<p>Florida Today is reporting that the Obama budget is calling for the elimination of the STS program by 2010 and a maintenance of the Moon Plan. (Florida Today)</p><p>Check out the <font color="#003399">Fiscal 2010 Budget Blueprint</font>. You can search the 146-page budget blueprint using the keyword NASA to locate all the details. There are two pages that detail the NASA spending plan. For the highlights click <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />The budget:<br /><br /><font color="#800080">++Funds a program of space-based research that supports the Administration’s commitment to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><font color="#800080"><br /></font><br /><font color="#0000ff">++Funds a robust program of space exploration involving humans and robots. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will return humans to the Moon while also supporting a vigorous program of robotic exploration of the solar system and universe.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font><br /><font color="#800080">++Funds the safe flight of the Space Shuttle through the vehicle’s retirement at the end of 2010.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><font color="#800080"><br /></font><br /><font color="#0000ff">++An additional flight will be conducted if it can be completed safely before the end of 2010.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><font color="#800080">++Funds the development of new space flight systems for carrying American crews and supplies to space.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><font color="#0000ff">++Funds continued use of the International Space Station to support the agency and other Federal, commercial, and academic research and technology testing needs.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><font color="#800080">++Funds aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and emissions reduction, and fuel efficiency.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><font color="#800080"><br /></font><br /><strong>The more detailed language on the future of human space flight says the budget:</strong></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><font color="#0000ff">++Funds a Robust Program of Space Exploration involving humans and Robots. NASA’s astronauts and robotic</font> <font color="#0000ff">spacecraft have been exploring our solar system and the universe for more than 50 years. The Agency will create a new chapter of this legacy as it works to return Americans to the Moon by 2020 as part of a robust human and robotic space exploration program. NASA also will send a broad suite of robotic missions to destinations throughout the solar system and develop a bold new set of astronomical observatories to probe the mysteries of the universe, increasing investment in research, data analysis, and technology development in support of these goals.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font><br /><font color="#800080">++Completes the international Space Station and Advances the development of New Space Transportation Systems. NASA will fly the Space Shuttle to complete the International Space Station and then retire the Shuttle in 2010; an additional flight may be conducted if it can safely and affordably be flown by the end of<br />2010. Funds freed from the Shuttle’s retirement will enable the Agency to support development of systems to deliver people and cargo to the International Space Station and the Moon. As part of this effort, NASA will stimulate private-sector<br />development and demonstration of vehicles that may support the Agency’s human crew and cargo space flight requirements.</font></span></p><p><span class="fullpost"><font color="#800080"><br /></font><br /><font color="#0000ff">++Continues Support of the International Space Station. NASA will continue to assemble and utilize the International Space Station, the permanently crewed facility orbiting Earth that enables the Agency to develop, test, and validate critical space exploration technologies and processes. NASA also will continue to coordinate with international partners to make this platform available for other government entities, commercial industry, and academic institutions to conduct research.</font></span></p><p>Aviation Week reports something similar...</p><p>From the article...</p><font color="#000080"><em><p>The fiscal 2010 NASA budget outline to be released by the Obama Administration Feb. 26 adds almost $700 million to the out-year figure proposed in the fiscal 2009 budget request submitted by former President Bush, and sticks with the goal of returning humans to the moon by 2020....</p><p>...Aviation Week has learned that in addition to the human-lunar return, Obama wants to continue robotic exploration with probes to Mars and other Solar System destinations, as well as a space telescope to probe deeper into the universe.</p></em></font><p><font color="#000080"><em>He will request increases in Earth Science, in keeping with his call Feb. 24 for action on global warming. And he will ask for additional funds for the NextGen satellite-based air traffic control modernization effort within NASA's aeronautics request...</em></font></p><p><font color="#000000">Although I am not a fan of manned exploration in its current form, this is probably more than some folks hoped for given the economy....of course, the important thing is that it will keep jobs. It's also good to see that the other A in NASA, aeronautics, will get some funding as well.</font></p><p>I'm especially pleased to see that the final shuttle mission will carry the AMS up to the ISS. Carrying a pure science mission up to the ISS is an excellent and noble way to close the chapter on the Shuttle Era.</p><font color="#000080"><p><font color="#ff0000">Article here...</font></p><p><font color="#000000">V3K</font></p><p> </p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
I'm not a big Obama supporter, but he is doing the right thing. I'm going to give him a kudos on this issue...
This is excellent news. Really, really good. So such for the naysayers and doom and gloom merchants.
Re: Termination of the Shuttle program by 2010 and committment to landing people on the Moon by 2020:
As always, the devil will be in the details! For instance, this is a proposed budget. Congress must approve it, modify it (possibly including additonal funding...but they can NOT force the Administration to spend more than was requested), or reduce or delete it!
Second, there is the committment to complete the ISS. What if it cannot be done, due to schedule slippage, by the 2010 cutoff date? Is this subject to later revision? Say, in the 2010 Budget request?
Third (and I may have missed something here), there is no mention of the Constellation program as being the means of returning to the Moon... Could this mean that we could see modification or replacement of at least the Ares I portion of the program, in favor of Direct 2.? ??? Doubtless, we will see continuation of development of the J-2X, unless some other engines are substituted. But there is a whole lot left unsaid here. (Personally, I hope they get rid of that Roman candle! I've worked more solid rocket systems than liquids...and worked quite a bit of those, too...and I trust solids for manned systems about as far as I can throw the planet Jupiter (no pun intended) with my left hand!)
And, there is also the question of who will be named for the next NASA director. While there are a number of you who distrust/hate the military, a retired general or two are available who might just be able to kick a$$ and take some names, and get things going in the right direction again!
Hang on, folks! This could be a bumpy ride!
Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
As always, the devil will be in the details! For instance, this is a proposed budget. Congress must approve it, modify it (possibly including additonal funding...but they can NOT force the Administration to spend more than was requested), or reduce or delete it!
Second, there is the committment to complete the ISS. What if it cannot be done, due to schedule slippage, by the 2010 cutoff date? Is this subject to later revision? Say, in the 2010 Budget request?
Third (and I may have missed something here), there is no mention of the Constellation program as being the means of returning to the Moon... Could this mean that we could see modification or replacement of at least the Ares I portion of the program, in favor of Direct 2.? ??? Doubtless, we will see continuation of development of the J-2X, unless some other engines are substituted. But there is a whole lot left unsaid here. (Personally, I hope they get rid of that Roman candle! I've worked more solid rocket systems than liquids...and worked quite a bit of those, too...and I trust solids for manned systems about as far as I can throw the planet Jupiter (no pun intended) with my left hand!)
And, there is also the question of who will be named for the next NASA director. While there are a number of you who distrust/hate the military, a retired general or two are available who might just be able to kick a$$ and take some names, and get things going in the right direction again!
Hang on, folks! This could be a bumpy ride!
Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
IT Wire article on Obama sticking to Shuttle termination, new Moon landings & beyond - with no mention of specific systems. This is somewhat acknowledgment of the Ares failings and a great opening for commercial bidding of LEO launch services:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/23527/1066/
Also of interest is the near-confirmation of the AMS being flown on a final Shuttle mission.
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/23527/1066/
Also of interest is the near-confirmation of the AMS being flown on a final Shuttle mission.
Somewhat acknowlegement by way of a wired article seems a little vague
But seriously, I hope we do start landing at least hardware, if not people on the moon. Im tired of all this LEO stuff that falls straight back down again as soon as we lose interest. And if ( hopefully when ) we do start landing people I hope the focus is on long duration stays and reuse of previous infrastructure.
But seriously, I hope we do start landing at least hardware, if not people on the moon. Im tired of all this LEO stuff that falls straight back down again as soon as we lose interest. And if ( hopefully when ) we do start landing people I hope the focus is on long duration stays and reuse of previous infrastructure.
I hope Obama does stick with VSE.
I have my doubts. An author friend of mine tells me Lester Lyles hates any HLLV concept--this from when he worked under him. I think the Air Force DoD wants to kill Ares.
I want Griffin back myself.
I have my doubts. An author friend of mine tells me Lester Lyles hates any HLLV concept--this from when he worked under him. I think the Air Force DoD wants to kill Ares.
I want Griffin back myself.
astronaut23":1d0kk0tq said:
Please confine your woo-woo comments to the Unexplained. Such foolishness is not appreciated in the Science fora.
MeteorWayne":d4clcme3 said:
the woo is removed to the unexplained.
also rhyolite will not be responding to any posts
astronaut23":3b2muqy6 said:
Unfortunately, you don't have any idea of what you are talking about, or you are a troll. In any case, I'd strongly suggest you confine your posts to "The Unexplained" where they will not be examined so closely for scientific knowledge.
Says you...astronaut23":1s7vvo04 said:
Make an argument for this in the Unexplained, if you're capable of it.
>>I'm tired of all this LEO stuff that falls straight back down again as soon as we lose interest.
We did leave hardware on the moon, and people lost interest anyway. If we, the space enthusiasts, are losing interest in LEO, we would be naive to think the taxpaying public will be any more interested in landing on the moon. We've launched dozens of planetary missions since Apollo. Until the decision to send people there again, essentially none of them were developed specifically to explore the moon. It's just not plausible that it's an important scientific goal.
And the idea that American taxpayers will pay $100B to beat China to the moon seems equally naive. The USSR was a geopolitical adversary. China will soon be our largest trading partner. In the 60's Americans paid for Apollo with much higher taxes, but Americans nowadays, particularly those with money, believe taxes are evil. If we go to the moon without developing much less expensive technology, we will have to borrow the money from China to do it, further undermining our economy.. Constellation is already underfunded even after the stimulus, and it's far more likely that when the real money is needed to develop the Ares V and the lunar landers, it won't be there and Orion will be left as a less capable Shuttle to LEO.
That money, invested in more practical technology, could improve American productivity and competitiveness, and maybe create some jobs in energy, transportation, and aeronautics. The Ares I can't even be used to launch commercial satellites. And if anyone thinks we're competitive in that market, please take a look at the number of satellites not paid for by the US government that have been launched from American soil in the last few years.
We did leave hardware on the moon, and people lost interest anyway. If we, the space enthusiasts, are losing interest in LEO, we would be naive to think the taxpaying public will be any more interested in landing on the moon. We've launched dozens of planetary missions since Apollo. Until the decision to send people there again, essentially none of them were developed specifically to explore the moon. It's just not plausible that it's an important scientific goal.
And the idea that American taxpayers will pay $100B to beat China to the moon seems equally naive. The USSR was a geopolitical adversary. China will soon be our largest trading partner. In the 60's Americans paid for Apollo with much higher taxes, but Americans nowadays, particularly those with money, believe taxes are evil. If we go to the moon without developing much less expensive technology, we will have to borrow the money from China to do it, further undermining our economy.. Constellation is already underfunded even after the stimulus, and it's far more likely that when the real money is needed to develop the Ares V and the lunar landers, it won't be there and Orion will be left as a less capable Shuttle to LEO.
That money, invested in more practical technology, could improve American productivity and competitiveness, and maybe create some jobs in energy, transportation, and aeronautics. The Ares I can't even be used to launch commercial satellites. And if anyone thinks we're competitive in that market, please take a look at the number of satellites not paid for by the US government that have been launched from American soil in the last few years.
Fantastically practical technology would probably have come from maintainining a moonbase these last few decades: huge understanding of recycling that would go to making better cities, a lot of progress in solar and small scale low maintainance nuclear power. A lot of advances in small scale production and rapid prototyping. Politically we would have had much less dependence on the middle east with these technologies (at least we would have an alternative we could threaten to use when bargaining) and probably avoided a whole heap of problems that way.
People lost interest in the moon? That is quite a large claim. I accept people lost a lot of interest in actual moon landings but I probably would have too. There was a ridiculous element to them: to spend so much time on development and then only have a few man-days actual exploration. The next step was needed which I feel was missions that reused infrastructure previously landed. I dont think the general populace really understood that by stopping, they were also stepping back by a decade or more from being able to return. Even now people are obviously confused by it. With a different president things could have been very different.
I dont really know about VSE. A lot of people complain but im not sure there would be less winging if we had chosen any one of the alternatives and they seldom attempt to deal with all the requirements. I just wish that (given that proper support was not going to be given) we had not gone the skylab and shuttle way but had stuck with the ability to land something on the moon even if we saved money or political risk by not including people on most trips. Doing so could actually have resulted in many more man hours actually on the moon. For example land one cargo of supplies (oxygen etc) and then land one of crew. many more man-hours than two missions! Increase the effectiveness again by guiding teleoperated lunar rovers between destinations.
There are so many things we are hoping to do now that we could have done right then, but now we are all thinking about the huge budget to just recover the ability to land there. Such a shame.
I wonder, if we had stuck with apollo, if we would have been able to incrementally evolve it into something more competitive. It is a big ask for a commercial company to design an entire lunar architecture but what about a single stage?
People lost interest in the moon? That is quite a large claim. I accept people lost a lot of interest in actual moon landings but I probably would have too. There was a ridiculous element to them: to spend so much time on development and then only have a few man-days actual exploration. The next step was needed which I feel was missions that reused infrastructure previously landed. I dont think the general populace really understood that by stopping, they were also stepping back by a decade or more from being able to return. Even now people are obviously confused by it. With a different president things could have been very different.
I dont really know about VSE. A lot of people complain but im not sure there would be less winging if we had chosen any one of the alternatives and they seldom attempt to deal with all the requirements. I just wish that (given that proper support was not going to be given) we had not gone the skylab and shuttle way but had stuck with the ability to land something on the moon even if we saved money or political risk by not including people on most trips. Doing so could actually have resulted in many more man hours actually on the moon. For example land one cargo of supplies (oxygen etc) and then land one of crew. many more man-hours than two missions! Increase the effectiveness again by guiding teleoperated lunar rovers between destinations.
There are so many things we are hoping to do now that we could have done right then, but now we are all thinking about the huge budget to just recover the ability to land there. Such a shame.
I wonder, if we had stuck with apollo, if we would have been able to incrementally evolve it into something more competitive. It is a big ask for a commercial company to design an entire lunar architecture but what about a single stage?
>>Even now people are obviously confused by it. With a different president things could have been very different.
What's confusing people is we all believe in voodoo economics. Reagan convinced us that taxes are evil and government funding comes out of thin air. The Bush plan was to drop ISS to pay for Constellation. People complained about abandoning a project we'd just spent $100B on. If anyone knows how we can keep ISS operating and also fit a lunar base into the budget please sing out.
In the 70's von Braun wanted to keep building Saturn V's, which was if anything more sophisticated than the Ares V, and NASA would have been happy to oblige with a lunar base, but the Nixon administration was not interested. Funding the Shuttle was considered more important, but of course in the end it was under-funded as well. The rationale for Shuttle was that human spaceflight with ELVs is too expensive to be practical. That's still true. We need a better Shuttle, not a better Apollo.
What's confusing people is we all believe in voodoo economics. Reagan convinced us that taxes are evil and government funding comes out of thin air. The Bush plan was to drop ISS to pay for Constellation. People complained about abandoning a project we'd just spent $100B on. If anyone knows how we can keep ISS operating and also fit a lunar base into the budget please sing out.
In the 70's von Braun wanted to keep building Saturn V's, which was if anything more sophisticated than the Ares V, and NASA would have been happy to oblige with a lunar base, but the Nixon administration was not interested. Funding the Shuttle was considered more important, but of course in the end it was under-funded as well. The rationale for Shuttle was that human spaceflight with ELVs is too expensive to be practical. That's still true. We need a better Shuttle, not a better Apollo.
We could have built a whole lot of stuff in space for the money wasted on Bush's war. Thats what sad.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
-
Astronomers urge FCC to halt satellite megaconstellation launches
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
Asteroid-mining company AstroForge gets 1st-ever FCC license for commercial deep-space mission
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Save $300 on the HTC VIVE Pro 2 VR headset, the best high-resolution option
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 75
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram