NASA moon capsule running late, full of problems

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">Is any one else beginning to wonder if Ares will ever see service? <br /></font><strong>Posted by BrianSlee</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No.&nbsp; So long as&nbsp;there is a strategic US necessity&nbsp;to have a manned presence in space, NASA has little choice but to make this program work.&nbsp; Whether Project Constellation is the most appropriate way to move forward is neither here nor there.&nbsp; The STS Program is being wound up and Constellation is the basket containing the eggs now.&nbsp; Perhaps the Ares/Orion combo will undergo the same 'tweaking' that Shuttle saw from concept drawings to completed articles, but by hook or by crook NASA will have something spaceworthy to launch humans in.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/15/4d27c279-0318-44e5-bf39-8f786de7291d.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No.&nbsp; So long as&nbsp;there is a strategic US necessity&nbsp;to have a manned presence in space, NASA has little choice but to make this program work.&nbsp; Whether Project Constellation is the most appropriate way to move forward is neither here nor there.&nbsp; The STS Program is being wound up and Constellation is the basket containing the eggs now.&nbsp; Perhaps the Ares/Orion combo will undergo the same 'tweaking' that Shuttle saw from concept drawings to completed articles, but by hook or by crook NASA will have something spaceworthy to launch humans in.&nbsp;SK&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV><br /><br />But what is the "strategic necessity" for the US to have a manned presence in space.&nbsp; You and I see it, and so do <em>some</em> others.&nbsp; But do either of the two presidential candidates?&nbsp; I mean, what does McCain mean when he advocates "cutting discretionary spending?"&nbsp; What does Obama intend to do with funding for manned space operations and/or exploration?&nbsp; Even if either came out with a speech like John F. Kennedy, will Congress support it?&nbsp; As important, or moreso, will the American public support a strong exploration program when the costs continue to rise, and the average individual can't afford to fill their gas tanks, or buy or sell homes?&nbsp; </p><p>Frankly, in my sixty-six years, about forty of which I was actively engaged in the aerospace industries, I have seen a bunch of projects that grew into an elephant-sized mouse on steroids...only to be cancelled before producing anything useful!&nbsp; What I see is NASA so afraid to admit that the Ares I/V+++&nbsp;may be&nbsp;the wrong approach, that&nbsp;we&nbsp;wind up with a sinkhole that swallows up all the money, and gives us nothing practicable in return.&nbsp; And the result will be a total distaster&nbsp;for the U.S. manned space program!</p><p>I don't necessarily agree that DIRECT/Jupiter is the answer, though it may be...&nbsp; But I do see real problems with the current Constellation approach, and a very uncertain future for U.S. space exploration, IF the present course continues! </p><p>What we will have to do is try to educate our Representatives and Senators, as well as whoever wins the November election, and have some VERY COGENT reasons for continuing, but perhaps on a different course than at present.</p><p>Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
C

Carrickagh

Guest
<p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/2/519ae2d3-f8a6-4f29-8202-04e19b5ca689.Medium.jpg" alt="" />I am tired and frustrated with all of this to the point that I rarely follow activities around the manned space program. I would rather watch old Apollo videos or follow the "unmanned" side and go Out There vicariously.</p><p>I don't wish to NASA bash. I can only imagine how difficult that work must be and the many lost weekends, vacations, holidays, as well as divorces those families must endure. The issue I have is that NASA can do contract management...but not manned interplanetary exploration. There seems to be no vision beyond the current Project Cancellation, er, Constellation. And it seems to be more archeology than engineering...the re-creation of Apollo.</p><p>Look, this program will run into problems, all engineering jobs of this complexity do. And God bless em if they get the thing launched and the crews safely to and fro in LEO. But I get a bad feeling that the ultimate purpose is not a return to the Moon or a flight to Mars. It is to keep the entity that is NASA (and those paychecks and impending retirements) alive. </p><p>I think government-sponsored manned spaceflight is a dead end. Perhaps Gates or Allen or some consortium of companies and individuals can put together a manned flight to Deimos. Would that be achievable? Maybe not. But frankly, I think it would raise awareness and excitement far more than the already tired Ares/Orion.</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/11/6d4e4d52-9b98-4fd5-8ba9-74e42567b8aa.Medium.jpg" alt="" />OK, the above is from the good old days, but I find stuff like this far more exciting than the press releases and images of Orion. How NASA continuously manages to make spaceflight look dull I will never figure out.</p><p>***<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimglenn

Guest
<p>But Nasawatch's Keith Cowing, a former engineer for the agency, said the problem is poor design and planning, repeating some of the problems of Apollo without learning the lessons of such disasters as the Apollo 1 fire.</p> <p>A group of NASA engineers, working on their own time, and other experts have come up with an alternate moon rocket design that they contend is cheaper and could be ready earlier. NASA has rejected their proposal.</p><p>YEP, the current nasa is not the same as it was in the old days.&nbsp; Lost the secret sauce. Hiring the wrong people. Need visionaries like Rutan, and the guy with the blow up space station. They blame it on lack of funding, but from what I experienced at GRC and Goddard, while also monitoring cool programs cancelled, is that they simply are addicted to shoddy engineering and poor planning. Any outside people who come in with new ideas are targeted for abuse.&nbsp;</p><p>That is no way to run a company. If the managers don't know what they are doing, they cannot direct the crew of affirmative action hires saturating the payroll. There is quota hiring, that dilutes the workforce. <br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/6/0c4309ef-ad9a-4a3c-b6cb-9342dd1a243e.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Not to mention all the dumb mistakes: G-switches upside down, poorly tested software that allowed legs snapping out to shut off the mars lander rockets, metric/english errors, telescope mirrors that are bent, toilets that clog, billion dollar mars probes that just explode when you pressurize the retro-rocket (lowest bidder, martin marietta with no deepspace experience, good choice), stupid foam insulation that the tree huggers got to eliminate freon from, then the troubles started. </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p>The clogging toilets belong to the Russians.&nbsp; Talk to them about 'em, not NASA.</p><p>The "guy with the blow up space station" is Robert Bigelow, and he licensed the basic tech from NASA - previously it was their program for an ISS hab called 'TransHab'.&nbsp; The situation is similar to what happened with the HL-20 spaceplane: NASA got it right to the point of implementation then dropped it, like so many other techs, then it was licensed by SpaceDev. Another they should have finished in house is VASIMR.&nbsp; Of course Congress had their role in some of these, but still.</p><p>NASA's main problem IMO hasn't been ideas, they have lots of those and many are quite good. It's been making questionable choices, a lack of KISS and a lack of follow-through.&nbsp;</p><p>Now for the latest idea from NASA regarding thrust oscillations; Chris Bergin just posted to NASASpaceflight.com that one of their ideas to mitigate them is to add liquid-fueled OME (orbital maneuvering engines) to the SRB stack. &nbsp;</p><p>The more this goes on the more the Ares I looks like a freakin' Rube Goldberg machine <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts