CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR US ALL...

mattblack · Oct 21, 2005

http://www.space.com/news/051021_budget_fight.html ...Particularly for American SDC members. You guys have got to fight for your space program's budget. Anybody here who DOESN'T think we're in some kind of war for the future of manned spaceflight, think again. SDC members need to unite and not bicker over why SSTO or CATS might be better than ESAS or why tether and anti-gravity should get all of Nasa and the military's budget!! People here keep pushing long-dead barrows like the Venturestar and flavor-of-the-month exotic paper spaceplane designs, when instead they should be discussing how to all unite and get behind getting America's behind off the Earth and moving forward. There's got to be more to this forum than arguing over his or her paper spaceship fantasies. Help Nasa get the Shuttles flying again then equally help it start bringing the Shuttle era to an end and moving forward!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

If I feel that Dr. Griffin's "Apollo on steroids" is the wrong direction for America's space program, why should I get behind it? I just wish that I were either as intelligent and gifted as Burt Rutan or as rich as Paul Allen or Richard Branson, so that I could build my own "space plane"! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

No Buck Rogers, No Bucks. Without a maned program public intrest in NASA will drop to the point that the agency's existance will be the subject instead of just cutting it's budget.

wvbraun · Oct 21, 2005

The spaceplane-people failed miserably time and again over the past 30 years. Time for a new direction. And why should NASA pursue the development of exotic SSTO designs when people like Rutan and Musk are already working on much more practical and feasible methods to achieve CATS? If you don't support ESAS do us all a favor and at least don't try to harm this effort just because you don't like it.

franson_space · Oct 21, 2005

"CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR US ALL..." ....THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE SUBJECT TO GET PEOPLE TO THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT SDC MEMEMBERS UNITING WILL NOT REALLY HAVE MUCH OF AN EFFECT ON GETTING THE SHUTTLE FLYING WHEN IT'S THE HOME OF THE SHUTTLE BASHER, DON'T YOU THINK, OR SHOULD I STOP SHOUTING NOW? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

yurkin · Oct 21, 2005

Sounds great! So whats the plan?

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

"The spaceplane-people failed miserably time and again over the past 30 years. Time for a new direction." So many programs have failed not due to insurmountable technical hurdles, but rather due to changing political priorities and insufficient commitment from our nation's leadership. "If you don't support ESAS do us all a favor and at least don't try to harm this effort just because you don't like it." As if I have the power to harm it! If only I had that kind of influence and power... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

You are providing ammo to the people who want to kill off NASA.

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

NASA is providing that ammo...I'm just observing what should be obvious to everybody!

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

No NASA is finally getting back on the right track after wasting 30 years on winged wonders that didn't do anything but gobble funding and kill astronauts. We need a system that works, not another space plane money pit.

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

Well, assuming that the Bush administration's irresponsible policies don't cause our economy to completely collapse, you may just get your wish. So, time will tell how well the "CEV" system works...

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

Politicizing the discussion will only turn supporters of one of the political parties into opponants of the space program. That is a real good way to lose support in congress.

spacefire · Oct 21, 2005

The future of manned space exploration belongs to the private industry. The era of government funded space programs is drawing to a close. Out there there's riches and opportunities those stuck on Earth will miss out on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

I've been hearing that one for over 30 years. When is this going to happen? So far it's still ZERO private spaceships in orbit.

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

I believe that government organizations like NASA must continue to pursue advances in technology and exploration for exploration's sake. Private industry will utilize available technology to exploit resources, but it cannot take the place of government organizations like NASA for pure research.

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

You can't explore with a paper spaceship.

mattblack · Oct 21, 2005

>>So whats the plan?<< Well, gee. That's what we're all here for isn't it? We can discuss all this without thowing our toys out of the cot, because someone doesn't like our pet concept. Also, someone here thinks that putting capital letters in the heading of a post is somehow shouting. Well, gee, that never occurred to me. Obviously because somebody has a slightly different style of writing to yourself, that automatically means they must be wrong, eh? And therefore their comments mean nothing. Comment on the substance, will you? NOT the style. It's okay to not agree with the "Apollo On Steroids" (I wish Griffin had never said that) but I would strongly diasagree with those who oppose it: Let's look at the facts -- ESAS lunar will have TWICE the capability of Apollo for HALF the price. Also, the vehicle designs are excellent for getting the job done and have flexibility and upgradeability for future Mars missions. What part of THAT do you critics NOT understand? Why aren't you getting it? Oh that's right, I forgot! Several people on this forum MUST be smarter than Mike Griffin and have some secret stash of mega-billions to donate to Nasa to construct sci-fi fantasy spaceships, because an "Apollo on steroids" doesn't suit their aesthetic fantasies. Look, the Soyuz spacecraft aint sexy but it does the job, time and time again. And guess what: it's flying and so is Shen-Zhou. BUT NOTHING ELSE IS. Look, the T-Space CXV is brilliant and I hope to God it gets built. I'd love to see that thing servicing the ISS and any other space station coming in the future. Then the CEV can concentrate on lunar and beyond missions. These are hard times for America's manned space program and if we don't get behind the smartest Nasa Administrator in years and his fairly smart and frugal plan, America will end up with the space program it deserves. NOT the program it wants. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

"ESAS lunar will have TWICE the capability of Apollo for HALF the price." Still not good enough, imo, if that's all the progress we'll have made between 1969 and 2018. If we can't do better, then we need to focus on improved access to Low Earth Orbit, with much lower launch costs and higher reliability, before we worry about going beyond.

nyarlathotep · Oct 21, 2005

I'd much prefer it if NASA is never again allowed to 'focus on improved access to Low Earth Orbit'. Last time they did that, they killed off the rest of the US launch industry and left America with a $100000/lb boondoggle.

wvbraun · Oct 21, 2005

Well said. The private sector will give us CATS. NASA should go out and explore the solar system.

shuttle_rtf · Oct 21, 2005

>Particularly for American SDC members. You guys have got to fight for your space program's budget.< Targetting a selective audience is not the answer. Everyone has to be involved in showing support. /> Anybody here who DOESN'T think we're in some kind of war for the future of manned spaceflight, think again.< I don't remember when it wasn't, although "war" is a bit dramatic. Its always been a fight (back to when I got interested in space flight.) />People here keep pushing long-dead barrows like the Venturestar and flavor-of-the-month exotic paper spaceplane designs< I haven't seen those threads, any pointers as I've missed them. />when instead they should be discussing how to all unite and get behind getting America's behind off the Earth and moving forward.< What's your plan? I'm interested in your plan. Some on line centralised point for ALL sites? I don't know what your plan is but it would need a lot of thinking out - maybe targetting lawmakers? All seems like a no brainer to me (as in an obvious path) that we support the STS program through the 19 (or viable) flight manifest, make a solid and secure transition to CEV and SDLV and prove viability of the ESAS and VSE in tandem with encouraging private companies to beef up capacity for space related activities. I would urge caution in reaction to certain media reports - as I'm media and know that anyone - including myself - can take a well placed quote and cause some level of panic. Like I said, I'd be interested in hearing projected action rather than dramatics, so long as it's not the long-winded argument that some magic wand of cancelling the STS program now would actually be a good thing for anyone but the US Government's bank balance.

mattblack · Oct 21, 2005

>>Still not good enough, imo, if that's all the progress we'll have made between 1969 and 2018<< It may be in the short term at least, we CAN'T do better than 2018 to the moon, as much as that guts me to admit it. But America has to make use of the tech and infrastructure already in place. America CAN'T afford a clean-sheet HLV, there isn't the taxpayer money available in this day and age and that wont change for the better anytime soon. And the year 2010 is going to come round faster than we think, so a new spaceship had better be well underway by then. If we're all STILL arguing about it's concept in 2010, then it'll be game over. Columbus didn't wait for the 747 to be invented before crossing the Atlantic, he didn't say: "Ah, let someone else do it, let private industry develop it". No, he had to make do with what he had and approach Queen Isabella for the money. And the great ancient Chinese explorers needed their expeditions funded and provisioned by the Emporer and his treasury. Not private investors. Private investors and developments came later!!! I understand what you're trying to say, but the problem is, this is the same-old, same-old. How? You've got to out yourself a bit now and tell us HOW? And if you do, and reveal yourself to be a supporter of some esoteric plan that has existed on paper in fantasist trade studies again and again for years, then all we'll do is go around in circles. We can't break the Boeing and LockMart near-monopoly on business, only transfom it (T-Space pun INTENDED). Who here wants to see Boeing and LockMart go down the flusher? The damage to jobs and American technical infrastructure would be terminal. But I wish Elon Musk luck in his anti-trust suit. We need the innovators and private industries, for sure. But it's not going to be an explosive, overnight change. Show me where and how someone is going to raise 10, 20 or $50 billion bucks to make a private moonflight infra <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

I'm not happy with only having two biggies for NASA to pick from but the situation is the US government's fault. NASA started out with contracts for three different space programs in a few years. The Military had been upgrading it's aircraft on a regular basis dating back to the 1930s and had started missile programs in the 1950s. Then the government slammed the brakes on new procurement in the 1960s. NASA didn't order a new program until the shuttle program and the military was canceling new designs like crazy. Then NASA stuck with the shuttle design for three decades. The 1970s and 1990s saw major cutbacks by the military. Aerospace companies are like any other company, they need customers. If their biggest customer keeps cutting back orders they have two choices, merge or go out of business. There was something like a half dozen companies to compete for the Apollo contract. Now lack of business in the slump periods of government cutbacks has reduced it to two.

mattblack · Oct 22, 2005

You're right. BOEING = Boeing+McDonell Douglas, North American Rockwell, Raytheon, General Dynamics(?) LOCKHEED-MARTIN = Lockheed+Martin Marietta plus some others I can't think of just now. And of course, Northrop merged with Grumman and several others. With the military spending downturn after the first Gulf War, mergers downsizing and acquisition were inevitable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

vt_hokie · Oct 23, 2005

What are you talking about? "VSE" is not a profit driven enterprise, and I don't know what kind of "investors" you're referring to.

CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR US ALL...

mattblack

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

dobbins

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

franson_space

Guest

yurkin

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

dobbins

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

dobbins

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

dobbins

Guest

spacefire

Guest

dobbins

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

dobbins

Guest

mattblack

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

mattblack

Guest

dobbins

Guest

mattblack

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page