What concerns me is the money being diverted from space exploration to Socialist social programs. This country is declining fast both in space and defense. This is caused by two things, very weak economy and spending money the country must borrow. I don't see how on our present path any of these things can be changed. Just my two cents worth and worth every penny of it.
- Status
If we look at it from a military perspective, I think we need to put into place a backup plan. I think there is a good chance that China will beat us to the moon. Over the past few days, I read an article about private space companies. I don't see a problem with asking them for help. Lockheed has a reusable craft that we can use, but the military needs to declassify its visual details. Durring the latter part of the nineties, Lockheed had been testing a large orbital. It takes off vertically, and it can reach the ISS within a matter of a few minutes. Even though NASA is the public face to our space program, we have secondary military program. We have been feeding the program since the 40s, and it has produce more advanced shuttles than NASAs.willpittenger":2s21s8ts said:
If anyone thinks I'm nuts, here is a link:
Two-Stage-to-Orbit ''Blackstar'' System Shelved at Groom Lake?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 0606p1.xml
Even though the program has been shelved, that does not mean other programs are not online. Imagine how many other type of space shuttles we have hidden at Groom Lake. FYI - Notice that the article if from Aviation Week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spaceplane)
Very concerned, and mainly because most of the situation is avoidable. Please see the Direct Launch 3.0 proposal for details. The Ares project as originally envisioned is a good idea-
1) return to capsule-on-top-of-rocket designs for safety (no more foam strikes).
2) Use shuttle-derived hardware for speed and cost savings
Likewise, the Orion projest had some good ideas:
1)capsule design permits crew egress throughout launch (abort tower on top of capsule)
2) Capability for land and water landings.
Wel-- we have strayed from most of those and now we have a mess. NASA engineers went for a 5-stack on the Ares-I SSRB vs the 4-stack used on the shuttle. So- right off the bat, we strayed from "Shuttle-Proven" hardware. This lead to the Shaken Astronaut Syndrome issue. The engineers solved this by adding 6-tons of dead weight to the SSRB. This, coupled with issues related to the cryogenic 2nd-stage design fiddling have resulted in Ares-I not able to lift the Orion Command module as originally envisioned. The first thing to go have been safety related:
1) dry-land landing capability
2) redundant systems
Even with all of this, there are still concerns that Orion is overweight from the perspective of what Ares-I can lift. Curiously, no-one is even discussing this from the viewpoint that Ares-I is underpowered to provide the required capability dto achieve safety improvements. Michael Griffin's NASA was ***!!! PSYCHOTICALLY !!!*** committed to Ares-I (or The Stick as it has been called--- I prefer to call it The Shaft...)
Then there's Ares-V. I don't really understand why, but NASA keeps claiming that they need a bigger and bigger beast to accomplish the role of Ares-V (perhaps because Ares-I keeps looking like it will be capable of less and less?)
In what has become typical-NASA-fashion- costs are ballooning, schedules are slipping, and the sky is falling.
At the same time- small, agile, innovative companies like SpaceX and Scaled Composites are proving that genuine innovations in Rocket Science can be achieved within reasonable time and finance constraints. Elon and the rest of the SpaceX crew are poised to eat Lockheed's and Boeing's lunch- the Big Boys figured that either:
a) their substantial and well-earned reputations would carry their proposals beyond SpaceX's cost savings and / or
b) Elon's tiny little rocket couldn't possibly work.
(ha ha ha ha ha ha...........
) I figure they didn't actually soil their shorts until NASA made one of its few, really cool, truly inspired moves- they awarded the COTS contract to SpaceX. That was a *really* cool day.
The Direct Launch 3.0 proposal also falls into the "small, agile, innovative" arena. It is BY FAR the most workable design I have seen for a Shuttle replacement. The hardware they have chosen is much more "Shuttle-Derived", resulting in a (projected) MUCH shorter development period. Oh yeah- it's (projected) cost is significanty lower than Ares.
So- we have a new el Presidente, a new NASA administrator, and a new Presidential commission reviewing the status of Constellation, Orion, and Ares. The least we should be screaming to our Congressmen for is replacement of Ares-I with ANYTHING else. The Best we could achieve is total, outright replacement of the Ares Program with Direct Launch 3.0.
1) return to capsule-on-top-of-rocket designs for safety (no more foam strikes).
2) Use shuttle-derived hardware for speed and cost savings
Likewise, the Orion projest had some good ideas:
1)capsule design permits crew egress throughout launch (abort tower on top of capsule)
2) Capability for land and water landings.
Wel-- we have strayed from most of those and now we have a mess. NASA engineers went for a 5-stack on the Ares-I SSRB vs the 4-stack used on the shuttle. So- right off the bat, we strayed from "Shuttle-Proven" hardware. This lead to the Shaken Astronaut Syndrome issue. The engineers solved this by adding 6-tons of dead weight to the SSRB. This, coupled with issues related to the cryogenic 2nd-stage design fiddling have resulted in Ares-I not able to lift the Orion Command module as originally envisioned. The first thing to go have been safety related:
1) dry-land landing capability
2) redundant systems
Even with all of this, there are still concerns that Orion is overweight from the perspective of what Ares-I can lift. Curiously, no-one is even discussing this from the viewpoint that Ares-I is underpowered to provide the required capability dto achieve safety improvements. Michael Griffin's NASA was ***!!! PSYCHOTICALLY !!!*** committed to Ares-I (or The Stick as it has been called--- I prefer to call it The Shaft...)
Then there's Ares-V. I don't really understand why, but NASA keeps claiming that they need a bigger and bigger beast to accomplish the role of Ares-V (perhaps because Ares-I keeps looking like it will be capable of less and less?)
In what has become typical-NASA-fashion- costs are ballooning, schedules are slipping, and the sky is falling.
At the same time- small, agile, innovative companies like SpaceX and Scaled Composites are proving that genuine innovations in Rocket Science can be achieved within reasonable time and finance constraints. Elon and the rest of the SpaceX crew are poised to eat Lockheed's and Boeing's lunch- the Big Boys figured that either:
a) their substantial and well-earned reputations would carry their proposals beyond SpaceX's cost savings and / or
b) Elon's tiny little rocket couldn't possibly work.
(ha ha ha ha ha ha...........
) I figure they didn't actually soil their shorts until NASA made one of its few, really cool, truly inspired moves- they awarded the COTS contract to SpaceX. That was a *really* cool day.The Direct Launch 3.0 proposal also falls into the "small, agile, innovative" arena. It is BY FAR the most workable design I have seen for a Shuttle replacement. The hardware they have chosen is much more "Shuttle-Derived", resulting in a (projected) MUCH shorter development period. Oh yeah- it's (projected) cost is significanty lower than Ares.
So- we have a new el Presidente, a new NASA administrator, and a new Presidential commission reviewing the status of Constellation, Orion, and Ares. The least we should be screaming to our Congressmen for is replacement of Ares-I with ANYTHING else. The Best we could achieve is total, outright replacement of the Ares Program with Direct Launch 3.0.
I am mostly concerned because I believe that we have done so much already. I would genuinely be disappointed to leave our accomplishments behind in a way that shows we have not really learned from our own experience.
It took us 10 years to get to the moon. It has taken another 40 years to merely establish a toe hold in LEO. I belive that the government has panned-out on what it can accomplish.
The private sector needs to help us get the rest of the way. Orion is partly a mistake. Partnering with the private industry would have been a much better direction to go. Government budgets come and go. Real exploration can't live on a starvation diet.
If real commerce can be fostered and take hold (independant of government budgets) then the REAL adventure will begin.
Flights from New York to Tokyo in two hours, FedEx guaranteed delivery in 12 hours anywhere across the globe, and insane times for first responders to international disasters or crisis.
Companies that would like to re-activate some of their frozen assets in orbit. If NASA can do it with Hubble, I suppose anything is possible.
On orbit food production, power production, large scale waste recylcling, hotels for business travelers and honeymooners, foundries for moon ore, ship-yards (for mars mission, fleets of ion powered tugs), habitat construction (you can build sturdier/safer ones on orbit), even a junk yard for collected sattelites (our future Black-Sky initiative). All for the sake of commerce, jobs, and the hope of a brighter future.
The moon has resources waiting to be used. Who knows, the next gold rush may be on the moon!
There is money to be made. All we need is a good dose of American Capitalism to get us there. Rober Heilein said, Once you're in low Earth orbit (LEO), you're halfway to anywhere. I beleive he was only partially correct. If you can make money doing it you get alot farther.
We were able to make one of the first passenger jets in just 2 years total time from design to first flight. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, McDonnel-Douglas; you did this... We went sub-orbital in roughly the same time-frame; Why not a space-liner? It is about to happen again... We paid money to board the first jet-liners, space-liners will be no different. Around the globe or to orbit moving people and goods makes money.
Let's go the rest of the distance and bring on the future.
It took us 10 years to get to the moon. It has taken another 40 years to merely establish a toe hold in LEO. I belive that the government has panned-out on what it can accomplish.
The private sector needs to help us get the rest of the way. Orion is partly a mistake. Partnering with the private industry would have been a much better direction to go. Government budgets come and go. Real exploration can't live on a starvation diet.
If real commerce can be fostered and take hold (independant of government budgets) then the REAL adventure will begin.
Flights from New York to Tokyo in two hours, FedEx guaranteed delivery in 12 hours anywhere across the globe, and insane times for first responders to international disasters or crisis.
Companies that would like to re-activate some of their frozen assets in orbit. If NASA can do it with Hubble, I suppose anything is possible.
On orbit food production, power production, large scale waste recylcling, hotels for business travelers and honeymooners, foundries for moon ore, ship-yards (for mars mission, fleets of ion powered tugs), habitat construction (you can build sturdier/safer ones on orbit), even a junk yard for collected sattelites (our future Black-Sky initiative). All for the sake of commerce, jobs, and the hope of a brighter future.
The moon has resources waiting to be used. Who knows, the next gold rush may be on the moon!
There is money to be made. All we need is a good dose of American Capitalism to get us there. Rober Heilein said, Once you're in low Earth orbit (LEO), you're halfway to anywhere. I beleive he was only partially correct. If you can make money doing it you get alot farther.
We were able to make one of the first passenger jets in just 2 years total time from design to first flight. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, McDonnel-Douglas; you did this... We went sub-orbital in roughly the same time-frame; Why not a space-liner? It is about to happen again... We paid money to board the first jet-liners, space-liners will be no different. Around the globe or to orbit moving people and goods makes money.
Let's go the rest of the distance and bring on the future.
If you think about it for a moment, we are funding two space programs.
(1) NASA - Public.
(2) Groom Lake - Military
Even though one of the programs are going to be out of commission, we have the other program to keep us moving forward. Technically speaking, there is no 5 year gap.
(1) NASA - Public.
(2) Groom Lake - Military
Even though one of the programs are going to be out of commission, we have the other program to keep us moving forward. Technically speaking, there is no 5 year gap.
Five years isn't going to kill us, and to put things into perspective. We survived seven years with the Skylab-Shuttle gap, and after the Challenger and Columbia disasters it was a three year gap. Well, almost three years after Columbia but then again STS-114 was the only flight of 2005.
Anyway, the point is, there is no valid reason to be concerned. Five years is nothing, and heck we even have a ride this time around. Sure its 50 million per Soyuz, but consider that the Shuttle is 450 million per flight and that's just for the flight. We're not even talking about how much it cost to keep the shuttle program going.
Not that the shuttle is an option really anyway, all the vendors/suppliers have phased out of business which means they can't be flown safely beyond what is needed and in this case after ISS is completed, there will be no need.
Constellation needs our full support, that's impossible if we're dividing resources and man power for the shuttle. Stick to the game plan, pride isn't worth 450 million and unless someone offers a valid concern as far as the NASA-RKA relationship goes I don't see what the problem is.
Anyway, the point is, there is no valid reason to be concerned. Five years is nothing, and heck we even have a ride this time around. Sure its 50 million per Soyuz, but consider that the Shuttle is 450 million per flight and that's just for the flight. We're not even talking about how much it cost to keep the shuttle program going.
Not that the shuttle is an option really anyway, all the vendors/suppliers have phased out of business which means they can't be flown safely beyond what is needed and in this case after ISS is completed, there will be no need.
Constellation needs our full support, that's impossible if we're dividing resources and man power for the shuttle. Stick to the game plan, pride isn't worth 450 million and unless someone offers a valid concern as far as the NASA-RKA relationship goes I don't see what the problem is.
Tomorian":2bk2apw0 said:
Not to mention the Air Force will also be pushing ahead with the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle.
I am concerned, but I hope we can continue to rely on the Russians and their venerable Soyuz spacecraft for transportation to and from the ISS. I am also cautiously optimistic that that the SpaceX Dragon will be capable of ferrying crew and cargo to the ISS.
Having said that, we also could see the Obama Administration switch Orion to be launched on a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V, more likely, the Delta IV Heavy. This could cause a delay in the program. However, the Delta IV is probably a smoother ride to orbit, I have read there are significant problems with the "stick" design where Orion is launched on top of a modified SRB.
However, if we can rely on Soyuz and if SpaceX is successful at bringing Dragon online, the issue of transportation to and from the ISS could be moot.
Having said that, we also could see the Obama Administration switch Orion to be launched on a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V, more likely, the Delta IV Heavy. This could cause a delay in the program. However, the Delta IV is probably a smoother ride to orbit, I have read there are significant problems with the "stick" design where Orion is launched on top of a modified SRB.
However, if we can rely on Soyuz and if SpaceX is successful at bringing Dragon online, the issue of transportation to and from the ISS could be moot.
I'm very happy they're taking a "time-out" and having this Augustine Committee look at all the options. I love the Space Shuttle but it wasn't built to the original specs and even though they've fixed a lot of the problems it's still a dangerous and expensive hog. The CAIB recommended we move on to something else and I agree, we can't fly the Space Shuttle to LEO for another 10-20 years.
Now, whether we should go with Ares I and V or Direct II or III or a Delta Heavy EELV I don't know. I read the below report (see link below) by the man who's been reporting on NASA since the beginning and he sure seems to be convinced that Ares is the way to go. I don't know if he's right but I think he's made a decent case in this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31496353/ns ... nce-space/
I would love to see the civilian sector take over LEO and NASA go out and explore the Moon and Asteroids. That ISS needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Who gives a crap about the ISS and it'll probably be abandoned by NASA in a few years anyway. Get humans on a rock, moon, or planet other than earth, that's what I say.
Now, whether we should go with Ares I and V or Direct II or III or a Delta Heavy EELV I don't know. I read the below report (see link below) by the man who's been reporting on NASA since the beginning and he sure seems to be convinced that Ares is the way to go. I don't know if he's right but I think he's made a decent case in this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31496353/ns ... nce-space/
I would love to see the civilian sector take over LEO and NASA go out and explore the Moon and Asteroids. That ISS needs to go the way of the dodo bird. Who gives a crap about the ISS and it'll probably be abandoned by NASA in a few years anyway. Get humans on a rock, moon, or planet other than earth, that's what I say.
I am very concerned. I even more concerned; however, that the present administration is most likely interested in scrapping the program for the forseeable future.
http://www.spacex.com/media.php
Elon Musk testimony before the Augustine commission is on top of the media list. He is certainly planning on taking folks to space before 2015.
Elon Musk testimony before the Augustine commission is on top of the media list. He is certainly planning on taking folks to space before 2015.
"Who would you place your son or daughter on? Myself it would be Orion because I feel Nasa done more testing than SpaceX."
At this time, however, exactly as many Ares-1s and Falcon-9s have flown. Zero.
Now, I realize that 'testing' constitutes more than entire launch vehicles and payloads, but that's where the proof of the pudding tends to be...
At this time, however, exactly as many Ares-1s and Falcon-9s have flown. Zero.
Now, I realize that 'testing' constitutes more than entire launch vehicles and payloads, but that's where the proof of the pudding tends to be...
I have never like these gaps in manned space flight. We had a flight ready Skylab backup and with a little more
funding in the early 80's could have been launched to have a station for the Shuttle to go to. It's now in the Air &
Space Museum. After all we had at least three Saturn V rockets left after the Apollo-Skylab was shut down. At
least one of these could have launched a Skylab-2 but no funding was available. While risky the Shuttle's should be
flown at least twice a year till the new transportation vehicles are ready. Why pay the Russians. If a seat cost
50 million then seven seats are 350 million. For another 100 million you can launch seven with cargo. But it might be
already too late to keep them flying since contractors are shutting down. From several previous posts some people
have forgot some things. First of all the ISS was originally to be much larger and capable and ALL U.S. built. They were
building some of the modules when President Clinton said it needed to be smaller and and cheaper so we would have
to go with others like the Russians and ESA. That put more cost over runs and took longer to build. The Russian
astronaut that spent 18 month's on the MIR could not walk when he got back to Earth. The ISS is needed
for experiments in long duration space flight and how to live and work in space. That is what President Bush mandated
to NASA, to use the ISS to learn how to live and work in space. Without the ISS experiments we won't go to Mars or
beyond. For those that say it's taking a long time and costing money for the new program you have to remember that
when President Bush made his statement about going back to the Moon most of NASA employees and contractors
said "What?". It's naturally going to take a long time to design, test and fly new hardware. Another side point, if the
Shuttle is so risky to fly then why are the still using the SRB design as well as an ET that is also very similar to the
Shuttle's for the new vehicles. We should keep the Shuttle's flying at least 1-2 times a year, drop Ares I in favor of
current HLV unmanned boosters and use the ISS as much as we can.
William
funding in the early 80's could have been launched to have a station for the Shuttle to go to. It's now in the Air &
Space Museum. After all we had at least three Saturn V rockets left after the Apollo-Skylab was shut down. At
least one of these could have launched a Skylab-2 but no funding was available. While risky the Shuttle's should be
flown at least twice a year till the new transportation vehicles are ready. Why pay the Russians. If a seat cost
50 million then seven seats are 350 million. For another 100 million you can launch seven with cargo. But it might be
already too late to keep them flying since contractors are shutting down. From several previous posts some people
have forgot some things. First of all the ISS was originally to be much larger and capable and ALL U.S. built. They were
building some of the modules when President Clinton said it needed to be smaller and and cheaper so we would have
to go with others like the Russians and ESA. That put more cost over runs and took longer to build. The Russian
astronaut that spent 18 month's on the MIR could not walk when he got back to Earth. The ISS is needed
for experiments in long duration space flight and how to live and work in space. That is what President Bush mandated
to NASA, to use the ISS to learn how to live and work in space. Without the ISS experiments we won't go to Mars or
beyond. For those that say it's taking a long time and costing money for the new program you have to remember that
when President Bush made his statement about going back to the Moon most of NASA employees and contractors
said "What?". It's naturally going to take a long time to design, test and fly new hardware. Another side point, if the
Shuttle is so risky to fly then why are the still using the SRB design as well as an ET that is also very similar to the
Shuttle's for the new vehicles. We should keep the Shuttle's flying at least 1-2 times a year, drop Ares I in favor of
current HLV unmanned boosters and use the ISS as much as we can.
William
What is getting some people upset is that the military is secretive. Even though there will be a few years of silence from the public sector, the military programs will be quietly keeping us safe. Some of the stuff coming out of our military program are decades ahead of NASA. If there was an extreme need to get up to the ISS, the Air Force will no doubt be anxious to show off their stuff.bbfreakDude":9whnokx8 said:
"Debating"
I am not too concerned about the Shuttle-Orion gap. That said I am somewhat concerned about having a capable human rated launch vehicle available on US soil in the near future. Until then I believe robotic / probe missions can accomplish tasks critical to making human journeys beyond the moon much safer.
I am not too concerned about the Shuttle-Orion gap. That said I am somewhat concerned about having a capable human rated launch vehicle available on US soil in the near future. Until then I believe robotic / probe missions can accomplish tasks critical to making human journeys beyond the moon much safer.
STS is gone.
The aging infrastructure is already showing up like leaky umbillicals. Then there are the internal problems of each orbiter that may mean another disaster before the end of next year.
Bigelow with their uprated Atlas program and Space X with Dragon are the most likely gap fillers.
Once they are more launches available, there will be needs to fill them.
The aging infrastructure is already showing up like leaky umbillicals. Then there are the internal problems of each orbiter that may mean another disaster before the end of next year.
Bigelow with their uprated Atlas program and Space X with Dragon are the most likely gap fillers.
Once they are more launches available, there will be needs to fill them.
We can trade or buy rides from the Russians or Chinese. Our economy is not in shape for another $Trillion crash program, and you can't take pride to the grocery store. We had our share of space firsts, now let us watch a few other countries spread their treasure achieving the same.
-- Bill
-- Bill
Why do people here have to always feel they have to so exaggerate everything to get a point across?
If keeping the shuttles flying were to be a $trillion dollar program, it would result in just about 2,000 shuttle launches!
In fact it would be just about some twice the cost of ALL the space programs of the Earth since the beginning of the space age in 1957!
And as to having the Russians discovery anything, the only thing they will discover is just how deep are the pockets of the American taxpayers!
Do you actually think that they are just going to charge us a minimum to get our people up to the same ISS that WE the American taxpayers have paid for, if we have no choice but to fly in their equipment?
However, I must admit that it would be at least somehow a type of poetic justice, as we have always wanted them to become pure capitalists! And without an alternative such as continued shuttle flights to the ISS until either the Orion or Dragon capsules are ready, and a launch system such as the Delta IV, Atlas V, or Falcon 9 Heavies, or the Ares I is also ready to get those capsules up to the ISS, the Russians are going to be our only way of getting there! Boy, under those circumstances will they ever become pure capitalists. Of course, at our expense!
Just what happens if we get into another cold war type of situation with these people? Then they decide they don't want us using their equipment at ANY cost? What then?
I would bet that is the kind of thing that Congress is going to be thinking about!
If keeping the shuttles flying were to be a $trillion dollar program, it would result in just about 2,000 shuttle launches!
In fact it would be just about some twice the cost of ALL the space programs of the Earth since the beginning of the space age in 1957!
And as to having the Russians discovery anything, the only thing they will discover is just how deep are the pockets of the American taxpayers!
Do you actually think that they are just going to charge us a minimum to get our people up to the same ISS that WE the American taxpayers have paid for, if we have no choice but to fly in their equipment?
However, I must admit that it would be at least somehow a type of poetic justice, as we have always wanted them to become pure capitalists! And without an alternative such as continued shuttle flights to the ISS until either the Orion or Dragon capsules are ready, and a launch system such as the Delta IV, Atlas V, or Falcon 9 Heavies, or the Ares I is also ready to get those capsules up to the ISS, the Russians are going to be our only way of getting there! Boy, under those circumstances will they ever become pure capitalists. Of course, at our expense!
Just what happens if we get into another cold war type of situation with these people? Then they decide they don't want us using their equipment at ANY cost? What then?
I would bet that is the kind of thing that Congress is going to be thinking about!
OOPS, sorry about the double post! Whatever happened to the lock out ability that used to prevent that from happening?
My concern is of another nature. I realise that Orion is the vehivcle to take people to the moon and eventually on to Mars (with some additional hardware), but is also to be a ferry to the ISS. What I would like to know is how many trips to the ISS will actually happen, even if it is available on time? My understanding is that the ISS is due to be decommissioned in 2015 or so. Has this, or is it likely to have, changed? I have always had a problem with the ISS being touted as man's permanent platform in space. Can anyone tell us what the current plans are for the end of the live of the ISS and the schedule set for it? It seems silly to plan to deorbit it into the Pacific after throwing over a trillion dollars at it. It seemed to me to be silly at the time when they brought down Myr. To have all that hardware up in orbit seemed like an opportunity to save on future costs of getting the same material up there again later. I know that the bulk of it might not be usable in its original form, but surely some of the parts would be. Solar panels, and the environmental systems seemed like things that could have been reused at some point. I know the orbit would slowly decay and a planned re-entry was a better alternative to a random crash over a populated area, but surely some sort of robotic booster, maybe an ion thruster of some sort, could have raised it to a higher orbit for many years until it could have been salvaged. I hope some sort of plan like this is carried out with the ISS when the time comes. If it is no longer habitable, then there is no problem raising it up to a much higher orbit if humans and radiation are no longer a factor. To launch that much mass again would cost at least ten billion dollars even without the cost of the components. I simply don't understand why a source of high quality "space age" materials would not be considered worth preserving, especially when others talk of going to the moon and various asteroids to mine the materials and smelt them into something useful from scratch. Does anyone have any further information about these points?
Imagine... ONE of the greatest spacefareing countries in the world and A. they cant get thier own astronaughts off the surface of the planet and B. they cant plan a transition from one craft to the other any better then this. Come on. The next generation craft should have been off the boards long befor Pres. Bush called for a different craft.
I dont think it right nor does it make a good statement about the U.S. for us to have to stand on the side lines and watch other countries take full advantage of destination ISS then be reduced to lifting up our skirts to expose a little leg with our thumbs stuck out for a ride.
I dont think it right nor does it make a good statement about the U.S. for us to have to stand on the side lines and watch other countries take full advantage of destination ISS then be reduced to lifting up our skirts to expose a little leg with our thumbs stuck out for a ride.
From what I've read about it-which is probably paltry compared to most of you all- it doesn't matter what is happening with the Orion or Constellation or whatever programs because, whatever the case, we're going to be reliant on the Russians to get us into space for the 5 years from 2010-11 to 2015 give or take.
I don't think that we Americans or the West have a problem of mis-trust with the Russians. The problem lies in the faith in their technology and quality-control systems.
Granted, the Soyuz rockets have more than proven their worth and general reliability.(No one argues that the Russians have not proven themselves in Man's endeavors in the Great Beyond!) What is worrisome, is the possible(and historically understandable) concern that Russian tech-and the economic and political systems that provide that tech- may not be so reliable. Furthermore, though they are our "friends" now, they were not our "friends" for almost half a century. More importantly-while I have great admiration for the Russians with regards to their tradition and history of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and all round rocket science, I do not take lightly our giving ourselves up to on so sensitive a subject-as space capability- to the former communist Soviet Russians!
Just some things to ponder, my fellow Daniel Boone-Davy Crockett-George Washington-Andrew Jackson-Lincoln-T.Roosevelt-George Patton Jr.-JFK- freakin' Betsy Ross Fellow Americans!!!
Don't get me wrong. I have confidence that the Russians will be good and faithful partners. But a part of me is doubtful, suspicious, and humanely... ... ... wary.
We should never have been in this position in the first place. If we want to blame it on someone, blame it on the American taxpayer. Why? Because overall, on average, the American Public is too collectively stupid to willingly provide the necessary funding that NASA and the American Space Program needs to survive and flourish.
Private enterprise is NOT going to fill the void anytime soon. No private interests are going to take the capital risks for long-term, heavy-duty spaceworks for the forseeable future. And when they do, they'll be cutting costs more than NASA ever did because that's the way private enterprise works. They'll cut costs to the edge of the bottom line to the point that disasters like Challenger and Columbia are commonplace and occurring every other Tuesday. (As opposed to every 15 to 20 years.)
[edited] Edited for "likely", to "lightly".
I don't think that we Americans or the West have a problem of mis-trust with the Russians. The problem lies in the faith in their technology and quality-control systems.
Granted, the Soyuz rockets have more than proven their worth and general reliability.(No one argues that the Russians have not proven themselves in Man's endeavors in the Great Beyond!) What is worrisome, is the possible(and historically understandable) concern that Russian tech-and the economic and political systems that provide that tech- may not be so reliable. Furthermore, though they are our "friends" now, they were not our "friends" for almost half a century. More importantly-while I have great admiration for the Russians with regards to their tradition and history of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and all round rocket science, I do not take lightly our giving ourselves up to on so sensitive a subject-as space capability- to the former communist Soviet Russians!
Just some things to ponder, my fellow Daniel Boone-Davy Crockett-George Washington-Andrew Jackson-Lincoln-T.Roosevelt-George Patton Jr.-JFK- freakin' Betsy Ross Fellow Americans!!!
Don't get me wrong. I have confidence that the Russians will be good and faithful partners. But a part of me is doubtful, suspicious, and humanely... ... ... wary.
We should never have been in this position in the first place. If we want to blame it on someone, blame it on the American taxpayer. Why? Because overall, on average, the American Public is too collectively stupid to willingly provide the necessary funding that NASA and the American Space Program needs to survive and flourish.
Private enterprise is NOT going to fill the void anytime soon. No private interests are going to take the capital risks for long-term, heavy-duty spaceworks for the forseeable future. And when they do, they'll be cutting costs more than NASA ever did because that's the way private enterprise works. They'll cut costs to the edge of the bottom line to the point that disasters like Challenger and Columbia are commonplace and occurring every other Tuesday. (As opposed to every 15 to 20 years.)
[edited] Edited for "likely", to "lightly".
vulture4":27ytvlk4 said:
I did say "whatever", programs. Doesn't change the fact that we are relying on the Russians for 5 years.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
How 2024 brought us deeper into the world of particles- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram