spacedengr":2icoxrfz said:
Alright, now you just have to convince Congress to dedicate $40 billion dollars a year to NASA.
- Status
Alright, now you just have to convince Congress to dedicate $40 billion dollars a year to NASA.
Thank you Mr. EarthlingX for that information, I had not heard of Mr. Aldrin's Ideas for space exploration. I agree with him on the need for a Heavy Lift Rocket and his Idea's sound great and all but I do have one problem. It's nothing more then a paper rocket and us space enthusiasts are delegated again to wishing up grand plans on paper but having to beg Nasa and whatever presidents in power for scraps yet again. We are going to go nowere so long as we keep having to change course every 4 or 8 years. How long would it take to build those rockets if we started right now? Would that rocket also get scraped when we get a new president in 3 more years and we start all over? Im sick of having mankinds hopes for space exploration being delegated by political winds and a pitance of our GNP. Is Nasa a wasteful bloated entity, Yes. Are the Huge Aerospace Corporations intrested in just sucking as much billions for as long as possible corrupt, Yes. I would just love for Nasa to stop wasting money and time and for the huge Aerospace corporations to get the boot. The only problem here is we are going to pin all our hopes now on smaller untested corporations that have great dreams and potential but no direction or REAL capital from washington.
As Ive said in another posting on Space.com, If anybody in Congress reads this please take this into consideration.
Restructer Nasa!!! Please split Nasa into 2 departments, One thats main focus is manned Space Exploration and the other thats focused on Earth and Space Science and split their budgets 50/50. Then put a board of directors in charge of each thats INDEPENDENT from washington and that does not change with each new president we get. Overall Nasa will still have a director thats appointed by washington but cannot interfere with eiither of Nasas departments very much. Each of these two Nasa departments can focus on space as they see whats best. The biggest proglem with nasa is not a lack of direction but they are always being given to many NEW directions. Take Washington out of Nasa and let them fly.
off soapbox/
As Ive said in another posting on Space.com, If anybody in Congress reads this please take this into consideration.
Restructer Nasa!!! Please split Nasa into 2 departments, One thats main focus is manned Space Exploration and the other thats focused on Earth and Space Science and split their budgets 50/50. Then put a board of directors in charge of each thats INDEPENDENT from washington and that does not change with each new president we get. Overall Nasa will still have a director thats appointed by washington but cannot interfere with eiither of Nasas departments very much. Each of these two Nasa departments can focus on space as they see whats best. The biggest proglem with nasa is not a lack of direction but they are always being given to many NEW directions. Take Washington out of Nasa and let them fly.
off soapbox/
Unfortunately I had problems with the sound on the 3rd video, even in YouTube. So couldn’t really hear Doc Horowitz very well. Hopefully that will get fixed later. However, are we surprised he is reacting negatively to this new direction. After all he is intimately connected with ATK.
These videos show that most space knowledgeable people accept that this budget change is going to be a good thing for our space program and NASA. Obviously people like Shelby are not going to be happy until its proven to them that his constituents will continue to make enough money to make sure he is funded well during the next election.
Certainly comments like calling this a “Death March” is not a scientific comment, but a political comment. Sadly this budget is going to be a blood bath in Congress. Hopefully some calmer heads will prevail and something good will come out of this.
These videos show that most space knowledgeable people accept that this budget change is going to be a good thing for our space program and NASA. Obviously people like Shelby are not going to be happy until its proven to them that his constituents will continue to make enough money to make sure he is funded well during the next election.
Certainly comments like calling this a “Death March” is not a scientific comment, but a political comment. Sadly this budget is going to be a blood bath in Congress. Hopefully some calmer heads will prevail and something good will come out of this.
Piratejoe,
while i was putting this together, i learned some new things too
Politics is going out of NASA, with the new way of doing business with NASA. No more cost-plus contracts, or so i hear.
This change is meant to make engineers creating plans for rockets, not congressman, or presidents, but let see how it works, and howl and scream, if promises are broken. So far, everything is going on as promised, but it would be better, if people would argue facts and not people, it's just a lot of noise.
Here are some pieces of my vision for space exploration (post 4), but please read the rest too :
What's YOUR Vision For Space Exploration? (forum)
PS
No, i'm not surprised at his points, they just don't stand, and we, on this forum, have taken all of his concerns, that i could hear, under consideration to get to this conclusion.
My view in a couple of words:
How can an uncontrolled explosion (solid rocket booster) be safer than engines under full control ? They can not stop them, once they are lit, if something goes wrong on the Shuttle, while they burn, BAM! A big one:
Shuttle contingency: Failed SRB sep
I don't want to see that again, it still hurts.
The best part of it was that short Buzz Aldrin reply, man, he kicks a**
A lot of previous forum debate on the topic and around it:
List of Multiple Threads on the Same Topic
while i was putting this together, i learned some new things too
Politics is going out of NASA, with the new way of doing business with NASA. No more cost-plus contracts, or so i hear.
This change is meant to make engineers creating plans for rockets, not congressman, or presidents, but let see how it works, and howl and scream, if promises are broken. So far, everything is going on as promised, but it would be better, if people would argue facts and not people, it's just a lot of noise.
Here are some pieces of my vision for space exploration (post 4), but please read the rest too :
What's YOUR Vision For Space Exploration? (forum)
PS
It has been removed from YouTube, blank page there. (edit: it's back again, sound issues, i'm downloading it, will repost it, if it's removed. edit2, couldn't, it's somehow protected, black page on downloaded clip, edit3 20100209 sound more or less ok)Gravity_Ray":38kjdgbw said:
No, i'm not surprised at his points, they just don't stand, and we, on this forum, have taken all of his concerns, that i could hear, under consideration to get to this conclusion.
My view in a couple of words:
How can an uncontrolled explosion (solid rocket booster) be safer than engines under full control ? They can not stop them, once they are lit, if something goes wrong on the Shuttle, while they burn, BAM! A big one:
Shuttle contingency: Failed SRB sep
I don't want to see that again, it still hurts.
The best part of it was that short Buzz Aldrin reply, man, he kicks a**
A lot of previous forum debate on the topic and around it:
List of Multiple Threads on the Same Topic
nimbus":3h2yxg8m said:
Titan IV was developed for the USAF to launch big spy satellites. Atlas V was EELV money. Here is the track record of the most "advanced" commercial startup (from globalsecurity.org):
The first launch of Falcon I ended in failure 24 March 2006 over the Pacific Ocean shortly after liftoff. Space enthusiasts watched the launch through a live Internet telecast, but moments later the picture went dead, and the company later said it lost the space vehicle. A spokeswoman said it was not initially clear what went wrong. Falcon I’s maiden flight, conducted two years later than originally planned, carried the Defense Department’s TacSat-1 satellite. This was the first of three scheduled Falcon I launches for the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles AFB.
The second launch attempt with a two-stage Falcon 1 rocket from its Pacific island launch site began at 9:10 p.m. EDT (0110 GMT) on 21 March 2007, but suffered a roll control malfunction 186 miles (300 kilometers) above Earth before completing its flight plan.
On 02 August 2008 the third SpaceX launch attempt failed when the first stage failed to separate after having initially performed flawlessly. The Falcon carried three small satellites: Trailblazer, a Department of Defense quick-turnaround demonstration; NASA's PRESat, a small automated laboratory, and NanoSail-D, a NASA solar sail test.
Subsequently, Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, stated that a fourth launch was "almost ready for flight." Musk stated that "the fourth flight, currently scheduled to take place in the fourth quarter of the year, and fifth flights are being prepared, and that he has given the go-ahead 'to begin fabrication of flight 6.'" The following day, a company spokesperson also stated "that The Founders Fund, a private-equity group, has now agreed to invest $20 million in return for a relatively small minority stake." According to the company, "If the rocket's technical problems persist, [NASA's] carefully calibrated plans" to deliver cargo to the International Space Station "could fall apart, prompting Congress and government space officials to re-evaluate SpaceX's ability to play a major role in achieving those goals."
We are planning to deliver our astronauts into their hands?
The right way forward on space exploration
By James Cameron
Friday, February 5, 2010
President Obama's JFK Moment
By James Cameron
Friday, February 5, 2010
President Obama's JFK Moment
Buzz Aldrin":c2da2qjp said:
kelvinzero":36ue9wwn said:
The road to Nowhere is paved with Technology Demonstration programs.
We need a real Full Scale Development program for a real vehicle going to a real destination.
Without a goal to achieve there will be no achievement.
Who cares? So long as they eventually come up with a launcher that meets criteria, they're then eligible. Them or ULA or whoever's most fit for the job. Much more healthy breeding ground than Ares'.spacedengr":29elv8ls said:
We Are Ready for Commercial Human Spaceflight
Thu Feb 4, 2010 09:00 PM ET | content provided by Leroy Chiao, Ph.D.
Thu Feb 4, 2010 09:00 PM ET | content provided by Leroy Chiao, Ph.D.
Thanks to everyone for the links and details. Is there a way to "pin" this to the space.com site for future reference? It would be very helpful.
I've read a great deal about this "direction", however, one can never have too much information. The problem is, the more I read, the more I don't like this direction.
On the surface, I can see where we might think this was a good decision and would permit NASA to make some quantum leaps in technology and manufacturing. However, I believe there are some inescapable aspects to the space program that this path totally ignores. These quirks in the space industry have the ability to terminate manned space flight for decades under this plan.
First, NASA has always been politically delicate and manned space flight even more so. Frankly, this is why we are in this fix at the moment. Constellation was starved for cash leading to its current near death status (I personally don't think this is over yet). However, the problem started before Constellation. Our executive and legislative branches of government have never fully committed to space and properly funded NASA for life cycle management of the space program. Such management of the space program ended with the Apollo/Saturn V stack. The shuttle was never fully baked in the waning years of Apollo. Why? Washington wasn't committed. The really bad news is that now, I am 100% confident that Washington still isn't committed. The difference is that we now have no planned manned space flight program (yeah, yeah, I know, I"ll get to industry in a minute). The next funding decision, sans Constellation, will be for a near start day zero solution. Last time we did that, it took nearly 4% of the GDP to get off the ground in a meaningful way. Its just easier not to go at all when you are in that situation.
Second, manned space flight is mind bogglingly difficult and dangerous. It takes a certain amount of energy to slip these surly bonds. That translates to money, BIG money to solve the problems in a reasonably safe manner. Further, its not like we make hundreds of flights into space a day or week or year or even a decade? There are no economies of scale. Do we really think that technology is out there that is going to make a quantum leap forward in cost effective lift per pound in the next decade or two that will ever see a launch pad? Worse, does that make sense for even one or two flights a year for deep space? I don't for reasons I've outlined above. We lack the political will to start from nothing to do this.
Third, commerical manned space flight has a business model that is more fragile than a soap bubble. Its dependent on things like billionaires bouncing around inside a balloon in LEO or a government contract to operate a taxi to the ISS. But wait, that is the same government that can't commit to a manned space program. All this nice seed money could dry up with the next administration. Why? Political jealousy, mainly. Now don't get me wrong, I would aboslutely LOVE commercial manned spaced flight to boom and become the next big industry. Am I willing to bet the farm on the surface tension of soap bubble on a cold winter's day? No way. The solution. LIFE CYCLE planning and redundancy. Fund the commercial development and build the bird you know will fly. If the commercial side of things work out, great. We pat Ares I on the shoulder and send it to the Smithsonian. We're left with a brute in ARES V and a viable deep space capsule in Orion. More importantly, we're left with a launch capability to do many things beyond LEO. If the commercial side of things don't work out, then we're not out of the game with Constellation. Right now, come 2011, we are out of the game with our hopes and prayers on the skin of a soap bubble. On a tangent, I wonder what will be the reaction of industry when we're staring at the TV, tears in our eyes, hopelessly watching the wreckage of a failed flight. They need only to cancel a contract and fire a CEO to wash their hands of the whole matter.
Fourth. Kids. Kids? Yeah, Kids. Absent any vision for manned space flight, absent any time line, absent any opportunity, where does the movtivation come from? Manned space flight demands the brightest minds, the most dedicated willpower and the bravest constitution from its personnel. What fuels the children of America to such aspiration?
Fifth, I think we have to forget mission driven manned space flight. We need to build a system which can achieve many types of missions. The combination of Ares I and Ares V gave us that ability in the form of a mammoth heavy lift capability and a relatively lower energy transport for crewed capsules. As the infamous "report" pointed out, a number of missions were possible with Ares. As we stand, no missions are possible beyond 2010.
We don't turn manned space fight on and off like a water spigot. The president hasn't really ended this . . . yet. However, he's stopped the car and removed the keys while we sit at a crossroads. Its my personal opinion that this is the single worst decision in the history of spaceflight. It is an epic and historical mistake. My hope is that it may result a realization that space flight must utlimately fail unless it is shielded from politics and the whims of a president, any president, that is desparate to salvage some favorable legacy. The legacy currently appears to be that 2010 will be that the US will fall behind the Russians, Chinese, India, Iran and possibly others before the decade is out. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll get to see another manned rocket leave US soil before I check out. I'm 52 and I'm skeptical.
Are we in this game or out? I don't know the answer. I just know we can't keep asking the question every 4 - 8 years.
I've read a great deal about this "direction", however, one can never have too much information. The problem is, the more I read, the more I don't like this direction.
On the surface, I can see where we might think this was a good decision and would permit NASA to make some quantum leaps in technology and manufacturing. However, I believe there are some inescapable aspects to the space program that this path totally ignores. These quirks in the space industry have the ability to terminate manned space flight for decades under this plan.
First, NASA has always been politically delicate and manned space flight even more so. Frankly, this is why we are in this fix at the moment. Constellation was starved for cash leading to its current near death status (I personally don't think this is over yet). However, the problem started before Constellation. Our executive and legislative branches of government have never fully committed to space and properly funded NASA for life cycle management of the space program. Such management of the space program ended with the Apollo/Saturn V stack. The shuttle was never fully baked in the waning years of Apollo. Why? Washington wasn't committed. The really bad news is that now, I am 100% confident that Washington still isn't committed. The difference is that we now have no planned manned space flight program (yeah, yeah, I know, I"ll get to industry in a minute). The next funding decision, sans Constellation, will be for a near start day zero solution. Last time we did that, it took nearly 4% of the GDP to get off the ground in a meaningful way. Its just easier not to go at all when you are in that situation.
Second, manned space flight is mind bogglingly difficult and dangerous. It takes a certain amount of energy to slip these surly bonds. That translates to money, BIG money to solve the problems in a reasonably safe manner. Further, its not like we make hundreds of flights into space a day or week or year or even a decade? There are no economies of scale. Do we really think that technology is out there that is going to make a quantum leap forward in cost effective lift per pound in the next decade or two that will ever see a launch pad? Worse, does that make sense for even one or two flights a year for deep space? I don't for reasons I've outlined above. We lack the political will to start from nothing to do this.
Third, commerical manned space flight has a business model that is more fragile than a soap bubble. Its dependent on things like billionaires bouncing around inside a balloon in LEO or a government contract to operate a taxi to the ISS. But wait, that is the same government that can't commit to a manned space program. All this nice seed money could dry up with the next administration. Why? Political jealousy, mainly. Now don't get me wrong, I would aboslutely LOVE commercial manned spaced flight to boom and become the next big industry. Am I willing to bet the farm on the surface tension of soap bubble on a cold winter's day? No way. The solution. LIFE CYCLE planning and redundancy. Fund the commercial development and build the bird you know will fly. If the commercial side of things work out, great. We pat Ares I on the shoulder and send it to the Smithsonian. We're left with a brute in ARES V and a viable deep space capsule in Orion. More importantly, we're left with a launch capability to do many things beyond LEO. If the commercial side of things don't work out, then we're not out of the game with Constellation. Right now, come 2011, we are out of the game with our hopes and prayers on the skin of a soap bubble. On a tangent, I wonder what will be the reaction of industry when we're staring at the TV, tears in our eyes, hopelessly watching the wreckage of a failed flight. They need only to cancel a contract and fire a CEO to wash their hands of the whole matter.
Fourth. Kids. Kids? Yeah, Kids. Absent any vision for manned space flight, absent any time line, absent any opportunity, where does the movtivation come from? Manned space flight demands the brightest minds, the most dedicated willpower and the bravest constitution from its personnel. What fuels the children of America to such aspiration?
Fifth, I think we have to forget mission driven manned space flight. We need to build a system which can achieve many types of missions. The combination of Ares I and Ares V gave us that ability in the form of a mammoth heavy lift capability and a relatively lower energy transport for crewed capsules. As the infamous "report" pointed out, a number of missions were possible with Ares. As we stand, no missions are possible beyond 2010.
We don't turn manned space fight on and off like a water spigot. The president hasn't really ended this . . . yet. However, he's stopped the car and removed the keys while we sit at a crossroads. Its my personal opinion that this is the single worst decision in the history of spaceflight. It is an epic and historical mistake. My hope is that it may result a realization that space flight must utlimately fail unless it is shielded from politics and the whims of a president, any president, that is desparate to salvage some favorable legacy. The legacy currently appears to be that 2010 will be that the US will fall behind the Russians, Chinese, India, Iran and possibly others before the decade is out. If I'm lucky, maybe I'll get to see another manned rocket leave US soil before I check out. I'm 52 and I'm skeptical.
Are we in this game or out? I don't know the answer. I just know we can't keep asking the question every 4 - 8 years.
spacedengr":1d0ytccc said:
I agree with you spacedengr, you are correct here. But your premise is wrong. You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare apples to apples, then you should compare Falcon with Project Mercury, Project Gemini, and Apollo 1.
Since you are good at digging up facts then do the following. Find out how many rockets blew up "on pad" not even got off the ground for project Mercury? Find out how worried the original 7 were when they were fixing to launch on Gemini? Name the first 3 astronauts that gave their lives courageously in Apollo 1? How many astronauts gave their lives courageously during the Shuttle program?
The rocket business is dangerous, and those rockets blew up and those astronauts gave their lives then, so that we WOULD have a first rate space program now. SpaceX is undertaking something very hard, they are aiming very high. Give them the opportunity to succeed. Remember they are going to do non human flights at first. By the time they fly humans most of these problems will be resolved. If they suck at what they do, I will stand right next to you and flay them, but for now I am going to give them a chance.
Here in this forum we may have our ideas about what the space program is for. In Congress, it is a jobs program. Most of the population has no idea. So the first job to secure increased funding is to show them why. That is why doing robot discovery now is a good thing. And while the robots are out looking for something interesting (what I have previously called the Reason To Go), we have the propulsion engineers developing the next-generation technology. Manned Spaceflight is indeed expensive, and in tight budgetary times the government would fund it only if there was a reason to do so. There is no widely agreed goal now.
Find that goal and the money will follow.
ThereIWas2, I agree in principle. I think the near term goal must be the system itself, the heavy lift and lower energy vehicles. The development and production times on crew and lift capability are simply too long to wait for an interesting feature to pop up. I'd even be in favor of postponing the lunar aspect of Constellation with agreement to proceed with Orion and Ares I and V. Heck, you even get jobs that way, but I'm fairly certain the high skill requirements for those jobs may not be what the administration has in mind as those may not translate into votes.
If I could read further between your lines, I'd say you believe that we lack vision for the manned space program. Again, I'd have to agree. Though so basic, that vision begins with a commitment to having a manned space flight capability at all times. I think our government lacks even that basic agreement. Its a shame. Of all my tax dollars, I've always considered those spent on the space program to be the best utilized. Even today we still reap the benefits of Apollo.
If I could read further between your lines, I'd say you believe that we lack vision for the manned space program. Again, I'd have to agree. Though so basic, that vision begins with a commitment to having a manned space flight capability at all times. I think our government lacks even that basic agreement. Its a shame. Of all my tax dollars, I've always considered those spent on the space program to be the best utilized. Even today we still reap the benefits of Apollo.
A manned space flight capability to do what, exactly? Get to ISS? We have that now, from Russia, and SpaceX under development. Flights on Soyuz are an awful lot cheaper than they would have been on Ares-1.
There is no other agreed mission. In the meantime, we develop technology and do research. And the heavy lift program continues.
There is no other agreed mission. In the meantime, we develop technology and do research. And the heavy lift program continues.
Gravity_Ray":2z8s8md1 said:
Dragon should be much safer then both the block I and Block II Apollo vehicles in that it has a full O2 N2 atmosphere and will have flown unmanned several times before carrying a crew.
I still think the Shuttle needs extended if they are going to ax Orion just in case there are delays.
But this won't be like the X33 as none of the commercial vehicles are attempting to do 3 cutting edge technologies at once which should have been their own separate X programs.
We so far have three crew vehicles under development Dragon,Dream Chaser, and the unmanned Boeing capsule vs a single vehicle like the X33 and Constellation.
Private industry should HELP get us back to the moon. Say what you will, but the Ares 1 was a good design. It had flaws, but the biggest one-vibration- was fixed and the first test flight went well. 9 billion dollars was not spent alone on the dummy rocket. The WHOLE project of constellation used that for many things in develpoment.
I'm going to laugh if Obama's plan fails.
I'm going to laugh if Obama's plan fails.
It seems like were are getting to a point where "If it cant be done in 4 years (sometimes 8 if your lucky) then dont bother doing it. Dont even bother starting it."
Seriously, is the next president going to follow through with this? Or is this just a flashy excuse to redirect monies away from NASA and into other projects? Will the next president decide that "Oh, what good is an engine without a shield? Cut all funding for propulsion and dump it into shield research"
Then 4 more years down the road the funding gets redirected again into say, a life support system?
4 more years after that, the moon becomes popular again, but wait, we need to start back at square one. Drop all projects and focus on the moon again.....
How about this.......
PICK A PROJECT AND FINISH IT!
Our politicians are acting like they need ADHD meds
Star
Seriously, is the next president going to follow through with this? Or is this just a flashy excuse to redirect monies away from NASA and into other projects? Will the next president decide that "Oh, what good is an engine without a shield? Cut all funding for propulsion and dump it into shield research"
Then 4 more years down the road the funding gets redirected again into say, a life support system?
4 more years after that, the moon becomes popular again, but wait, we need to start back at square one. Drop all projects and focus on the moon again.....
How about this.......
PICK A PROJECT AND FINISH IT!
Our politicians are acting like they need ADHD meds
Star
I m trying to avoid purely political links, but this all have comments section, which is sometimes interesting read:
Today's Space Policy Reactions, among them Paul Spudis.
Some reactions from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston:
Space Station Primed for New Era of Scientific Discoveries
edit:
Jean-Jacques Dordain about his talks with Charlie Bolden
ESA Chief Lauds Renewed U.S. Commitment to Space Station, Earth Science
02/3/10 09:16 AM ET
Today's Space Policy Reactions, among them Paul Spudis.
Some reactions from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston:
Space Station Primed for New Era of Scientific Discoveries
edit:
Jean-Jacques Dordain about his talks with Charlie Bolden
ESA Chief Lauds Renewed U.S. Commitment to Space Station, Earth Science
02/3/10 09:16 AM ET
Bolden is holding a press conference right now. He went to questions almost right away.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
Someone at NSF has a rough transcript
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
Someone at NSF has a rough transcript
It will be replayed on NASA TV at 3PM and 6PM EST today (It's actually being replayed right now, but is almost over)
It's worth a listen to hear what the NASA Administrator has to say if you're seriously interested in the issue.
It's worth a listen to hear what the NASA Administrator has to say if you're seriously interested in the issue.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Could that be Santa's sleigh? Early risers can spot the ISS from the UK this Christmas
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Who is that dying blue robot in the new 'Superman' trailer?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram