Future of the Space Program

[jmilleratp]

This is my first post to the Space.com Forum, so I apologize if what I am asking is covered elsewhere. I did a search and did not find a thread covering what I wanted to discuss.

I saw what President Obama discussed at KSC this week, and have questions. Now, my viewpoint is that the United States has had a launch vehicle to ferry our astronauts to space for decades, and I believe we should continue to do so.

Now, I know that there is all kinds of debate regarding what our goals in manned space flight should be, go to the Moon, go to Mars, go to an asteroid, etc. But, my focus is on the Constellation Program and why it is set for cancellation.

Should not America have its own launch vehicle for its astronauts? I very much appreciate Russia sending our astronauts to space, but why should we not have our own launch vehicle? And, is private industry ready to take over this task? My understanding is that the private space programs are currently set closer to the edge of space, and not for the higher orbit of the ISS. Are there private industry plans to go to that higher orbit within the next few years? And, are they anywhere near the level of development that the Constellation is, timetable wise?

And, since the Ares test rocket was successful this past October, isn't it proceeding reasonably well? Couldn't we keep the Ares I part of the program, and worry about the heavy-lift vehicle later? It seems like the Ares I part of the program is going well. Am I mistaken about that?

I find myself frustated by this turn of events, and would appreciate whatever input you folks have. Thank you in advance!

 

[voyager4d]

First, this belongs in "Space Business and Technology".
And if you had read just a few posts here, you would have found answers for most of your questions.

This is my first post to the Space.com Forum, so I apologize if what I am asking is covered elsewhere. I did a search and did not find a thread covering what I wanted to discuss.

It is, apology accepted.

I saw what President Obama discussed at KSC this week, and have questions. Now, my viewpoint is that the United States has had a launch vehicle to ferry our astronauts to space for decades, and I believe we should continue to do so.

Of course they should, we all agree on that part.

Now, I know that there is all kinds of debate regarding what our goals in manned space flight should be, go to the Moon, go to Mars, go to an asteroid, etc. But, my focus is on the Constellation Program and why it is set for cancellation.

Yes, my focus is not on the destination eighter, I want cheap access to space, somthing that Constellation would have never given us.

Should not America have its own launch vehicle for its astronauts? I very much appreciate Russia sending our astronauts to space, but why should we not have our own launch vehicle? And, is private industry ready to take over this task? My understanding is that the private space programs are currently set closer to the edge of space, and not for the higher orbit of the ISS. Are there private industry plans to go to that higher orbit within the next few years? And, are they anywhere near the level of development that the Constellation is, timetable wise?

The answer is a big YES, the private industry is ready. First we have SpaceX with its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft. First Falcon 9 is set to launch within a month with a mockup Dragon spaceship. They will be able to launch people to leo within 4 years from now.
Som reading stuff for you: http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
And ULA can also be ready within 5 years with a Orion Lite spacecraft, launched from Atlas 5.
And then we have the DreamChaser spacecraft, witch could be made ready pretty quickly, also launched from Atlas 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser_(spacecraft)

And, since the Ares test rocket was successful this past October, isn't it proceeding reasonably well? Couldn't we keep the Ares I part of the program, and worry about the heavy-lift vehicle later? It seems like the Ares I part of the program is going well. Am I mistaken about that?

Ares 1-X was only a mockup rocket, 1. stage was a solid rocket from the Space Shuttle, not same design as the real Ares 1. It didn't have a working 2. stage. Estimates says it would be ready between 2016 and 2018 and cost over 1 billion dollar pr. launch. That is not what I would call "going well".

I find myself frustated by this turn of events, and would appreciate whatever input you folks have. Thank you in advance!

I myself am frustated, by how, so many think Constellation is the answer to all there dreams. The Constellation program was terminated for a perfectly good reason, it was to expensive, and thats is why i started this thread:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=23831

 

[jmilleratp]

Well, it certainly sounded like "Missions and Launches" was the best place for my post. Especially since we are talking about the entire future of the space program. And, when I searched for "Constellation" I did not find any topics that addressed the overall discussion of the future of the Space Program.

If Space X is ready, and Constellation isn't working out, that is fine. What would be good is if more PR efforts could be made to educate the public on how private industry can take the lead on taking these missions forward.

I try to follow developments on the private space sector, and most of what I hear regards the Virgin Galactic program. So, whatever can be done to show the public that someone like Space X is ready to go would put people's minds at ease, and would most likely avoid the confrontations we saw among our former astronauts this week.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Please spend a little time reading the SB&T forum

Welcome to Space.com.

 

[jmilleratp]

I'm on it like a bonnet!

Thank you for the welcome, I appreciate it.

 

[sftommy]

I think we all had some such similar rection to Obama's speech. I read it first and it all read pretty good, but when I watched his speech I found it depressing, especially when he spoke of returning to non-LEO manned space flight in the 2030s and stepping down on Mars sometime in the 2040s. To a politician such time frames usually mean never. As an American only a year younger than Obama, and not having a space-job on the line, the Obama speech was basically a "forget about it in your lifetime" speech.

Can China, then, mass produce space access faster?

Do we dare hope for that?

 

[sywuz]

When Neil Armstrong speaks out, that’s an event.

And now he speaks out in an open letter together with Eugene Cernan, the last guy that walked on the moon, and James Lovell, the commander of Apollo 13. And they are saying that the program that Obama has abolished — has cancelled — is essentially the end of man in space. It turns NASA into an R&D agency for pie-in-the-sky ideas like having humans on asteroids and ENDS its role as the agency that actually gets us into space, even low-Earth orbit and back.

Obama's NASA budget ends our manned space program.

Obama's NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy's liberalism and Obama's.

Kennedy's was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama's is a constricted, inward-looking call to retreat.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama wants to shut it.