NASA's website budget links

[MeteorWayne]

PDF presentation:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_2 ... b_2010.pdf

Bolden's comments:


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011 ... emarks.pdf

OMB Overview:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet ... ment_nasa/

aand details:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... s/nasa.pdf

 

[jakethesnake]

I think you should merge some of these posts Wayne… getting a little messy...

 

[EarthlingX]

So, what exactly is wrong with that budget, except being too good to be true ?

 

[jakethesnake]

So, what exactly is wrong with that budget, except being too good to be true ?

Very simple… if you stop doing anything that is as difficult as rocket science then it is EXTREMLY difficult to start doing it again many years down the road.

Don’t get me wrong here… I had some real trepidations going back to frigging splashing down into the Ocean again, and if SpaceX and others were much further down the road i.e. time tested and PROVEN technologies then I might be Ok with this approach.

This does bode well for VASIMR, but I think it’s damn risky throwing everything at the commercialization option without a backup… :?: :?: :?:

 

[jakethesnake]

I'm thinking X33 all over again??? :?: What a total waist of time that was!

 

[menellom]

I have no problems with trying to encourage the private industry, but like Jake I think it's a bad idea to do so without NASA being there with a backup plan if the private industry doesn't come through. Researching new propulsion and new engines is great... but we need to have a public sector launch option as well - why not Direct?

I imagine that this proposal for NASA will change a lot as it goes through congress... I can only hope that the changes made keep the best aspects of Obama's proposal, while improving on those that are not.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Well I have not read the budget yet, I'll do it when I get home and got some time to dig in, but with all due respect...

Very simple… if you stop doing anything that is as difficult as rocket science then it is EXTREMLY difficult to start doing it again many years down the road.

Then how did NASA do this very thing 50 years ago in less than 10 years and they started from ZERO? Only difference is "Will". Then the American people had the will, now they don’t. This attitude is reflected from the people into their representatives and the said representatives hold the purse for NASA. So NASA can do nothing but go where directed.

... but I think it’s damn risky throwing everything at the commercialization option without a backup… :?: :?: :?:

Because government is so fickle about the space program it must be commercialized. Humans in space must be commercialized or it will die, unless you're talking about 'boots and flags', which in my opinion is better not done at all.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think you should merge some of these posts Wayne… getting a little messy...

Unfortunately, at this point, merging would only make it messier. That's why I started this thread with direct links to the actual NASA documents, to keep it out of the swirl.

Please folks, if you are going to comment in this thread, at least glance at the documents in the OP.

Thanx

MW

 

[EarthlingX]

This is what Keith Cowling has to say about it:
The Obama Space Vision for NASA: Massive Paradigm Shifts Ahead

edit:
Links to documents:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fact Sheet
Statement from Buzz Aldrin: A New Direction in Space
Statement by Norman Augustine
Launching a New Era in Space Exploration

 

[jakethesnake]

Then how did NASA do this very thing 50 years ago in less than 10 years and they started from ZERO? Only difference is "Will". Then the American people had the will, now they don’t. This attitude is reflected from the people into their representatives and the said representatives hold the purse for NASA. So NASA can do nothing but go where directed.

First off… you are completely missing one VERY important aspect here… RISK!

If NASA lets go of the engineers and the technical knowhow to get to LEO then there is no coming back, and then the U.S. is left dead in the water with no way of even getting back to LEO if the commercial option fails!

You must like to gamble???

Also, the U.S. was spending as much as 5.5% of the federal budget to get to the moon in the 60s and that’s not anything anyone will stomach these day when we are just trying to hold on to our jobs and trying to make our monthly mortgage payments…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

 

[jakethesnake]

Got ya, MW...

Thanks for the links... pretty much lays out everything.

 

[jakethesnake]

I read everything that you posted links to MW and I’m sorry to say that I have this absolutely SICK feeling in the pit of my stomach!

This is in my mind a very, very SAD day indeed. The U.S. is basically throwing in the towel as far as man space travel! I can only hope that the American people send a clear and very loud signal to President Obama as they did recently in Massachusetts, but my fear is that not many people care anymore…

I hope that everyone who voted for change is good with the change that this president is bringing!!!

Shame on you, Shame on you and Shame on you again!!!

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I like it.

There will be a budget increase for NASA (not as much as some people wanted, but in these hard economic times its better than many in the government are getting).

Get rid of Ares I which not only wasn’t going to get to the Moon by 2020 but probably would not have got to the ISS before it was de-orbited. Furthermore it was competing with the private industry which made no sense at all.

Extends the life of the ISS so that some actual science can take place now that it is going to get finished, rather than finishing a construction site and then burning it up.

Fully funds all the science missions in the pipe line. Something the constellation program never did.

Plans to engage Private industry to take over the work to get freight and later people to LEO, and possibly beyond. Go SpaceX we are behind you 100%.

Plans to move ahead with heavy lift capabilities (I still hope for man rating a Delta IV heavy), but I'll take Direct, ULA, or Atlas.

More robotics missions (this is one of the best things in the plan).

Very good. I give it a B+ (If there was more money I would have given it an A)

 

[EarthlingX]

Related news from around the Net:

Charting the Winners and Losers in Obama’s Science Budget:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... ce-budget/

No Moon Missions, That's a Relief
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/01 ... -a-relief/

NASA Budget Details: Constellation Cancelled, But Where To Next?
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/01 ... -a-relief/

US President Barack Obama unveils 2011 budget plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8490522.stm

Obama budget would cut moon exploration program
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/ ... cnnSTCText

Obama budget would cut NASA moon plan
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6101XF20100201

Aldrin: 'Mars is the Next Frontier for Humankind'
http://news.discovery.com/space/buzz-al ... nkind.html

Is Human Spaceflight Running Out of Time?
http://news.discovery.com/space/is-huma ... -time.html

Space Frontier Foundation Applauds NASA’s Bold New Direction
http://spacefrontier.org/2010/01/31/spa ... direction/

ATK Issues Response to GFY11 NASA Budget Proposal
http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=995

Obama cuts moon travel, links NASA to private firms
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Obama_ ... s_999.html

Moon Exploration is Not Dead
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Moon_E ... d_999.html

Obama budget extends US commitment to space station
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Oba ... n_999.html

Analysis: Obama’s Space Plan
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/02/01/ ... pace-plan/

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Welcomes New NASA Human Spaceflight Plan, Congratulates Commercial Crew Development Winners
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30135

Planetary Society Statement on Obama Administration's Proposed Space Exploration Plan and Fiscal Year 2011
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30134

Obama kills moon program, endorses commercial space
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/01nasabudget/

Assorted NASA Budget Reaction Stories
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/a ... asa-b.html

Human Space Flight Needn't Rely on NASA: Analysis
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 44512.html

Obama ends Bush signature return-to-moon program on anniversary of Columbia shuttle disaster (AP)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT

 

[jakethesnake]

I like it.

WOW… what boggles the mind more than your B+ HOPES is your total and complete ignorance! :lol:

We shall see... And count on this... if you are even around... I will call you on this one! :lol:

 

[nimbus]

I like it.

WOW… what boggles the mind more than your B+ HOPES is your total and complete ignorance! :lol:

Hyperbolic ad hominem.

Because government is so fickle about the space program it must be commercialized.

The one definite disappointment for me in the budget is how little propulsion research is getting when it's announced as "game-changing".
I do like the funds into education and enriching of future workforce. Not sure it'll work (ill believe it when I see it) but it's a good target.
The weird thing is saying they want an HLV but are ditching everything currently existing - not just Ares & co, but also DIRECT (cf "no restacking old tech"). Wasn't the aim to have something potent (DIRECT is), cheap (DIRECT is cheaper/est IIRC), and quick to implement? Why go for a whole new development cycle, then? It doesn't add up from a layman's pov.

 

[EarthlingX]

I like it.

WOW… what boggles the mind more than your B+ HOPES is your total and complete ignorance! :lol:

Hyperbolic ad hominem.

Because government is so fickle about the space program it must be commercialized.

The one definite disappointment for me in the budget is how little propulsion research is getting when it's announced as "game-changing".
I do like the funds into education and enriching of future workforce. Not sure it'll work (ill believe it when I see it) but it's a good target.
The weird thing is saying they want an HLV but are ditching everything currently existing - not just Ares & co, but also DIRECT (cf "no restacking old tech"). Wasn't the aim to have something potent (DIRECT is), cheap (DIRECT is cheaper/est IIRC), and quick to implement? Why go for a whole new development cycle, then? It doesn't add up from a layman's pov.

If i understand it correctly (after reading all of the above links plus some more and then some) they will go shopping not researching somewhere along this line:
- Plenty of engines to choose from :
- RS-68B (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rs68.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68)
- NK-33 with a family, RD-170, RD-180, and newest, just done the first run, RD-191, or AJ-26 used on Taurus II
- RS-84, now with SpaceX
- Merlin
- Vulcain

As to the Ares: good riddance, 30 years too late. What boggles me is how many people bought into that Ares-1X PR stunt. You blast a Shuttle SRB into the sky, with one more empty segment, and 'oh wonder' it works, after only 9 B$ spent ! Amazing
And now NASA gets 6 bilion $ more, and everybody is screaming bloody murder ... ? :shock: :? :roll:

 

[Gravity_Ray]

The weird thing is saying they want an HLV but are ditching everything currently existing - not just Ares & co, but also DIRECT (cf "no restacking old tech"). Wasn't the aim to have something potent (DIRECT is), cheap (DIRECT is cheaper/est IIRC), and quick to implement? Why go for a whole new development cycle, then? It doesn't add up from a layman's pov.

I do feel bad about all the work done on DIRECT (there is some seriously smart people in this project). I wish that NASA would have gone the DIRECT way a decade ago, but I have a feeling that DIRECT will get axed as the rest of the shuttle technology is allowed to retire. There is not a lot of details about the HLV in the stuff I have read so far, just that there will be 3.1B over 5 years to plan out an HLV, with a lot of stuff in between the lines about in-orbit fuel depot and rendezvous and docking technology which leads me to believe that ULA is getting a second look. I think based on what I have read that ULA has to slim down a bit, but I'm guessing either Delta IV H or Atlas V will be the main workhorse. EarthlingX knows much more about this than me though.

There are more details coming Tuesday. I guess stay tuned.

The weird thing for me was that the new plan was rolled out with out a bit more political savvy. If you are going to do a major change like this, it would be good to let the players that are going to benefit know ahead of time so that you can have some help in the Congress.

Jake I am not sure why you think I am ignorant about this subject. The stuff I wrote is from the budget information links that MW posted.

 

[kelvinzero]

I think there is some good stuff in here.

Im very much a colonization freak but to me Constellation and Flexible Path looked like they might have eaten up all the money just on the rockets, leaving no money to actually figure out a reason to be there, or how to do anything but come straight back home.

There seems to be a reasonable priority on closed loop life support and ISRU.

Im very enthusiastic about landing robots on the moon, not just to perform space science but also to experiment with industrial science. This does not seem like a huge amount of money, but perhaps if combined with various prizes such as for the lunar lander it could be effectively expanded.

From the pdf:

Critical Technology Demonstrations
year/budget:
2011 $652,
2012 $1,262,
2013 $1,808,
2014 $2,013,
2015 $2,087

Flagship demonstration program:

• Pursues projects that are generally funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years, and
  that can include partnerships with international, commercial and other government entities.
• Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
  modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and
  other next-generation capabilities.

Enabling technology development program:

• Pursues smaller scale (less than $100 million generally) and shorter duration projects that are
  competitively selected and also can involve commercial, academic, and international partners.
• Demonstrates a broad range of key technologies, including in-situ resource utilization and advanced
  in-space propulsion.

Robotic precursor missions.
year/budget:
2011 $125,
2012 $506,
2013 $699,
2014 $797,
2015 $923

Missions may include:

• Landing on the Moon with a robot that can be tele-operated from Earth and can transmit near-live
  video.
• Demonstrating a factory to process lunar or asteroid materials for use for various purposes.

Space Technology
year/budget:
2011 $572,
2012 $1,012,
2013 $1,060,
2014 $1,064,
2015 $1,218

• Focuses on key areas, such as communications,
  sensors, robotics, materials, and propulsion.
• Uses prizes and other innovative research funding
  mechanisms, in addition to grants and other more
  traditional funding mechanisms.

 

[jakethesnake]

The biggest question of the day is... Where is NASA going??? The White House's answer to that is TBD???

 

[jakethesnake]

As to the Ares: good riddance, 30 years too late. What boggles me is how many people bought into that Ares-1X PR stunt. You blast a Shuttle SRB into the sky, with one more empty segment, and 'oh wonder' it works, after only 9 B$ spent ! Amazing
And now NASA gets 6 bilion $ more, and everybody is screaming bloody murder ... ?

Not that I am a huge fan of the Ares–1, because as I have said elsewhere… going back to splashing into the Ocean from landing on a runway was a little bothersome for me.

Although there was allot more that went into the Ares-1X than just being a PR stunt. Such as the flight software for one and as I remember there was over 700 sensors that were recording real time data, so the data acquisition was certainly not an easy thing to set up.

Kind of a side note to this… Now we have a BIG NOTHING… No Launcher… No Vision… and certainly NO Direction!

It seems that the Obama administration as well as the Augustine Commission completely ignored what was gleaned from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB).

From the Congressional Research Service: NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia: Synopsis of the Report of the Columbia Accident

http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/default.html

Regarding organizational causes, the Board concluded the accident was -
... rooted in the Space Shuttle Program's history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of an agreed national vision for human space flight. Cultural traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were allowed to develop, including: reliance on past success as a substitute for sound engineering practices..., organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements; and the evolution of an informal chain of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organization's rules. (p. 9)

 

[EarthlingX]

Where ? Everywhere. First the easy targets, after getting to LEO. Which one ? The easiest.
No new research, that would kill projects left and right to keep nose above water, shopping.
Then research into propulsion (sounds like VASIMR), radiation protection, refueling.
After that, you can go everywhere.
And that is somewhere, not like that 'Vision' that was just a blind man vision.
Good riddance.

Is this thread open for discussion or for links ?

Ares I is a terrible idea...
So what's wrong with Ares/Constellation

 

[jakethesnake]

It would be very cool if we had an in orbit 200 MW class VASIMR spaceship that we could cruse anywhere in the solar system with… but the only question is how would we get to it???

Better damn well hope commercial space can get our Astronauts there… Just imagine what kind of hiatus NASA will have if they have even so much as a hiccup i.e. a few dead Astronauts? (That's what I thought I chose)...

 

[MeteorWayne]

jake, I'm trying to keep this a serious discussion of what's in the actual budget plan. There are dozens of other threads to post comedy in

thanx,
Wayne

 

[EarthlingX]

It would be very cool if we had an in orbit 200 MW class VASIMR spaceship that we could cruse anywhere in the solar system with… but the only question is how would we get to it???

By giving some extra money (read those things) for research of technologies like SAFE-400 or buying Hyperion Module which could be ready for space in a couple of years. I think they are already working on it.