NASA's website budget links

[jakethesnake]

Here is an interesting break down of NASA's 2011 Budget with Comments from a few supporters

http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cg ... 1325476598

 

[nimbus]

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).

The Augustine Commission was specifically asked not to recommend any particular plan. Only assess the situation.

 

[jakethesnake]

Shouldn’t SAFTY be a factor when assessing any plan??? To me the Augustine Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp on Obama’s hidden agenda…

 

[nimbus]

So it's a conspiracy?

Shouldn’t SAFTY be a factor when assessing any plan???

Did you read their reports?

 

[Gravity_Ray]

No longer relevant

Thanks Jake.

 

[nimbus]

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? :lol:

You mean NASA's never had any such hiccup? Why don't you take this to the right threads instead of derailing this one?

 

[jakethesnake]

No longer relevant

Appreciate it Gravity_Ray!

nimbus could you please get rid of the little laughing guy??? It REALLY bothers me!

Also, I have read all 157 pages of the Augustine report and/or review as well as the 117 page NASA AEROSPACE SAFETY ADVISORY PANEL’S (ASAP) 2009 report, and noticed that ASAP referred to The Augustine panel’s view of safety was assumed to be “a given”…

The ASAP Panel believes that this the Augutine Panel’s assumption is premature and oversimplifies a complex and challenging problem because there is not a “cookie-cutter approach” to safety in space.

Now back to on topic from here on out, Again sorry MW.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Please do. My goal in starting this thread was to discuss the facts. there are plenty of other ones to discuss agendas and overreaction.

 

[BrianBoru]

If "private industry" (exactly who built the rockets for NASA - the penal system? the building maintenance workers at NASA?)
needs to take what limited funding NASA has, from NASA, how good can their *ahem* products be?
You know, those Harry Potter "game changing" technologies, the folks at Disney...uh, I mean the current Administration is taking about.

 

[nimbus]

If "private industry" (exactly who built the rockets for NASA - the penal system? the building maintenance workers at NASA?)
needs to take what limited funding NASA has, from NASA, how good can their *ahem* products be?
You know, those Harry Potter "game changing" technologies, the folks at Disney...uh, I mean the current Administration is taking about.

Yes, how good could Atlas V and Titan IV be if they're taking govt money to get to the point they're at today - reliable enough launchers that they've been relied on for years now, with a track record on par with NASA's? Harry Potter tech like everything NIAC ever came up with.

 

[EarthlingX]

Now, this is politics, i am afraid, but it is very much related to the facts, we are trying to discuss.
In Full: State of the Union
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMrs9vpoqg[/youtube]

 

[BrianBoru]

If "private industry" (exactly who built the rockets for NASA - the penal system? the building maintenance workers at NASA?)
needs to take what limited funding NASA has, from NASA, how good can their *ahem* products be?
You know, those Harry Potter "game changing" technologies, the folks at Disney...uh, I mean the current Administration is taking about.

Yes, how good could Atlas V and Titan IV be if they're taking govt money to get to the point they're at today - reliable enough launchers that they've been relied on for years now, with a track record on par with NASA's? Harry Potter tech like everything NIAC ever came up with.

I for one have absolutely no problem with improving the lift capability of any pre-existing booster (anywhere in the world) if it could be guaranteed to get us beyond LEO.
But I personally don't believe that when spokespersons of the current U.S Administrations use the term "Game changing technologies", that they have a clue as to what is pragmatically possible.

Now if anyone wants to put all their faith in the next slick-talking salesman they see in a nice suit, well, good on them.

 

[nimbus]

That same oily car salesman politician is who you get away from when you move space access away from NASA and into private competition. Forget the crowd pleasing buzz words for a minute.
NASA still has a role. The moon isn't cancelled. Richer space industry can only be good. It doesn't matter how many times private industry stumbles, only that it's kept going. Leaving things to govt is no good idea - cf Griffin's behind schedule, over budget, under-performance. If e.g. SpaceX' Falcon isn't proven, neither is Ares; latter's neither flown nor is even done being designed.

The real argument is execution of this new policy. Which is still in the works, e.g. specific targets. Which are reported as being debated right now. Wait and see.

 

[BrianBoru]

Good points, nimbus.

 

[EarthlingX]

One of analysis (http://www.newscientist.com) :
Briefing: What NASA's proposed changes really mean

What does the Administration want NASA to do instead?

It is proposing that the agency spend $7.8 billion over the next five years to develop potentially revolutionary technologies, like rockets powered by ion engines that could dramatically slash the transit time to Mars and orbiting fuel depots that could make human missions to the moon or beyond feasible with smaller, cheaper rockets.

During the same period, it plans to spend $6 billion helping space companies develop their own rockets and crew capsules capable of carrying NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. Funding for the space station would be extended by five years, to 2020, under the new plan.

Commercial projects which won contest to receive funds:
Five commercial space projects win NASA funding

On Tuesday, NASA announced $50 million in grants to companies working on spacecraft and other hardware for use in launching humans into space.

This is an old (November 21, 2009) article, but i think it relates to proposed increased fundings in the nuclear sphere (http://nextbigfuture.com/) :
Latest on Four Small Nuclear Reactors

Idaho Samizdat has the latest on NuScale, Babcock & Wilcox mPower, Hyperion Power Generation and Toshiba 4S from the American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting.

 

[nimbus]

Good points, nimbus.

Someone at NSF argues that Griffin might've been such a pest specifically so that NASA access to (and consequently any durable private development) space activity is never cancelled, to weather any political pressure. That's the only way it makes sense, IMO.

 

[EarthlingX]

Maybe a hint about the new research focus:
NASA Administrator Names Braun NASA Chief Technologist

WASHINGTON, (NASA) — NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden named Robert D. Braun the agency’s Chief Technologist, effective Wednesday, Feb. 3. Braun serves as the principle advisor and advocate on matters concerning agency-wide technology policy and programs.

I think, this is him:

Dr. Robert D. Braun

Associate Professor
David and Andrew Lewis Professor of Space Technology
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology

Technical papers from Georgia Tech SSDL:
http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/TechPapers.htm

NASA Langley Research Center about the budget (he was working there for 16 years) :
NASA Budget Increases Play to Langley's Strength

The forecast was one of optimism, of continued employment, even a return to history. And the forecast was of interesting work, if not work on technology for a spacecraft to go to the moon or Mars.

 

[EarthlingX]

This Week in Space with Miles O'Brien. Special Report from Washington DC on NASA's Change of Direction
(Miles O'Brian, Spaceflight.now, Special report, interviews with NASA deputy director Lori Garver, Sen. Bill Nelson (D) Florida, Bretton Alexander, Leroy Chiao, Scott J. “ Doc” Horowitz, Buzz Aldrin)

edit*
(part 1)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub7lorrEfOw[/youtube]
(part 2)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zw4Bx--vhI[/youtube]
(part3 - sound problems, Buzz Aldrin at 9:00 min, no sound issues) edit 2010.02.06_10:05UTC much better sound, almost all can be heard.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z_Z4DODJYk[/youtube]
edit*

I have a problem with the sound in this clip around min 23+. Anyone else ? (edit. fixed a bit, not perfect)

 

[BorgeTruelsen]

why not alt the military invasion the moon ? they have the funding alot of it we only use 5 bio. on NASA to all human space fight and they are using money on spaceship as well.... so why not join force with the military, NASA and ESA to go colonization of the Moon not just a base but go there to leard to lev there forever and in 20 - 30 years when we have faster spaceship do the same with mars

 

[nimbus]

EarthlingX - no sound issue on the video..

 

[spacedengr]

The road to Nowhere is paved with Technology Demonstration programs.

We need a real Full Scale Development program with a real vehicle going to a real destination.

Without a goal to achieve there will be no achievement.

 

[EarthlingX]

EarthlingX - no sound issue on the video..

Thanks
Will check again.
It is a different video, now on YouTube, it was on Vimeo before, and looks much, much shorter.
Checking ... It's been moved to YouTube, in parts.
Updated clip links.

 

[History_101]

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

It has been said that "Necessity is the Mother of Invention".
Mark my words folks... with out a MISSION, NASA will end up going no-where fast!

 

[Piratejoe]

Ok my biggest beef with Nasa in the beginning was a entity thats main and only focus was on putting men in space and going as far as we could doing that. Then after the public lost intrest in the moon missions they were still recieving a huge budget but suddenly had no mission anymore. The scientists then took over Nasa and started using Nasa's budget to send satalites and rovers all over the place to study things most of the public could care less about but scientist found fasinating. What we have here is the scientists at odds with the space enthusiast and a battle over who has control of Nasa's funding. The scientists feel they lost out when then president bush took control of a huge portion of Nasa's budget and gave it to the space enthusiast crowd, their is not alot of science in flying around space landing on dead rocks. Most would rather have their budget pursue things such as looking for evidence of the big bang, how stars are formed and watching for things like sprites and blue jets in our atmosphere.

Personally Im a space enthusiast and while I find watching rovers intresting and will watch on the science channel all about blue jets and sprites, that does not move me and a great deal of the human population. What I feel is lacking in the current presidents budget is a complete lack of hope for us space enthusiasts. Let me say it again, whats bothering so many people on this budget is a complete lack of hope for our dreams. We have been in a dark age for over 30 years floating around low earth orbit and finally FINALLY we had hope that man was going beyond again! Then a more liberal president comes into office and he shifts most of the budget back to the science community and tells us we are not going to send a human being to any planetary body in most of your lifetimes, sorry. Will most of us in the space community shed a tear for the Ares 1 and 5 if we know spaceX IS going to the moon in 10-15 years. No I can tell you we will not! We in the space community just want to go to the moon or mars! The best thing Mr Obama can do is up Nasa's budget a few more Billions getting the money from the stimulous package not spent yet and award them to small companys like bigalow aerospace or SapceX or Virgin galatic and tell them build inflatable modules for the moon/mars a rocket that can get their, ect and tell us we are still going to the moon/mars but we are not going to continue spending a hundred billion on big corporations overbudget programs.

Give us hope.

 

[EarthlingX]

This budget gave me hope, that i can believe in. Not that i'm not gonna keep checking it, and scream if necessary.
Constellation was a very cruel lie, and i'm just glad it's at the end.

It is really painful to watch, how many people bought it, that shot for more boots and flags, promised, never meant to be delivered, left to someone else to do the impossible, and take the blame for it, when it would fail.

From the bright side, it is good to see how many people care for the human space flight, but don't have time to get properly informed or engaged.

Here are some plans by Buzz Aldrin, who supports this change, and i think they are related :
http://buzzaldrin.com/

Here is a thread that deals with one, very probable alternative :
ULA's EELV alternative plans (DTAL, tankers & archetecture)
and
Fuel depot impact protection

It's reusable, not rebuildable, you refuel it, like your car, and when it will get operational, we can get anywhere, well almost

For further targets, advanced propulsion, nuclear power, and solar, all in the budget.
VASIMR based spaceship for heliosphere

We all get to go this time.