How long is the US-space-gap going to be?

[rcsplinters]

After my initial post, I got curious about what might be going on in the budget negotiations after the president's speech. In a word, I'd say chaos is in progress, the piece part funding of parts of Constellation seems to be on the table.

Seems like some would like more demonstration flights of ARES I per the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/science/23nasa.html

In that same article, Bolden made this statement: General Bolden said, “My gut tells me that Ares would be safer than anything else.”

Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (I think she's a democrat) makes this remark: “We cannot reinvent NASA every four years. Every new president can’t have a new NASA agenda,”

We all know that the adminstration has the most outlandish proposal of all, by proposing to complete a man rated Orion capsule with no man rated launch system to serve as an escape capsule from the ISS. We know that butts = seats already on the ISS, so we are left to conclude the administration either believe mutiny is so likely aboard the ISS that they are willing to spend a few more billion as a contingency or they will waste those billions on nothing more than political expediency.

There are also proposals to take the 6 billion proposed for commercial development and plowing that back into something Constellation-like.

From my perspective, this seems utterly out of control. We have the administration frantically meddling, the congress piecemealing solutions and a private industry eagerly encouraging more pork for them. We've gone from a viable but underfunded plan to a plan which may build the first stage of ARES 1 and bits of Orion while leaving out parts in the middle. Nobody is at the helm. The solution was dirt simple. Fund Constellation through ARES V and workout the mission(s). Expensive, yes, but at the end we'd have something. Now it appears that instead of rockets, we may end up paying hugely for nothing but parts. Again, NOBODY is steering the ship. Wasteful, shameful, disgusting.

 

[dgilsdorf]

Moonshot69: You seem to have missed some of the technical problems for Constellation. The reason that Orion was scaled down was that Ares 1 was not powerful enough to orbit the full-size version. If we scale Orion back up, we need to scrub Ares 1. If we insist on Ares 1, we are stuck with a scaled-down Orion.

In the 1960s and 1970s, we knew how to make systems work more than one way. Mercury launched atop Little Joe, Redstone and Atlas, without being specially designed for any one of them (and these repurposed missiles were certainly not designed with any capsule in mind). Titan and Delta evolved multiple configurations with variable upper stages, strap-on boosters and so forth. Apollo flew atop Saturn V and Saturn IB. A repurposed Apollo 3rd stage became our first space station.

Ares 1 would be a very limited vehicle, designed only to orbit the (scaled-down) Orion. Even if it works, it is a technological dead end, ill-suited to any other essential payload or to flexible configurations like the Titans and Deltas.

 

[Ruri]

A 2009 NASA report suggested a human-rated Delta IV would take 5.5 to 7 years to develop.
The same report thought the Ares I would be human-rated by 2017.
Lori Garver thinks commercial ventures will have one by 2016.

Which is the best or shortest route to get US human launch capability back?

The EELVs would only require the addition of a health monitoring system to carry crew.

LM stated Orion on the Delta or Atlas could be ready in three years.

As for Spacex I think they defiantly can have their crew vehicle ready in 3 to 4 years.
Sooner if several test flights of the LAS and Dragon capsule with full life support are funded now.

 

[RyanCole]

My bet is SpaceX will launch its first crew in 2013 or even 2012, and a LES test early 2011. I know that sounds very early, but I strongly suspect SpaceX has been working on their LES in secret for some time. My main reasoning is that after finishing the first Merlin Vacuum, they likely started on the LES rocket. What else would the engine guru's work on? That was over a year ago (though they had to do some rework on the Merlin nozzle). Since they expect NASA to fund this endeavor, they have been keeping it quiet so NASA does not think it can get away with not doing so.

Some say SpaceX's previous delays and failures as indication of future delays and failures. I tend to disagree. Considering what they have accomplished in such a short time, such a massively parallel project with so little money, delays were hardly unexpected and probably won't be as significant in the new better funded program with less parallel engineering taking place. It seems that their previous failures are unlikely to be repeated on the F9 too, as the F1 was a pretty good shake out for the F9. Also, any delays with the F9 are not likely to affect the Dragon very far into the future because the F9's high flight rate potential can allow them to catch up on flights quickly.

Lockheed with its manned Orion Lite is a trickier to guess. They have a lot more work to complete than SpaceX mainly because the Atlas man rating. I venture a guess of 2015 for Orion Lite, and 2012 for Orion Rescue. The latter vehicle does not need a manned rated Atlas, so it could be ready earlier.

Those are my predictions anyway!

--Ryan

 

[Ruri]

I think F9 will not have any staging issues because of all the trouble they had with F1.
They learned what to look for and will be extra cautious.
As for the engines Merlin has already proven it's self a very reliable engine.

 

[pmense]

Everything all depends on the political factor. If Obama and his anti-space coalition in Congress gets their way (and forget about the private sector taking over, that’s at least 10-15 years away and that’s if they even want to consider taking over what Obama wants them to do; they have no incentive to explore the moon or Mars for that matter; and launching into LEO, the US can rent space on an Indian, Japanese, Chinese or Russian spacecraft for less money when their manned space program is up and running, leaving the US behind in that capacity), then you could be looking at a gap of about 15-20 years. If the pro-space lobby in Congress tells Obama where he can stick his so-called new “Space Plan” and continues funding Constellation, then perhaps the gap will be anywhere from 5-10 years (I’m looking more at a 6-7 year gap). If Obama gets his way now but gets the boot in 2012 from the American people and the new President decides to re-examine the entire space policy that Obama had set up and decides that it is unrealistic and decides to go back to the previous policy set up by President Bush in 2004 (it was flawed, but was workable), then you will be looking at a gap of about 10 years (2020 at the earliest). I was hoping the shuttle would continue flying for at least another 2-3 years, by which time, the Orion spacecraft would be nearing completion and full-scale testing would commence before being certified to carry US astronauts back into space by 2015-2017. Unfortunately, that will not be the case at the present moment with this current Administration.

 

[Admiral_Lagrange]

What Space GAP ?

Are we talking about humans beyond LEO ? That started 40 years ago with the ending of the Apollo.

Humans in general ? The US has dominated the ISS and will most likely continue to do so.

Funding for space projects ? Nasa funding is now at an all time high.

New vehicles in space ? New vehicles are lining up and sitting on launch pads waiting for Nasa to get their butt in gear.

The Military in Space ? The military has been testing all kinds of vehicles and is about to litter space with weapons of mass destruction.

We're in a full scale race for space right now, so where do we get a "gap" ?

This is just another ill conceived forum on Space.com. But what the heck, Space.com is just a site for disrespectful children who come here for the enjoyment of attacking peoples beliefs.

 

[edkyle99]

Ed, so are you saying that NASA is using the old surplus ICBM's? or is it someone in the private sector? If so, I'm impressed that they are being put to use and not cut up and sold for scrap (like our old war birds were). Are the manufacturers still around, or at least their tooling plants and assembly systems? Makes sense to me that that is a good route to go for a private sector investment. I think the spaceship one vehicle is pretty cool for a tourist ride, but not sure about it's practicle use as a work-horse for lifting descent payloads up to LEO or to the ISS.
Thanks for the feedback!
- Ron

The U.S. Air Force and DARPA are the primary users of retired Minuteman and MX (Peacekeeper) hardware, but NASA has flown some payloads on these Taurus and Minotaur rockets as well. The original builders of the ICBMs have essentially been merged into other companies, but the active missile systems (i.e. Minuteman) are still supported by a set of existing contractors. The industrial base is shrinking fast, however.

SpaceShip One is suborbital only. It can't go to LEO. It has 15-25 times or so less propulsion energy than needed to get there and no heat shield to handle reentry.

- Ed Kyle

 

[Moonshot69]

Admiral_Lagrange

All of your other comments are really opinions which of course are yours. My problem is your comment with NASA's funding at an all time high. This one statement makes you not very creditable. NASA Funding was much larger during and leading up to the Apollo program and has decreased since then. NASA during Apollo counted for roughly 5.5% of the federal budget. NASA right now is roughly .5% of the federal budget. Because of INFLATION the decline of funding when you plot the dollar numbers on a scale of over 40 years doesn't appear that dramatic, but they are. I don't expect funding to ever be 5.5% of the federal budget again but to say NASA funding is at an all time high is not only ludicrous, its ignorant.

 

[Windbourne]

The speed of this will depend on NASA and Congress. SpaceX will be ready in under 3 years, assuming that they get the money. To be honest, I SUSPECT that SpaceX has been slowly working on this and will be ready sooner than expected. Now, with that said, Congress is going to work hard to get in the way of commercial space. Why? Because ATK, L-Mart and Boeing want that. HOWEVER, if NASA really wants things to speed up, then they need to get Bigelow going. Basically, they should buy the set-up from BA for a space station and put it into orbit. The reason for doing this is that once there is a place for paying customers to go, spacex will push to have lots of ppl up there. At that point, ULA, Boeing, and L-Mart will jump on this for fear of being left out of the real money.
Now, should Congress win and gets to hold back Commercial space, then all bets are off.

 

[vulture4]

There would be no gap if Bush hadn't killed the Shuttle and poured billions down the drain.

Obama added $1B to the annual NASA budget. Unfortunately many Americans on the right wing are so vehement in their hatred of Obama that they attack him even though he is giving them additional resources. And it could have been corrected if Augustine had immediately recommended the Shuttle program be continued. Obama unfortunately got conflicting advice from NASA. Supporters of Constellation wanted to kill any chance of keeping the Shuttle going, and they won out. Now, like greedy children, they have nothing.

We have to stop this political squabbling and identify a clear goal among ourselves. Otherwise we shouldn't be suprised if we never reach our goal, because we don't know what it is.

 

[menellom]

Everything all depends on the political factor. If Obama and his anti-space coalition in Congress gets their way (and forget about the private sector taking over, that’s at least 10-15 years away and that’s if they even want to consider taking over what Obama wants them to do; they have no incentive to explore the moon or Mars for that matter; and launching into LEO, the US can rent space on an Indian, Japanese, Chinese or Russian spacecraft for less money when their manned space program is up and running, leaving the US behind in that capacity), then you could be looking at a gap of about 15-20 years. If the pro-space lobby in Congress tells Obama where he can stick his so-called new “Space Plan” and continues funding Constellation, then perhaps the gap will be anywhere from 5-10 years (I’m looking more at a 6-7 year gap). If Obama gets his way now but gets the boot in 2012 from the American people and the new President decides to re-examine the entire space policy that Obama had set up and decides that it is unrealistic and decides to go back to the previous policy set up by President Bush in 2004 (it was flawed, but was workable), then you will be looking at a gap of about 10 years (2020 at the earliest). I was hoping the shuttle would continue flying for at least another 2-3 years, by which time, the Orion spacecraft would be nearing completion and full-scale testing would commence before being certified to carry US astronauts back into space by 2015-2017. Unfortunately, that will not be the case at the present moment with this current Administration.

1. Without a drastic increase in funding, Constellation IS dead. NASA would need at least $3 billion a year more to keep Constellation going at all... and that's just to get Ares I/Orion flying maybe by 2017 or 2018. Of course, Constellation also cuts funding to the ISS before then so we'd be left with a LEO rocket that has nowhere to go.

2. Ideally, yes, Congress will give NASA some extra funding to stretch out the shuttle program and close the gap a bit. Several members of Congress have put forward such proposals, Kay Hutchinson of Texas for example. I've even written my senators (Harkin and Grassley) asking them to come out in support of such a proposal. However, this is not likely to happen as Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) generally don't care much about NASA.

3. NASA's current predicament is a combination of its own fault, and that of essentially every Congress and presidential administration since Kennedy. Rather than being given long term commitments NASA's support shifts at the drop of a political hat. NASA's budget over the last 40 years has either been cut or barely increased enough to keep up with inflation. While I don't think Obama's proposal goes far enough, it's still better than the underfunded pipe dreams and slashed budgets preceding it.

 

[pmense]

Everything all depends on the political factor. If Obama and his anti-space coalition in Congress gets their way (and forget about the private sector taking over, that’s at least 10-15 years away and that’s if they even want to consider taking over what Obama wants them to do; they have no incentive to explore the moon or Mars for that matter; and launching into LEO, the US can rent space on an Indian, Japanese, Chinese or Russian spacecraft for less money when their manned space program is up and running, leaving the US behind in that capacity), then you could be looking at a gap of about 15-20 years. If the pro-space lobby in Congress tells Obama where he can stick his so-called new “Space Plan” and continues funding Constellation, then perhaps the gap will be anywhere from 5-10 years (I’m looking more at a 6-7 year gap). If Obama gets his way now but gets the boot in 2012 from the American people and the new President decides to re-examine the entire space policy that Obama had set up and decides that it is unrealistic and decides to go back to the previous policy set up by President Bush in 2004 (it was flawed, but was workable), then you will be looking at a gap of about 10 years (2020 at the earliest). I was hoping the shuttle would continue flying for at least another 2-3 years, by which time, the Orion spacecraft would be nearing completion and full-scale testing would commence before being certified to carry US astronauts back into space by 2015-2017. Unfortunately, that will not be the case at the present moment with this current Administration.

1. Without a drastic increase in funding, Constellation IS dead. NASA would need at least $3 billion a year more to keep Constellation going at all... and that's just to get Ares I/Orion flying maybe by 2017 or 2018. Of course, Constellation also cuts funding to the ISS before then so we'd be left with a LEO rocket that has nowhere to go.

2. Ideally, yes, Congress will give NASA some extra funding to stretch out the shuttle program and close the gap a bit. Several members of Congress have put forward such proposals, Kay Hutchinson of Texas for example. I've even written my senators (Harkin and Grassley) asking them to come out in support of such a proposal. However, this is not likely to happen as Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) generally don't care much about NASA.

3. NASA's current predicament is a combination of its own fault, and that of essentially every Congress and presidential administration since Kennedy. Rather than being given long term commitments NASA's support shifts at the drop of a political hat. NASA's budget over the last 40 years has either been cut or barely increased enough to keep up with inflation. While I don't think Obama's proposal goes far enough, it's still better than the underfunded pipe dreams and slashed budgets preceding it.

If Obama and his democratic cronies in Congress put forth stimulus packages that totaled $1.25 TRILLION dollars that has done absolutely nothing (banks still went under, unemployment still went up, car makers still losing billions, etc.), don’t tell me that they could not come up with measly $3 billion a year (if not more) to continue funding Constellation. I read somewhere that in one package alone (the omnibus bill I believe), there was $15.9 billion worth of projects that would do absolutely nothing for nobody (I believe one project, worth $25 million, was to be used for studying mice in Nancy Pelosi district). Wouldn’t THAT have been better spent on Constellation? I also read somewhere that around $3 billion is being given to shady groups, such as ACORN. Wouldn’t THAT have been better spent on Constellation instead of giving money to criminal organisations?

Unfortunately, Obama’s vision is a pipe dream that will not see the light of day, for it to is unworkable. He says were going to Mars, but only around 2030, 20 years from now (a very long time, politically). What’s going to happen in between? From what I can see, with Obama, nothing. He wants a “design” of a heavy lift vehicule by 2015. There already is a design. It’s called the Ares V. So, I agree with comments that I’ve read and heard over the last couple of months that Obama’s plan is a ”Journey to Nowhere” and that the US space program is ”Lost in Space” and in a few years time, the US will lose it’s leadership role in space exploration to such nations as China, India, Japan, etc.. Very sad for a nation, considering 40 years ago, they were sending men to the moon, and in a few short months, will be unable to launch a man into orbit.

 

[rockett]

If Obama and his democratic cronies in Congress put forth stimulus packages that totaled $1.25 TRILLION dollars that has done absolutely nothing (banks still went under, unemployment still went up, car makers still losing billions, etc.), don’t tell me that they could not come up with measly $3 billion a year (if not more) to continue funding Constellation. I read somewhere that in one package alone (the omnibus bill I believe), there was $15.9 billion worth of projects that would do absolutely nothing for nobody (I believe one project, worth $25 million, was to be used for studying mice in Nancy Pelosi district). Wouldn’t THAT have been better spent on Constellation? I also read somewhere that around $3 billion is being given to shady groups, such as ACORN. Wouldn’t THAT have been better spent on Constellation instead of giving money to criminal organisations?

Unfortunately, Obama’s vision is a pipe dream that will not see the light of day, for it to is unworkable. He says were going to Mars, but only around 2030, 20 years from now (a very long time, politically). What’s going to happen in between? From what I can see, with Obama, nothing. He wants a “design” of a heavy lift vehicule by 2015. There already is a design. It’s called the Ares V. So, I agree with comments that I’ve read and heard over the last couple of months that Obama’s plan is a ”Journey to Nowhere” and that the US space program is ”Lost in Space” and in a few years time, the US will lose it’s leadership role in space exploration to such nations as China, India, Japan, etc.. Very sad for a nation, considering 40 years ago, they were sending men to the moon, and in a few short months, will be unable to launch a man into orbit.

I have to agree. I have smelled politics in the whole thing from the very beginning, and the more they said, the more my suspicians were confirmed. The Obama Administration is just bailing out of manned spaceflight, with "pie in the sky" to apease the critics. The logic simply isn't there. We put men on the moon (from scratch) in less time than they are talking about to fly a HLV. Ceding taxi business to commercial is nothing more than gambling our national leadership in manned spaceflight. Of course, I have personal experience with that, I was at the SSC when the Clinton Administration took over and shut us down...

 

[sftommy]

Admiral_Lagrange

This is just another ill conceived forum on Space.com. But what the heck, Space.com is just a site for disrespectful children who come here for the enjoyment of attacking peoples beliefs.

As he who conceived this particular forum I appreciate and find joy in the generous liberty of thought that occurs in all Space.coms forums.

"Disrespectful" children ought to challenge dogmatic beliefs and freedom of discussion ought to persist, at least here!

I hope this space gap is short and if the discussions here will somehow increase it's brevity then I would ask everyone to speak up if not shout out there thoughts!

***no offense***
sftommy

 

[menellom]

I agree and have written many letters to many congressmen suggesting that some of $200b of the ~$700b stimulus bill that remains unattributed, be set aside towards NASA. What have you done to change the situation other than type up thoughtless forum rants about how you think Obama and his 'cronies' are all working in some diabolical plot to destroy NASA?

Take off your tinfoil hat and try taking action. If you're unhappy with the proposal and the current situation regarding NASA, come up with a better, realistic plan and propose it to people who can make a difference.

 

[rockett]

I agree and have written many letters to many congressmen suggesting that some of $200b of the ~$700b stimulus bill that remains unattributed, be set aside towards NASA. What have you done to change the situation other than type up thoughtless forum rants about how you think Obama and his 'cronies' are all working in some diabolical plot to destroy NASA?

Take off your tinfoil hat and try taking action. If you're unhappy with the proposal and the current situation regarding NASA, come up with a better, realistic plan and propose it to people who can make a difference.

MY Senator (Hutchinson) is already doing something. I don't think it's a "diabolical plot" just indifference, an "inconvenience" to this Administration's agenda, which is social programs not space exploration. It happened when Clinton took office too, I worked at the SSC which they shut down.

 

[sftommy]

The range of estimate posted here suggests 3-8 years before we have another human rated launch vehicle to LEO.

The political developments don't seem to be shaving anything off these estimates. Senator Bill Nelson is still pushing for Ares I development with testing on into 2014-2015, and NBC reports it seems increasingly likely this will happen.

 

[PistolPete037]

The range of estimate posted here suggests 3-8 years before we have another human rated launch vehicle to LEO.

The political developments don't seem to be shaving anything off these estimates. Senator Bill Nelson is still pushing for Ares I development with testing on into 2014-2015, and NBC reports it seems increasingly likely this will happen.

To answer your original question, I honestly think that at this point there are too many variables to say with any degree of certainty how long the space gap will actually be. Now that we know what the President has decided, we need to see how Congress ultimately reacts, once it gets past this initial knee-jerk phase of decision making. Even then, the whole attitude of Congress and the President could change if there is a significant shift in power over the next several years. It is only up to the will of the President, the Congress, and the people of the United States at large which will decide how long the space gap will be.

Speaking of which, I am hearing a lot of complaints from contributors to this forum about how any change made by this current administration could easily be overturned by the next. Unfortunately, this is the price we pay for living in a republic; every few years the nation as a whole gets a new course because we (the people of the United States as a whole) decided this. I am sure that under the leadership of a Politburo, a Dictator for Life, or a Dear Leader we would be exploring Europa's under-ice oceans by now. I, however, prefer my freedom of speech.

Therefore, we must accept our current system and come to terms with reality. All this talk of "if the President decides this" and "if Congress adopts this plan" and "if the American people vote a certain way next fall" reminds me a lot of the talk that was going on in the NewSpace industry back in the late '90s: "If only Bill Gates would give Rotary Rocket/Pioneer Rocketplane/Kistler Aerospace/Kelly Space and Technology $100 million, we could have a real RLV in five years." We saw what happened with that kind of thinking. They wished in one hand and crapped in the other and we all saw which one got filled first.

This is, essentially, the same problem that NASA has been facing for the past three decades. NASA promises the President these pie-in-the-sky plans and inevitably the costs skyrocket. And wouldn't you know it, when NASA needs more funding the most, it's time for a regime change and the new Congress/President, just to spite the old Congress/President, sends NASA back to square one. Instead of NASA wishing for pie-in-the-sky, they need to realize that inevitably, every four to eight years there will be a new administration. In other words, NASA needs to come up with an administration change-proof strategy.

This concept is going to be hard for NASA as it is going to - for once - have to live within it's current budget; expect programs to go longer, and cost more than it expected; and expect the budget to go down, not up. Now don't get me wrong, we and NASA need to continue to lobby for a larger NASA budget, but behind closed doors NASA should expect to get far less than it asks for.

So what specifically should NASA do? First it needs to continue the COTS funding schedule and discontinue the Shuttle. Yes, I know that this will lead to a gap in America's Manned Spaceflight Program. Unfortunately, this is something that we as space enthusiasts and as a Nation as a whole just need to accept. If preventing a gap was the goal, then it should have been the primary focus back in 2004. Six months before the scheduled retirement of the Space Shuttle is far to late to worry about a gap. At any rate, funding COTS will allow the COTS program to do what it was designed to do: be a stopgap in case the Constellation Program fails.

Yes, that's right, that was what COTS was designed to do all along. COTS was initiated back in early 2006 at about the time that the Constellation Program was showing strong signs that it was becoming too big to be sustainable under NASA's current budget plan. Apparently, some farsighted individuals in NASA realized that they needed a backup plan if/when Constellation imploded on itself. I want all of you out there that deride SpaceX to imagine a scenario where COTS didn't exist and the Constellation program still got canceled. Scary to imagine isn't it? I'm sure that such a level of foresight and thinking in NASA didn't go unpunished.

As for the Constellation Program, instead of being canceled outright, it needs to undergo a hard reset. The program, as initially proposed, was somewhat sustainable. However, the plan didn't take into account the inevitable weight gain that would occur. A system that allows for inevitable growth in the payload while using the maximum amount of Shuttle components is what is needed if we are ever going to get anywhere besides LEO. I personally favor a DIRECT v3.0/Jupiter approach as it is the quickest, most cost-effective solution around. However other solutions such as man-rating and growth-developing the current EELVs is also a plausible solution.

In summary, any new NASA plan needs to be designed to weather political change as well as development delays.


Damn, didn't realize that this would turn into a treatises on the state of manned spaceflight. I hope that this isn't TLR for you guys.

 

[pmense]

I agree and have written many letters to many congressmen suggesting that some of $200b of the ~$700b stimulus bill that remains unattributed, be set aside towards NASA. What have you done to change the situation other than type up thoughtless forum rants about how you think Obama and his 'cronies' are all working in some diabolical plot to destroy NASA?

Take off your tinfoil hat and try taking action. If you're unhappy with the proposal and the current situation regarding NASA, come up with a better, realistic plan and propose it to people who can make a difference.

Unfortunately, I have no senators or representatives to write to. I’m Canadian and American politicians don’t give a rats a** what Canadians think. I just happen to be a firm supporter of manned spaceflight and believe anyone who suggests that space exploration is waste of money and the money used for such purposes should be put into social programs instead (as Walter Mondale wanted to do) should de-evolve themselves backwards to caveman status and crawl back into their caves. I am a member of the Planetary Society and the best I can do is write to them what should be done (which I have), but unfortunately, they too believe that Obama is right with the “new” direction being given to NASA. I will not be renewing my membership with them when my membership expires next year for they have become too political for my liking, basically the same reason why Jack Schmitt (Apollo 17) resigned from the board of directors last year.

I also believe that Obama and his cronies, notably Bolden and Carver (who in my opinion are the worse NASA Administrators the agency ever had) ARE trying to destroy NASA and turn responsibilities of such endeavours over to private enterprise. All what’s been going at NASA since Obama took over is pure political motivation on part of Obama. That became obvious when experts tried to persuade Obama to keep Mike Griffin on NASA Administrator, or at least until Constellation was up and running at a respectful pace, but instead, fiddled and daddled for 6 months or so and then appointed Bolden as Administrator instead, who has been a disgrace to the Agency along with Carver. Constellation was proposed by President Bush and it is clearly obvious that Obama despises Bush and everything he has done, so, as a result, Constellation had to be scrapped, along with Bush’s anti-terror policies which almost resulted in thousands being killed in Detroit last Christmas and hundreds, perhaps thousands, being killed in Times Square this past week. If that is not being irresponsible, then I don’t know what is.

 

[menellom]

Constellation was proposed by President Bush and it is clearly obvious that Obama despises Bush and everything he has done, so, as a result, Constellation had to be scrapped, along with Bush’s anti-terror policies which almost resulted in thousands being killed in Detroit last Christmas and hundreds, perhaps thousands, being killed in Times Square this past week. If that is not being irresponsible, then I don’t know what is.

:lol:

 

[Lancelot_64]

I agree and have written many letters to many congressmen suggesting that some of $200b of the ~$700b stimulus bill that remains unattributed, be set aside towards NASA. What have you done to change the situation other than type up thoughtless forum rants about how you think Obama and his 'cronies' are all working in some diabolical plot to destroy NASA?

Take off your tinfoil hat and try taking action. If you're unhappy with the proposal and the current situation regarding NASA, come up with a better, realistic plan and propose it to people who can make a difference.

Yes !! we need to take more action I have personally written to the President on the White House homepage. Go to the source - being direct never hurts. http://www.whitehouse.gov. Also, dont fool yourself Menellom a President who is concerned over public opinion has means to browse many forums to data mine useful public opinion information.. SDC being a leader in space news and open forums may be high on his list.. You can deny no more than I can claim : )

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

People keep talking about man rating the Atlas V or Delta IV, and how simple it would be, so why would it take 4-5 years?!