|
Author
|
Topic: [Discussion] The President's revised plan for NASA
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-05-2010 07:15 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
NASA's plans come across as uninspiring, boring and something that will simply not happen.
Leaving LEO is what I want NASA astronauts to do (and I'm assuming you do as well). What's "uninspiring" about them visiting asteroids or flying-by Mars? If it doesn't happen, then it will only be because of attitudes like yours. And the "boring" actions of US politicians determined to flog a dead horse (namely Constellation). |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-05-2010 07:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There is definitely a 'now or never' attitude that is at odds with successfully staging long range projects such as space exploration.
I agree with you again Robert, the public is impatient and doesn't realize the long term commitment that even an unmanned project takes. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 05-05-2010 09:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It has been the lack of long range planning that has put us in the position we are in today. This "But I want it now!" attitude is doing a far better job killing NASA than any multi-decade proposal.
No, I assert it was a lack of long term funding that put us in the position we are in today.I realize that no matter what I or anyone else says, you (Robert) will be steadfastly behind the President's plan. That's fine. But to suggest there was a lack of vision in the former President's Constellation plan but President Obama plan is chock full of vision is disingenuous. President Obama's plan contains a great deal of promise (if it remains on track in subsequent Administrations, which is unlikely, and if it remains funded), but it also carries a great deal of risk -- both for the US space program and for the companies who are being relied upon to carry the mantle for US space exploration. Some venture capitalists will play, but ultimately the US government will have to assume a large portion of that risk. Unless, of course, the contractors are deemed "not too big to fail". |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-05-2010 10:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
But to suggest there was a lack of vision in the former President's Constellation plan...
There was vision, I'll in all honesty agree with you on that, but there wasn't a long range plan. The roadmap for Constellation ended with the lunar outpost being completed, circa 2025.For all the talk of "Moon, Mars and Beyond," Constellation was solely focused on the Moon -- in the name of learning how to work on Mars, but not how to get there (let alone anywhere beyond). Constellation might have taken us to the Moon but it would have left us there, with no low Earth orbit, Mars or "Beyond" foothold on the horizon. (Incidentally, I am not "steadfastly behind the President's plan" -- I do support parts of it, many which were started long before this administration.) |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 05-05-2010 10:36 AM
Does it not make sense to have a vision that goes out to 20 years with specific goals to be achieved, rather than making long term plans that go out to the 2030's, long after the architect of the vision no longer has any control in implementing that vision?I don't know whether Constellation was the right way to go or not. Maybe it makes sense to discard much of the $9B already spent on it. The main concern I have (and, I suspect, my concern is shared by many others on this forum) is that the President's plan relies so heavily on private companies to conduct spaceflight while spaceflight is still truly in its infancy. We are not talking about private companies providing airlift to move troops to Afghanistan -- we are talking about putting humans into earth orbit and beyond. In a few hundred years, maybe the technology will be mature enough that many people will own vehicles to take them on suborbital flights to Europe in half an hour -- by that time, the technology will be developed enough that the concept would make sense. But right now, the corporate risks are increduibly high, and the costs are incredibly high. Any wise CEO is going to look for assurances (in writing) from NASA that they will be compensated in the event of failures so that their shareholders will not lose money. Failing that, any wise corporation will run far, far away. As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, and if I am I will come here and admit it. But I believe this will play out over the next few years, and a future administration will abandon it as a concept that was too far ahead of its time. And if I am correct, we will have lost 4-5 years (or more) of spacecraft development time in the process. And NASA will have lost much of its brainpower in the interim. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-05-2010 10:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Does it not make sense to have a vision that goes out to 20 years with specific goals to be achieved, rather than making long term plans that go out to the 2030's, long after the architect of the vision no longer has any control in implementing that vision?
I believe that it is a poor idea to have the President (any President) set specific milestones and time lines for NASA's activities for the very reason you cite: long range plans are negated by short terms in office. I also think that solely destination-driven goals are a bad idea unto themselves. I believe we should be building a spacecraft or system of spacecraft that can take us anywhere we desire to go (at least within the inner solar system). I think President Obama has started that process by turning over low Earth orbit to commercial companies freeing NASA to develop a vehicle capable of that goal. quote:
The main concern I have (and, I suspect, my concern is shared by many others on this forum) is that the President's plan relies so heavily on private companies to conduct spaceflight while spaceflight is still truly in its infancy.
This is the contention that I do not and cannot understand. Commercial companies have been building manned spacecraft for 50 years, and regardless of whether we're talking about SpaceX or Boeing today, both have exponentially more experience to draw upon than McDonnell Aircraft had designing Mercury or North American had building the Apollo command module (to say nothing of Grumman developing the lunar module).Fifty years after the Wright Brothers first flew, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people were flying. Fifty years after the first human spaceflight, there will still be less than 1,000 people who have exceeded 62 miles altitude. Yes, spaceflight is more complicated but if we really want the pace of exploration to pick up, we need to start involving many, many more people in the process. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-05-2010 11:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
if we really want the pace of exploration to pick up, we need to start involving many, many more people in the process.
This I think we can all agree on, but it should not be done at the cost of hitching rides with the Russians until commercial crew becomes feasible. The Russians understand fully the position they are in, and will take full advantage when it comes time to negotiate further seats. If comm crew falls behind for technical or financial reasons, the outcome is clear. Our partnership with Russia and the other countries on ISS has been historic and beneficial. I think this is the way we will explore space from now on. But where would we be today if Soyuz were not an option? Would Bush have retired the shuttle without a replacement? Would we have accelerated the development of a U.S. government owned or commercial transportation system? The risks here are very, very high. If these companies were so eager to develop a system, then they should have been doing so a long time ago at their own risk while we still had a viable U.S. option. And now we see the purely politically- driven change to build a stripped-down Orion as a lifeboat(?), theoretically easing the challenge to the privateers in building a long duration crew capsule(?) The space shuttle was designed by a Capitol Hill committee, and look at what the move to SRB's and an ET caused. Allowing political motivation (votes in CA and FL) to drive the design requirements for, now multiple spacecraft, epitomizes the reality of what we have undertaken here. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 05-05-2010 11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I don't know whether Constellation was the right way to go or not. Maybe it makes sense to discard much of the $9B already spent on it.
I wouldn't want to minimize the impact of "wasting" $9B, but to put it into a bit of perspective, that's about as much as we spend on the Iraq war in a month. As costly missteps go, it wouldn't be the first that the US has ever made, and certainly not the most expensive. And the reason I put "wasting" in quotes is because I doubt that very much of the work that was paid for with that $9B is being discarded under the president's plan. It's more likely that much of it will be incorporated into future endeavors. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-05-2010 01:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
This I think we can all agree on, but it should not be done at the cost of hitching rides with the Russians until commercial crew becomes feasible.
Even had Orion been on schedule, even had we extended the space shuttle, the plan was always to fly our ISS-bound astronauts on Soyuz. So little has changed in that regard. quote:
Would Bush have retired the shuttle without a replacement?
Bush did retire the shuttle without a replacement. It was his call to end the program in 2010 knowing there would be a gap (of two to three years as projected in 2005). quote:
If these companies were so eager to develop a system, then they should have been doing so a long time ago at their own risk while we still had a viable U.S. option.
What incentive was there for Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and others to develop a private vehicle when they could compete for a cost-plus contract?As for Space X, Elon Musk founded the company in 2002 with the intent from the start to launch humans. That was four years before NASA awarded the COTS (cargo-only) contract. quote:
And now we see the purely politically-driven change to build a stripped-down Orion as a lifeboat(?), theoretically easing the challenge to the privateers in building a long duration crew capsule(?)
I agree that Orion's return was political, but it was a good move just the same. It does ease the initial requirements on commercial vehicles by not requiring they stay on-orbit for six months. And it provides a platform for furthering exploration vehicle designs. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 05-05-2010 03:53 PM
I am certain my response will have absolutely no impact on anyone's position, but here goes. This will be my last post in this thread for a long, long time ...simply because it is a pointless pursuit. quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I believe that it is a poor idea to have the President (any President) set specific milestones and time lines for NASA's activities for the very reason you cite: long range plans are negated by short terms in office.
Short, medium, and long term goals are essential for the success of any organization. They focus the activities of the organization and its members. I would ask you to name a single large organization that is successful without setting specific goals (DoD? Amazon.com? Microsoft? Nope... maybe you can think of some though...), but there is no point since I won't be back to this thread to point out how whatever organization you name actually did have specific goals. quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I also think that solely destination-driven goals are a bad idea unto themselves.
Mark my words: a program without a destination, one that "can take us anywhere we desire to go (at least within the inner solar system)" ...will end up taking us nowhere. Once again, I hope I am wrong. quote:
This is the contention that I do not and cannot understand. Commercial companies have been building manned spacecraft for 50 years, and regardless of whether we're talking about SpaceX or Boeing today, both have exponentially more experience to draw upon than McDonnell Aircraft had designing Mercury or North American had building the Apollo command module (to say nothing of Grumman developing the lunar module).
Let me help you to understand the point I am trying to make regarding commercial companies not having the experience to make this program work. Let's use your Mercury/Gemini/Apollo example.When the fire occurred on Apollo 1, if the program had been a commercial one (with North American providing commercial launch services to NASA for sending men to the moon), do you really think North American would have survived? Maybe they would if NASA accepted all the risk and pumped more money into the program to re-design it -- but then, North American wouldn't be providing commercial launch services anymore, would they? If a company has a few failures, NASA will have to either abandon them or bail them out. If it becomes too expensive for a company to continue its program, NASA will either have to abandon them or bail them out. When we get services from contractors on things such as DoD contracts, we are purchasing a proven service. We can contract for a B-747 through Omini International or an L-1011 through someone else -- whomever provides the best price or the most timely service. That capability simply does not exist at the moment for spaceflight, and wishing it were so does not make it so. quote:
Yes, spaceflight is more complicated but if we really want the pace of exploration to pick up, we need to start involving many, many more people in the process.
We do need to get many more people and much more stuff into space before it becomes routine enough to be commercially viable ...or, is it that it needs to become commercially viable before we can get more people and stuff into space? I think it is the latter. Well, that's about the best that I can do. My comments will have no impact on the true believers, and that's okay. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-05-2010 05:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Even had Orion been on schedule, even had we extended the space shuttle, the plan was always to fly our ISS-bound astronauts on Soyuz. So little has changed in that regard.
ALOT has changed! We were going to fly on Soyuz for a limited time, while a viable alternative was well underway. The current plan is indefinite, and given the risks may result in the sole means of transport over ISS's lifespan. quote:
It was his call to end the program in 2010 knowing there would be a gap (of two to three years as projected in 2005)
Again, a very limited gap. Retiring the shuttle was the right decision. Not properly funding Constellation was a bad one, but not one which one could not recover from. $50 million per seat adds up real quick. It will get there and maybe even higher. That's money which could have been much better spent fixing our own program and not outsourcing more jobs to contractors and foreign countries. quote:
What incentive was there for Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and others to develop a private vehicle when they could compete for a cost-plus contract?
The same incentive as there is now, but at their own risk and in the end, to reap their own reward. Aerospace, like any other industry, needs to identify a demand, find a niche, and develop a solution to fill it. Boeing staked the entire company several times in its' history, most notably on the 747 program. They were confident that there was a need, developed a quality product, and look at it today. No government funding there. quote:
As for SpaceX, Elon Musk founded the company in 2002 with the intent from the start to launch humans. That was four years before NASA awarded the COTS (cargo-only) contract.
We need more like him. I eagerly await the results. quote:
I agree that Orion's return was political, but it was a good move just the same. It does ease the initial requirements on commercial vehicles by not requiring they stay on-orbit for six months. And it provides a platform for furthering exploration vehicle designs.
It lowers the bar for the outsourced privateers. In a discussion centered on crew safety, it allows them to build a less-robust product with less stringent safety measures. I know something about this subject, and while the message is invariably "Safety is Priority #1" in reality it rarely is when a commercial entity exists primarily to make a profit. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-06-2010 12:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I still say we need to ditch the ISS asap and start from scratch.
Again?!? Apollo was built, then scratched. Now the shuttle will be scratched. And the ISS should follow the same path?The space station should have been up and running 35 years ago (in hindsight it's always easier), but I'm not sure you can afford to start from scratch (let alone why) and why throw away hardware that is working (Apollo and Shuttle)? quote:
NASA is broken and the only way to fix it is to tear it down and start over.
I never understood the argument "NASA is broken." It's underfunded and asked to accomplish too many things or both. Is NASA the problem or is it the inability/unwillingness to properly fund it with achievable goals over a period of time longer than an electoral mandate? |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2235
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-06-2010 02:38 AM
It's got to be the lack of funding and perhaps will of the majority that's the problem. Although some specific goals would also be a terrific motivator! |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-06-2010 11:52 PM
I also don't understand the idea that NASA is "broken." For all the lack of direction it gets from the power brokers and the lack of funding, it does accomplish the missions it gets. Surveys taken by the government from time to time also rank NASA as havinga high level of job satisfaction among its employees. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-08-2010 11:01 PM
Jay Barbree is reporting this on MSNBC: Nelson has arranged a high-profile Senate hearing on the future of U.S. human spaceflight for May 12, just two days before the shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to lift off on its final trip to the International Space Station. Among those who may testify are Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, the first man and the last man to walk on the moon. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-08-2010 11:15 PM
An interesting quote from Mike Griffin: "Some $6 billion are allocated in the president's budget to develop commercial space flight," Griffin said. "I want this deal. I want somebody to give me billions of dollars up front for me to go and develop a transportation capability that does not exist, and when I get done developing it I still own it, and you, the government, have to come rent it from me. I want that deal. I don't understand how it's commercial, but I want it." The same could be said for the resurrection of Orion... a political concession in the near term, but ultimately a taxpayer-funded product that can be sold, rented, or leased for the great profit of the manufacturer. That is, of course, unless Uncle Sam gets "exclusive rights" under the contract. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-08-2010 11:36 PM
Griffin casts aspersions, but his views can also be seen to be "drivel."Under his watch, Constellation timelines meandered. Under his watch, there was only Ares I and no alternative system allowed (Atlas V, Delta IV, etc). Under his watch, no shuttle or ISS extensions. Is he just an ex-Bush appointee whose bitter? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-09-2010 12:00 AM
Doesn't it all boil down to money?Constellation wasn't properly funded from day one, so I don't know where the money would have come from to design alternative systems and/or extension of shuttle and ISS operations. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-09-2010 12:15 AM
"I don't understand how it's commercial, but I want it." Of course Griffin wants it, he initiated it. NASA's COTS program began under Griffin's lead and from the very start it included a COTS-D commercial crew option. Here's another quote from Griffin, delivered in December 2008: I've been asked on many occasions for my opinion on commercial crew transportation to ISS. We've made an initial $500 million dollar bet on commercial cargo service capability to ISS. That is actually the more critical need, and while I certainly wish that I had more money to invest in developing COTS crew capability -- and many other things -- I think it unwise to raid other accounts to increase our bet on COTS crew capability. So Griffin should be happy -- NASA got exactly what he asked for: more money for COTS crew capability without raiding other accounts. The proposed $6 billion is an increase to NASA's budget, not, as Constellation had been funded, borrowed from other programs... |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-09-2010 02:31 AM
Robert - without raiding other accounts? And Griffin must be happy? You've protested any criticism of Bolden's sincerity yet you instantly dismiss Grffin's statement.I am at a real loss to understand your motives for engaging in what amounts to pre-emptive revisionism, in the cause of quieting all dissent on this subject. Like it or not your voice carries more weight than others on here. You've muddied your personal and editorial roles on this issue by stating several times that you haven't shared your personal opinion of the new direction - while posting as one of it's fiercest advocates. The closing statements you've made as you've shut threads and the agenda you've put forward with the title of new threads have greatly added to this sense of the debate being managed with very little neutrality. So who are we arguing with here - collectSPACE Admin or Robert Pearlman? I'd appreciate if it one or the other stepped out and put themselves firmly behind the argument you're making. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-09-2010 07:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
I am at a real loss to understand your motives for engaging in what amounts to pre-emptive revisionism...
Ah, I love the smell of argumentum ad hominem in the morning...Quoting Griffin's own words is not revisionism. He, as administrator, directed NASA to hire commercial launch services. He is now speaking out against it as if he didn't advocate for the very same thing. That's not dismissing Griffin's sincerity, that's pointing out a contradiction in his public statements. If you can produce a similar contradictory stance held by Bolden against human spaceflight (as he was charged and I defended), please cite it. As for my position with regards to the policy, I earlier wrote, "I do support parts of it, many which were started long before this administration." If I am a "fierce advocate" it is only for upholding the history behind the various aspects of the plan. So, if I am acting as an advocate, then it is neither on the part of myself or collectSPACE, but that of history. If you disagree with the history I cite, then please offer up your own examples. (Incidentally, I have only closed one discussion thread [in light of the President's plan being revised], and the subject lines are either all member suggested or based on the title of NASA-released documents.) |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-09-2010 09:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If you can produce a similar contradictory stance held by Bolden against human spaceflight (as he was charged and I defended), please cite it.
As discussed previously in the thread, Bolden had to revise his earlier statements regarding the new direction, leading to much of the mistrust aimed his way. But of course in your narrative that is endorsed as a clarification. quote:
So, if I am acting as an advocate, then it is neither on the part of myself or collectSPACE, but that of history.
Lofty ambition; I'll cite your closing statement from the previous thread, posted as Admin (the presumably neutral facet of your cS role) - With the original proposal for NASA's future revised by the White House, including the continuation of Constellation programs, this topic is now closed to new replies. This is true - but only by the narrowest lawyer's reading of the propaganda coming out of Bolden's NASA. It is not remotely the level of truth that any worthwhile historian would be comfortable with. Nor is it the common sense truth that the majority of the world's media saw when they looked at the story. Why should you be serving cS with anything less? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-09-2010 09:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
Nor is it the common sense truth that the majority of the world's media saw when they looked at the story.
Every newspaper, magazine, TV news report and blog that I saw reported that the President released a revised plan, which was the reason stated why the older topic was closed and this new thread began. There was no ulterior motive; it was simply to keep organized the pre- and post-revision discussions. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-09-2010 10:20 AM
Surely the US president is allowed to amend or revise his space policy as and when he sees fit to do so?Let's remember that most of Obama's critics and opponents are as uncompromising as they accuse him of being. Yet he has compromised (Orion), and may yet again (shuttle extension). I recall that very, very few US politicians lobbied Bush for either a shuttle extension or increase in Constellation's funding, and were ignored. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-10-2010 09:20 AM
It struck me as fairly apparent that I'm referring to the disingenuously upbeat reference to the continuation of Constellation programs.Cancelling further development of an in-progress heavy lift launcher, cancelling a lunar lander program, cancelling a lunar spacesuit program and repurposing an in-progress spacecraft as a mere lifeboat represents an almost wholesale abandonment of Constellation - not a continuation. Is the history you wish to portray a matter of document-backed semantics or an accurate picture of the events? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-10-2010 09:35 AM
Matt, you are reading way too much into what was only intended as a brief closing statement. The mention of Constellation was only because of the topic's title. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-10-2010 09:59 AM
The intensity of my reading has no bearing on the inaccuracy of the statement.Anyway, we've reached the you're-taking-this-too-seriously phase of the discussion so I'm done. I'll limit myself to a factually inarguable 'Amen Altair' and let Constellation rest. |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-10-2010 12:44 PM
I've been arguing with moon landing conspiracy theorists for some time now, and it is a pleasure to be here and read comments from intelligent people haggling with much more respect for each other.I'm really in favour of going back to the Moon for several reasons. NASA needs to play catch up, or review all of the fundamentals of space exploration before a more ambitious goal is attempted. Yeah, they've been there, done that, but that was 40 years ago. The new spacecraft(s) need to be tested and doing something that's already been tried is a much safer way to prove the reliability of the new vehicle(s). |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 05-14-2010 08:00 AM
I agree with Neil Armstrong, the new approach by the president is flawed and it will allow other nations to overtake the U.S. I also agree when he says that President Bush's plan for a moon base was the right way to go. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-14-2010 11:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
I agree with Neil Armstrong, the new approach by the president is flawed and it will allow other nations to overtake the U.S.
If one heard what was said by the Russian Space Agency representative at the STS-132 post-launch news conference, Russian cosmonauts are not heading to the Moon or anywhere else except ISS anytime soon. In fact, it seems the Russians want to continue collaborating with NASA (and not hold it as a hostage to exorbitant Soyuz rides). India and South Korea have both said they want to work with NASA. Even China wishes to participate in ISS. So this argument, that keeps being cited ad nauseam by Constellation supporters, isn't just fallacious but completely baseless. If the US is so fearful that "other nations" will "overtake", then might I suggest that it's far better having them as partners than as rivals? |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 05-15-2010 02:48 AM
I can't say I've read all the posts on this thread, but can I suggest - at the risk of having my head bitten off - that everyone seems to be overlooking one thing that is essential if the US is ever to return humans to the moon; not just public interest, but public excitement.The public was mainly behind NASA going to the moon, not only to beat the Russians in the "Space Race", but because the dream of seeing people walking around on another celestial body had a real magic about it. Anyone who witnessed the TV coverage in July 1969 will know what I mean. But even putting human footprints on Mars will still leave the general public with the feeling that something like this has been done before. It just won't be the same as Apollo 11. Without public support over a long, long period of time, any programme to send humans beyond earth orbit is going to fizzle out. I know my view is a pessimistic one, but I still maintain that US (and eventually Russian) human spaceflight is drawing to a close, because in the eyes of Joe Public the programme has nowhere new to go. In other words, Apollo was a one-off. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-17-2010 03:34 PM
Two Apollo astronauts recently wrote letters in response to the President's plan: - Apollo 14's Edgar Mitchell wrote on May 14 a letter to the editor of the Palm Beach Post, in which he urged "President Obama to continue moon missions as an important flight destination for testing next-generation rocket propulsion systems" while expressing that he was a "strong proponent of a manned mission to Mars" and commended "Obama's decision to strengthen the private sector's role in the space program."
- Apollo 9's Rusty Schweickart wrote both Senators Bill Nelson and John Rockefeller on May 17 to "state my strong support for the proposed NASA space program as modified by President Obama in his April 15, 2010 speech in Florida," referring to the current Constellation program as a "dead end road."
Our current situation is akin to being on a dead end road. Instead of being on a path toward the goal we all seek, i.e. to regain our leadership position in human space exploration, we must recognize that we are (and have been) on a path to nowhere. We are confronted with arguments to ignore the clear signs of this sad situation and even encouraged to accelerate along this futile path. The alternative to this is support for the President's proposed plan. It recognizes and eliminates the waste of precious resources in the current program and heads us in a productive direction toward our desired destination. In other words, when you recognize you are on a dead end road, stop, turn around, and head in a direction more useful to your goal.
|
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-19-2010 07:06 PM
I agree completely that public interest is terribly low. The only thing Hollywood has produced is Apollo 13 many years ago. That's the part that bothers me. Blockbuster movies are more interesting than looking back at planet Earth and seeing a marble sized paradise.I disagree though, that if someone stepped, even on the Moon again, with better video and more improved live broadcasts, that people would eat it up. It would also shush up these conspiracy doorknobs once and for all, especially if a landing was close to an Apollo site. |
bruce
Member Posts: 929
From: Fort Mill, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 05-20-2010 10:48 AM
All we need to do now is get Tom Hanks to run for Congress. Hey, if Al Franken can get elected as a Senator from Minnesota, I think Hanks has a chance. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 05-20-2010 11:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
If the US is so fearful that "other nations" will "overtake", then might I suggest that it's far better having them as partners than as rivals?
I couldn't disagree more.Other than Russia, the other countries bring nothing to the table and Russia is more stuck in the mud than the US. The chinese have flown a whopping 3 (?) days in space missions. The ISS has shown that when performed as a collaborative effort the US still does the heavy lifting with people, money and rockets while being one of many voices in deciding how to operate and what to do (example: russians using the ISS as a hotel for hire). It's time the US goes it alone and receives the most bang for their buck. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-21-2010 01:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The Chinese have flown a whopping 3 (?) days in space missions.
And this is the country which has pro-Constellation politicians and Neil Armstrong panic-stricken?I don't think the US has anything to fear if that's the best its main rival has managed. Unless, of course, it's building a missile silo on the Moon.  I don't see anything wrong with the Russians exploiting ISS so enterprisingly. It's something NASA should have been allowed to embrace as well. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 05-21-2010 06:14 AM
It's a tough sell to the taxpayers and the media when they see taxes being raised and the Russians using the place as a Motel 8. The same can be said for flying Glenn and other politicians and teachers (on the Shuttle), nothing more than publicity stunts to prop up a losing battle with public opinion.That alone is reason enough for the US to go it alone in the future. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-21-2010 12:35 PM
Joint Statement by Space Organizations on the FY 2011 NASA BudgetWe the undersigned, a diverse group of organizations with a vital interest in our nation's space program, make the following statements: - We strongly support the top line FY2011 NASA budget.
- We believe an important goal of the NASA budget is to accelerate the development of the intellectual capital of the United States by investing in a high-cadence exciting program.
- We are excited by the increases in science, aeronautics and technology initiatives.
- We believe both human exploration and research are important: destination, milestones, engagement and story matter.
- We believe this is an opportunity for NASA to craft the exploration strategy in partnership with science and applied science that includes the International Space Station, safe and cost-effective access to low earth orbit, robotic precursors, and other missions. Heavy lift launch and in-space servicing enable new realms of exploration and science.
- We believe it is critically important that the American people can and must participate and be engaged in the journey of discovery and exploration.
American Association for the Advancement Of Science American Astronomical SocietyAmerican Institute For Aeronautics And Astronautics American Society For Gravitational And Space Biology Associated Universities, Inc. Association Of Universities For Research In Astronomy Commercial Spaceflight Federation Maryland Space Business Roundtable National Space Society The Planetary Society Space Frontier Foundation Universities Space Research Association |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-21-2010 02:32 PM
We believe an important goal of the NASA budget is to accelerate the development of the intellectual capital of the United States by investing in a high-cadence exciting program. High-cadence? I guess that means a fast-paced program doing all sorts of stuff happening in a short period of time.How does one characterize this proposal as "high-cadence" when our astronauts will be waiting in a loooong line for the few very expensive seats on Soyuz to ISS? In the meantime, NASA waits for the privateers to develop unproven craft from scratch? Oh, these groups must have unequivocally believed the very rosey schedule projections made at the behind-closed-doors presentation led by Ms. Garver. Here is the presentation that laid out this overly-optimistic timeline. Looks great on Powerpoint, but there are more than a few potential roadblocks I'll bet didn't get mentioned. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-21-2010 07:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
NASA waits for the privateers to develop unproven craft from scratch?
Under Constellation, NASA was waiting for a privateer (Lockheed Martin) to develop an unproven craft (Orion) from scratch.Under the President's proposal, NASA will be waiting for privateers (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, SpaceX, Orbital, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corp, etc.) to develop unproven craft (Orion, CEV, Dragon, Cygnus, New Shepard, DreamChaser, etc.) from scratch. Two differences: The privateers are investing in their own projects and NASA isn't putting all its eggs (astronauts) in one basket (craft). A cost plus contract does not magically make an unproven craft into a solution; it just makes it a more expensive vehicle. |
advertisement