How can people lose faith in space exploration

[eldensmith]

wvbraun writes:<br /><br /><i>We don't need to spend more money but spent the money we have more wisely and that is what NASA is planning to do, thanks to Bush's initiative. </i><br /><br />Since we have not seen the proposed CEV architecture, isn't this a premature assertion?<br /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

No, since the CEV is designed with the budget constraints in mind.

 

[eldensmith]

<i>No, since the CEV is designed with the budget constraints in mind. </i><br /><br />How do we know it will be able to do <i>anything</i> within a reasonable time scale? CEV will be robust and affordable BECAUSE the mission statement says so? <br /><br />Is the CEV even designed yet? By whom? I thought a fly-off was planned for 2008 or something like that and CAD-CAM dreaming was as far as we have have gotten, or maybe warmed over OSP viewgraphs.<br /><br />This all reminds me of the old quip: "floggings will continue until morale improve"

 

[wvbraun]

It's simple, really. There will be no budget increases beyond what's currently planned. NASA will have to build the CEV with the funding it can get so yes, it will definetely be affordable.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"NASA will have to build the CEV with the funding it can get so yes, it will definetely be affordable. "</font><br /><br />Apparently you're the 'glass is half-full' sort...<br /><br />If NASA follows historic trends -- the CEV program will go more and more overbudget every year that it is under development. This will be handled by one or more of the following three actions:<br /><br />- NASA will beg for more money from congress for the overages.<br />- Other programs will have their budgets cut to fund CEV development.<br />- Compromises will be made in the CEV program which reduce costs at the expense of reducing capability.<br /><br />I really wish that I could add a smiley to this post to indicate that I was joking.

 

[grooble]

See, if they'd got mr morris to build it, he'd have a fleet of 10 CEV's built for like $1 billion max.<br /><br />Big Business are locked into a different mind set, a different paradigm than free thinkers like Morris, or Rutan. <br /><br />Gimme $5 billion and i'd have a man on mars in 5 years.

 

[wvbraun]

"Apparently you're the 'glass is half-full' sort..."<br /><br />I definetely am. Did you know that optimists life longer and happier? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[pathfinder_01]

Nah I doubt the CEV will go way overbudget . Unlike the shuttle’s development or the space stations there is a lot of history and a lot more ability to make good estimates. The major things that drove up the price of both the shuttle and the station are the complexity and the lack of a precedent to compare it with. It is hard to make an estimate on something when it is the first time it has been built. The only way it would go overbudget is if. <br /><br /><br />a. Somebody tries to low ball the price<br /><br />b. Somebody tries to add all sorts of options to it and drives it way over budget.<br /><br />In my view if it goes more than 30% overbudget then someone needs to be taken out and shoot. <br /><br />However I doubt that once NASA has a CEV we will be closer to going to the moon and mars. <br /><br />It wasn’t lack of vehicle that trapped NASA in low earth orbit, but lack of rocket. Space capsules are cheap but either building a new heavy lift rocket or using current rockets to launch a moon mission in pieces is going to be expensive. Congress would need to fund the development of a rocket (or something) to get the CEV to the moon and that isn’t likely to be cheap.<br /><br /> I also wonder what precisely will we do on the moon once we get there. Apollo 2.0 doesn’t sound that interesting and so you would probably need moon bases to allow the crew to do something more than grab some rocks and smile for the camera. Moon bases and the assorted cargo ships needed to service it are going to be expensive.<br /><br />In any event, until the price of launching something into orbit drops or some great need arsises. Sustained manned missions to the moon or mars are not likely.<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"It wasn’t lack of vehicle that trapped NASA in low earth orbit, but lack of rocket. "</font><br /><br />Um - no. It's the <b>existence</b> of a vehicle that has trapped NASA in LEO. Namely the space shuttle. Since the Hubble is about as high as the shuttle can go (and that barely) -- it will never get above about 700km. Since that's the only manned vehicle NASA has and it sucks up so much of their budget they can't afford another -- LEO is all there is for manned missions.<br /><br />So your statement:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">" I doubt that once NASA has a CEV we will be closer to going to the moon and mars."</font><br /><br />Is wrong on the face of it. Right now NASA has no manned spacecraft that could <b>possibly</b> make it to the moon or Mars. The CEV has those destinations as a design imperative. Once NASA has a CEV -- then a vehicle will exist that <b>can</b> make it to the moon (Mars -- who knows...). This obviously puts them closer to getting there than the status quo.

 

[halman]

mrmorris,<br /><br />The existance of the space shuttle could be construed as the inhibiting factor in NASA's ability to expand beyond Low Earth Orbit, but I suggest that the lack of adequate funding is the real reason. If the space program were important to the leaders of this country, operating the shuttle would be peanuts compared to the total budget.<br /><br />The United States is currently spending about 4 billion dollars a month on the conflict in Iraq. If space exploration were thought of as imperative to the survival of the country, (it doesn't matter that it is,) the money would be coming in. If NASA had only expendable vehicles, Congress would have chopped the budget to the point where any journey beyond Low Earth Orbit would be impossible. They are carefully providing enough funding to allow a small amount of activity, to demonstate to the world that our technology is still superior. But Congress has been reluctant to allow any kind of program which could increase costs at NASA, which is why so many design studies have been terminated when it is time to start building hardware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>