-real time HDTV coverage of a robotic presence on the Moon would be of considerable interest to the general public. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-21-2010 08:35 PM
Space Politics: Nelson makes a move for heavy-lift After President Obama spoke at the Kennedy Space Center last week, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said that while he supported the president's plan in general, "we'll change some things" in Congress, suggesting that accelerating development of a heavy-lift vehicle would be one of them. "I think we can make the decision much sooner" than 2015, he said. Wednesday, he took a step to do just that.Nelson announced that he had won an extra $726 million for NASA in the FY2011 budget resolution that was marked up Wednesday by the Senate Budget Committee, on which Nelson serves. The additional money, he said, would be used for continued work on a heavy-lift vehicle. "If we're going to Mars, as the president has said, then let's get going," he said in a statement. "We shouldn't wait five years." In comments during the markup, Nelson elaborated on this, suggesting that such a heavy-lift vehicle would be derived from the Ares family of vehicles that would be canceled under the president's plan. The additional funding, he said, would be used because "as we are confronting a program of testing a large-diameter solid rocket motor, which is critical to the Department of Defense, and of which is a good example of one hand of the federal government not knowing what the other hand was doing - Defense Department and NASA - and NASA goes in and cancels this test." |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 04-21-2010 09:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And you know this definitively how?
..Regarding my prior posted remarks:
quote:
The first missions to Mars or an asteroid will not be "live off the land" missions.
Poor wording on my part. I should have written "...the first successful missions..." How do I know this? Simple: KISS. You reduce risk as much as possible to assure mission success. Example: Look at the LM ascent engine. |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 04-22-2010 05:20 PM
Help me out here. How is Orion supposed to get up into orbit so it can rescue anybody? |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-22-2010 08:12 PM
Could someone tell me what the plan is for building a heavy-lift rocket? Obama cancels Constellation, where (correct me if I'm wrong) the Ares V was to be the monster. Also, it would have been a reality a lot sooner if enough funding would have been available from the start. Now NASA should start from scratch? What would be the problem if NASA continued with the Ares I and V? Is this possible? |
music_space
Member Posts: 1193
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 04-22-2010 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
How is Orion supposed to get up into orbit so it can rescue anybody?
Using a booster which is not man-rated. Any suggestions from the current inventory? |
music_space
Member Posts: 1193
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 04-22-2010 08:23 PM
I liked Ares because it recycled the SRB segments. I generally like recycling. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-22-2010 08:25 PM
An interesting take on the current affairs from Story Musgrave. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-22-2010 09:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Help me out here. How is Orion supposed to get up into orbit so it can rescue anybody?
The plan, according to Lockheed Martin, is to launch the Orion CRV on either Atlas V or Delta IV. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-22-2010 10:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ross426:
Also, it would have been a reality a lot sooner if enough funding would have been available from the start.
If fully funded beginning in 2005, Ares V would have begun test flights no earlier than 2019. If full funding for Ares V was to begin in FY'2011, its first flight would be no earlier than 2025, according to NASA and independent assessments.Under the President's proposal, construction of a heavy lift launch vehicle would begin two years earlier than the same for Ares V (2015 vs. 2017), but would still see its first flight around the same time, in the mid-2020s. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-28-2010 08:59 AM
Houston Chronicle has published an editorial by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden: It's time to focus on America's future in space How did we get here? Six years ago, all of us were excited when President George W. Bush committed NASA to traveling again beyond low-Earth orbit. Unfortunately, the necessary funding increases never came. On its current path, Constellation would not get astronauts back to the International Space Station on U.S. rockets until two years after the station's scheduled retirement in 2015. And Constellation won't get us beyond low-Earth orbit in any reasonable time or enable us to land on the moon again. Sticking with Constellation also would continue to put at risk funding for other critical national priorities, such as science, aeronautics, technology development and education.Before I ever was approached about becoming the NASA administrator, it was obvious to me we had serious problems in balancing our priorities. It was equally obvious it would take courageous action on the part of the president and NASA leadership to realize our dream of sending people beyond low-Earth orbit. To make this dream a reality, we must identify quicker and less costly ways to develop new launch systems. We must speed the acquisition process so it doesn't take a decade to make a new system operational. And we must work diligently with the commercial sector to help them succeed at providing safe, reliable, redundant access to low-Earth orbit while NASA develops futuristic capabilities to reach deep space. These changes will not be easy, but they are by no means impossible. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-28-2010 09:42 AM
On its current path, Constellation would not get astronauts back to the International Space Station on U.S. rockets until two years after the station's scheduled retirement in 2015. Constellation, then, should have been turned from it's "current path" and could have a viable program IF it were properly funded from this day forward. The proposed cancellation is in no way the only way to fix the problem. To make this dream a reality, we must identify quicker and less costly ways to develop new launch systems. We must speed the acquisition process so it doesn't take a decade to make a new system operational. This sounds like "Faster, Cheaper, Better" all over again... and we all remember how that worked out. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-28-2010 09:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
Constellation, then, should have been turned from it's "current path" and could have a viable program IF it were properly funded from this day forward.
Even Mike Griffin would tell you it doesn't work that way. He warned Congress during his time as administrator that if the long-lead items were not funded early, e.g. the tooling and piece-part acquisitions, then the delays would just continue to stretch out. According to NASA, infusing new money into Constellation now wouldn't significantly decrease the time it could accomplish its goals; it would only slow or stop the already existent delays from growing longer. quote:
This sounds like "Faster, Cheaper, Better" all over again...
To the contrary: "Faster, Cheaper, Better" was Dan Goldin's answer to working not only within the confines of NASA's budget, but doing more with even less. Bolden, nor anyone in or outside of NASA, is talking about accomplishing the current set of goals by cutting NASA's budget, nor, as was done to fund Constellation, having NASA sacrifice programs to fund others. Instead, this effort is to insure that NASA makes the best use of the funds it does receive, even as its budget is increased. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-28-2010 10:27 AM
This may be slightly off topic, but if Orion has been slated as a CRV and launched unmanned as per the President's program, then why are Crew Escape System tests continuing? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-28-2010 10:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
This sounds like "Faster, Cheaper, Better" all over again...
I think the new timelines specified by Obama (2025 for the asteroid flyby and 2030s for a Mars flyby) give NASA lots of margin to avoid error. In many ways, it's much more challenging than Constellation. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-28-2010 10:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by alanh_7:
...why are Crew Escape System tests continuing?
Short answer... they are not. Longer answer... funding is expected to restart in FY2011 to support two activities: (1) use of such systems on commercial launch services, and (2) use of such systems for a future crew exploration vehicle, likely to be based on the Orion CRV, for missions to asteroids, Mars and even the Moon (the President's plan doesn't rule out future missions to the Moon; it only places them behind achieving a Mars mission). |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1121
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 04-28-2010 08:59 PM
NASA Administrator Bolden spoke today to NASA employees at the Johnson Space Center. The text of the speech can be found here. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-28-2010 11:36 PM
Not impressed at all by Mr. Bolden's speech. A poor pep talk that masked the real message -- support the President's plan or else. I also didn't like "we can't go back to the glory does of Apollo." What does that mean? -- just accept the mediocrity ahead? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-28-2010 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I also didn't like "we can't go back to the glory does of Apollo." What does that mean?
No more crash program(s) like Apollo. And no more NASA budget to the tune of 5% of total Federal expenditures. And no more Apollo on steroids, either! |
advertisement