Obama aims to ax moon mission

[brandbll]

Who's paying for this vaunted "private space industry"? Private parties? No, WE ARE!!!! The taxpayers are paying to start this "private space industry." They haven't done jack squat and they already need us to start cutting them BILLIONS in stimulus money! Time to wake up people, space exploration just got tossed in the garbage can and this "private industry" crap from Obama is just a means of covering it up and giving people false hope.

Who cares about Obama. Musk, Bigelow & co don't care what his motives are. They just want a crack at the problem. Better them than govt.

Wow, you really elaborated on your inciteful comment, thanks.

Let me get something straight, if NASA looks at a bunch of proposals from companies on building a rocket, selects one that looks the most promising, pays them to build that rocket, and then launch the best of the best scientists into space to conduct scientific exploration; it's a waste and it's government run space exploration.

If the government takes six billion dollars and spends it on multiple companies to manufacture multiple different rockets so that those companies can launch Richy Rich so he can float around for a while and can see the earth from really high up; that's a smart PRIVATE endeavour that will greatly assist humanity's knowledge of life and the universe?

I think all the "private space" people here need to do some of us a favor and define what the private space industry actually is. Because if we're already setting aside 6 billion dollars to give to these "purely private" companies, which btw is a THIRD of what NASAs budget is, then exactly what is the frigging difference from the status quo? Do you people think that private companies don't compete(i.e. the whole capitalism aspect everyone complains is lacking) for NASAs contracts? And please, don't kid yourself. These companies are going to be coming back with their hands open for more money down the line.

 

[nimbus]

Take it or leave it. I'm not instigating anything, just too busy working so I keep it as brief as I can. Definitely disagree though. No need to blow a fuse like Frodo or anything. I'm open to any POV that makes more sense than mine. But I won't adopt it unless it's really airtight. So of course I poke and prod in the process.

"Get something straight" - your interpretation doesnt read like my POV. School me - how are NASA's rockets (let's say the recent ones to keep this relevant) no different from what we'll get from e.g. SpaceX? Are Griffin, and/or influential people like those Senators so worried about their rice bowls, involved in private industry like SpaceX or Bigelow? Who are their private industry doppelgangers? From pretty much everything I've read, this is one major difference. To pick something I didn't see (admittedly I only speed-read it) in the up-thread posts.

And please, don't kid yourself. These companies are going to be coming back with their hands open for more money down the line.

Fine, let's take this bad scenario. Let them do that and fail like stinking excuses for entrepreneurship. At least it will be private americans failing instead of the govt status quo. But I doubt they will. E.G. if that private/govt tech progress graph in B. Rutan's TED talk is accurate. I think you're too pessimistic. Jaded for some reason.

If the government takes six billion dollars and spends it on multiple companies to manufacture multiple different rockets so that those companies can launch Richy Rich so he can float around for a while and can see the earth from really high up; that's a smart PRIVATE endeavour that will greatly assist humanity's knowledge of life and the universe?

That sounds absolutely skewed to me. Is this what rationale you get out of e.g. Bigelow's and Musk's words and deeds?

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry if you have trouble reading my posts nimbus, I am not trying to argue with anybody here, as our efforts on this board are already far too few to even support almost any kind of space program at all.

Personally, as the amount of money that is used by NASA, AND the private efforts is as little as brandbll so excellently pointed out, then I do not see why ALL of these efforts can not be affordable by the people of this great country. But perhaps some here would just like to turn this last bit of American technology, and with it the LAST industry in this country where we not only excel, but at the same time are still running in the black as far as foreign payments are concerned, over to such as the Chinese. After all, we have already turned just about all the manufacturing that we used to do in this country over to them anyway, so why not this also?

At least they seem to have the patience to build a total program, and will themselves be going on not only to the moon, but as I said, then use the resources of that near by object to build a true space faring civilization. And then we will be totally left behind and out of it! Hooray for our side, right?

And the country and companies that do the groundwork at this time will benefit hundreds of times over in the next couple of generations!

And if feeling that kind of patriotism is somehow "blowing a fuse", then so be that also!

And just what have the newer generations done that has been so very great, when mine was putting men on the moon, and eventually defeated Russian style Communism without blowing up the world in a nuclear holocaust while doing it? And while doing that, created the basis for the technology that now allows such cool items as cell phones, and all the rest of our current small and inexpensive technological gadgets! Most of which are indeed stamped "Made in China!" Sad, truly sad!

Besides which, we are now spending more money in one month on wars in the Middle East (whether justifiable or not the money is still being spent) than NASA's budget spends on ALL Space and aeronautical efforts in an entire year!

Is that post short and concise enough for you? :roll: :roll:

 

[nimbus]

I have no trouble reading your posts. They're boring because you're too full of yourself. I do have trouble keeping my word tho, so I apologize for replying to you. I'm no good at hypocrisy and like we said before if I have nothing positive to say to you I should just keep it to myself. So here's to doing that.

 

[dragon04]

Gee dragon04, I am sorry I took actual pay for helping to place men on the moon the first time, please forgive me for not waiting another 50 years or so for pure private capitalistic industry to do the same (if they ever would)! At the least it caused me to not only get a higher education in the sciences (including space science), but gave me the practical knowledge to even be able to talk about these subjects intelligently, unlike some others here!!

I think I said it's understandable why you would be biased towards a Government run space agency. Drop the drama. You grew up in a time where the United States could not accept second seat to the USSR and pulled out all the stops including training and hiring people just like you to put us on the Moon so we could one-up the Russians.

You got a great education, a great job, and I'm sure you did very well at it. I'm sure that the contributions you and your peers made to manned spaceflight are deserving of recognition. But none of that alters the fact that the Cold War and Nationalistic pride provided you with the education and career in the first place.

And you CAN'T be so naive as to think that pure private for profit industry is going to even think of funding such exploration probes!

Why do you want to misstate what I said? I clearly stated that private enterprise could take up manned spaceflight and NASA could do what they do BEST by launching cost-effective robotic probes doing awesome long term science in the outer solar system.

And just where did you even begin to think that I was somehow against the excellent efforts of such as Elon Musk and the other alt.space people?

I didn't say you were against SpaceX, Frodo. For crying out loud, drop the martyr act. I SAID that you had made a COMMENT in regards to SPaceX having untested launch vehicles in comparison to NASA. I was simply pointing out that NASA was certainly no "better" in 1961 when the first Mercury mission left the ground.

This is what I get when I try to engage you on anything. You don't want to debate an issue. You want to make it an egregious wound on you because someone dares to challenge your point of view. Even when I try to speak my piece in a non confrontational matter, you have to make it personal. Why? Can't we just debate the issue on the merits of fact?

I don't know what else I can say. I recognized your efforts in our space program. Whether I agree with a taxpayer funded Government program or not. I guess that's not good enough either. But then, nothing ever is when it's something you disagree with. It's not my fault that you take personal insult when someone disagrees with you.

 

[frodo1008]

Dragon04, in the first place all of the rockets used in the Redstone sub orbital program, the Atlas Mercury program, and even the Gemini programs were NOT NASA rockets! This seems to be something that many people here do not realize. They were converted IRBM's and ICBM's of the Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program. So we can neither totally blame NASA nor give entire credit to NASA for either the success or the possible failure of those rockets. And the true miracle is that they did NOT fail!

The first actual NASA rockets were the Saturn IB series, and then the incredible Saturn V series. And while I do support the alt.space efforts I seriously doubt if we will ever see the like of the Saturn V from such efforts. The entire rocket weighed in at some 3,000 tons! Just the handling equipment for such a rocket was vast and therefore very expensive!

I am not your enemy or the enemy of anybody else here, as I have tried to make it clear I support all space efforts whether it be the incredibly small amount for NASA's budget, or the equally small amount that can be spent by alt.space.

What I do object to however, is the attitude that you and some others have of seemingly objecting to supporting NASA and its Human Space Efforts, and would put the just beginning efforts of such as spacex in the place of the incredible amount of experience of not only NASA but also such private NAS contractor companies as LM and Boeing.

For instance, I have actually worked on such rocket engines as the venerable F-1, J-2, and mainly the truly remarkable SSME's. Just as an example how do you think that the ends of the rocket nozzles for these engines are machined to very precise measurements over some eight feet for such as the SSME, or even more up to some 12 feet for the F-1? Well, it takes vertical turret lathes of great size and power, and such equipment is very expensive. Heck dragon, just why do you think that spacex needs at least $100 million to even begin to machine and build the Falcon 9? And yes, those costs should be then amortized over the life of the rockets themselves, just as those costs were so amortized over the literally hundreds of Delta and Atlas rockets that were built over the last 30 years or so. And that is just one of the reasons why these rockets were so expensive for so long, or did you not realize that?

The big advantage of such as Rocketdyne and Boeing is that they not only have had such machinery for the last 40 years or more, but they also have the very skilled workers that it takes to run such machinery. These types of products are of such a nature that zero defects is actually not just a slogan, it IS an absolute necessity!

Now, if my pointing this out to such as yourself makes me somehow some kind of an elitist, then perhaps I am to some extent, but the product that I actually helped to make (and not all of it was for even the government, the Delta II and the Atlas II were both extensively used for commercial satellite deployment), was in itself an elitist product! By the way, I also got to work on the original B1-A bomber, the Lance Missile Systems, Guidance system parts for the minuteman missile systems, and the entire fourth stage of the Peacekeeper Missile System, so my experience also went towards the existence of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which kept the USSR and the US from literally blowing up this planet for some 40 years or so of the Cold War!

So I would like to think that just maybe I have paid back my dues for my governmental education and career! Or were we wrong in stopping the USSR from taking over the world all those years?

It is NOT the support for the alt.space efforts that I object to at all. In fact as I stated I fully support and am very proud of those fully American efforts! It IS the other side of the coin here that I so object to. You know, that both the government and its private contractors are somehow bilking the US taxpayer out of his/her hard earned money! That not only BS it is also totally slanderous of the incredible efforts made by literally millions of hard working middle class American workers such as myself! And quite certainly I grow damn sick and tired of it here on a site that supposedly supports the American (as well as other countries) space efforts, especially the Human side of things!!

American aerospace workers have every right to feel that they are the elite, because it IS true! Just ask any of our former enemies in this world if you don't believe my biased view!

Is that concise and clear enough also?

I CAN use that government paid for education and work experience to continue for a very long time here, but I am certain that the use of such facts would only bore you and some others, so I will restrain myself! By the way, the only government that paid for my education was the state of California as I went to Pierce Jr. College, which is a fully state supported Jr College here in the Sam Fernando Valley. I started for my final two years at UCLA as a physics major, but there was nobody to pay for my family, so I had to work instead, perhaps the only real regret of my working career, but even that turned out OK, as I now have a truly great family to keep me company in my old age! And as you don't live in California, you have no grip about that at all as a taxpayer from West Virginia , at least I would think if you see my point there!

So Dragon04 and certain others here, I am sorry if I sound elitist and snobbish at times, perhaps to some degree at least I am. But that IS only an evil if you have nothing worthwhile to be elitist and snobbish about! I had an instructor out at UCLA Extension in Differential Equations that was one of the most elitist and snobbish people I have ever met. But he was also one of the most sought after instructors at that great university has ever had (at least by the pol put out by the student union groups)! He was one of those very rare people that actually was as good at his job as most people only think they are, hence the elitist approach! He not only knew the mathematics by heart, and also knew how to teach such a complex subject, he also even knew the incredible history of the mathematicians behind that math! His lecture on Carl Friedrich Gauss was a thing of beauty!!

I only wish my posts could be as good!!

 

[frodo1008]

By the way Dragon04, and some others here, not only do I fully support the efforts of spacex with their Falcon 9 rocket, but I do hope they can then show total reliability while also bringing down the cost of getting a pound of material up to LEO to at least as low as $1,000 per pound. Neither NASA, the Air Force, nor any other governmental agency nor their private contractors need have anything to fear from this!

I am perfectly aware that ULA with its parents of LM and Boeing would also be capable of doing this also, if it was to their profit advantage to do so! And spacex being able to do so would then make that a reality!

The people that would then be really shaking in their boots would be Arienspace, and to a lessor degree the Russian and Chinese commercial space efforts!

This would once again place the US in the drivers seat of the commercial Rocket Launch Industry, and to this particular American, (while I also support the fine efforts of other countries also) I find that all to the good!

In fact, what I am ALL for is HUMANITY in general not only getting into space at a far lower cost, but our then forming a true space faring civilization while we are up there!!!!

Or is that also an elitist position? :twisted: :twisted:

 

[frodo1008]

By the way, something that I also happen to think is important. This is related somewhat to the last project that I worked on at Rocketdyne (almost a decade ago!). That project was the RS-68 LH2/LO2 rocket engine at a then thrust of some 665K each. What was so interesting about that project, was that instead of just going for high performance and weight, and letting cost sort of get higher if necessary, as with the truly high performing SSME's, we shot for cost as the controlling factor with the RS68's.

That we were to a great extent successful in that effort can be shown by the fact that a single (and more powerful) RS68 engine is only about 25% of the cost of a single SSME! Although it should be remembered that at the same time the RS68 is not a reusable engine, but there are still some costs in refurbishing such a reusable engine as the SSME between flights anyway.

What this means to the over all launch system is that a recent launch of a GPS satellite that weighed in at some 4,830 lbs to LEO by a much older designed Delta II, cost some $49.5 million to the US government (and even that is only about half as much as it would have cost some 25 years ago or so). That comes out to just about $10,248 per pound to LEO by the older system.

Now, a more recent launch of a governmental satellite weighing in at 18,900 lbs now costs some $133 million, or $7,037 per pound to LEO on a Delta IV Medium.

And finally, a Delta IV Heavy launch of some 56,800 lbs to LEO now costs the government some $254 million. Or just about $4,472 per pound to LEO!

What this shows is that even with the governmental contracts to ULA the EELV program's Delta IV Heavy has already cut the launch costs to LEO by more than 50%. Not too bad for a govern-mentally funded operation!!

By the way here is the URL of the site for the Delta IV information, I certainly would not want any of you just taking my word for this!

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm

And thanks for even bothering to read my somewhat long posts here!!

 

[dragon04]

You have what you feel to be great reasons for defending a Taxpayer-funded manned space program. I just don't happen to agree with your POV. It's that simple.

Back in the day, Governments were really the only entities that had the resources to throw tons of money at something to make it happen in relatively short order. No private enterprises had the resources or desire to build a space program from scratch. At least not that I'm aware of.

So NASA did a monumentally important job getting Manned Space Flight started here in America. Considering the times, NASA did a monumentally important job of showing an entire planet that Americans could do anything if they set their mind to it. I just feel that it's time for private enterprise to take over for the next steps of manned spaceflight.

NASA? I'm thinking of 2 robotic probes launched almost 33 years ago. One is still sending back useful data. 33 years! How many other nations have landed a vehicle on Mars let alone several and ones who have operated on Mars for long periods of time? THAT's the kind of stuff I think NASA should be doing.

I'm all FOR NASA, Frodo. How much will it cost you and I to get astronauts to the ISS via the Constellation program? How much will it cost you and I if SpaceX does it instead?

If you read just the first couple couple pages of the linked GAO report, about $49 BILLION will be spent just on the Ares I/Orion components of the Constellation system. Even if the Falcon/Dragon system costs SpaceX, say $2 Billion to develop and deploy, that's 25 times less than Constellation. 25 TIMES LESS. That's significant, I think. In all fairness, I can't say how much SpaceX is spending, but while Elon Musk is rich, he's not rich enough to fund a line of rockets/capsules that cost anywhere near $49 Billion. Our (yours and my) tax exposure is minimal in the case of SpaceX compared to Constellation.

Who is going to ferry men and supplies to the ISS first? Orion or Dragon? And if SpaceX provides a reliable launch/crew system, why should you or I pay for a redundant Government-funded and run program? The short answer is that we shouldn't, but we're probably going to anyways if for no other reason than our Military wanting unfettered access to space.

 

[frodo1008]

What no nasty retorts yet? I guess I should be grateful!!

And Manny, you started this by asking me what my opinions were in this debate, so what are yours?

But Manny, do try to be non partisan for once and NOT let your obvious and on-going dislike of ANY decision by this administration cloud your thinking here. After all, even though I usually do not have such an opposition to the decisions of this administration as you have, I have taken the relatively difficult decision to oppose this one at least (and have been somewhat castigated for it)! So, give us your thoughts without the usual condemnation of everything that president Obama does in the meantime!

How about it Manny? I stuck my head out, now it is your turn!!! :twisted:

 

[frodo1008]

And you know, I have set the "little gray cells" into relatively frantic motion to try and separate the relative media hysteria over this into a possibly more balanced approach here.

For one thing, this IS a very early time in the decision process at best. So it should be obvious to anybody here with even a small amount of political savvy that this decision is far from over! It may very well be the executive branch that initially proposes budgets and direction(s) for such as NASA, but it IS the job of the Congress to actually set those directions, budgets, and goals in motion!

And from what I have been reading, even the Democrats in Congress are far from on board with this thing at this time!

So, while we should still let our opinions be known, I do NOT think it is a panic time for this issue yet by far!

And I am sorry that I seem to be in opposition of the budget hawks that I usually support, but it does sometimes seem as if the high profile of NASA has led a relatively large segment of the American public to think that we could largely help to balance the federal budget by making cuts and changes to that agency.

However, in Quality Assurance there is a particular chart to determine just what the largest contributors to a particular problem are, so you do not waste your efforts trying to correct insignificant problems while allowing much larger problems to overwhelm your Quality Assurance efforts on a particular problem.

So, if we were to take the problem of the federal budget, and its currently very large deficits and do this, just what would we find out about NASA's ENTIRE budget? Well for one thing, we would find out that running such a chart in such a program as excel is almost impossible as far as NASA's budget is concerned! As you would have to do one of two totally incompatible things here. In order to even get NASA's entire budget to even show up on the same chart as such as Social Security or the Military budget you would have to either make the vertical scale (the part with bars that actually show the budgeted amounts of the various agencies) so high as to disappear into the sky in the y axis, or making such bars visible on even a relatively large piece of printed chart paper would make NASA's relatively tiny budget disappear into the x axis (which is the axis that allows you to be able to have separate points for the various agency budgets).

In other words, the somewhat popular notion that we can in any possible way even begin to balance the federal budget by making any kind of cuts in NASA's tiny budget, up to even just eliminating ALL of NASA, is just plain BULL.
So much for the popular conception as supported by all that media hype!! :x

In fact, increasing NASA's budget by as much as double would have no real affect on even the deficits, let alone the entire federally budget!!

And a relatively small and constant increase in NASA's budget each year of only about 10% would then allow NASA to do ALL of the things that they do, including giving the alt.space people enough funding to find out if they really can reduce the pound to orbital costs by any reasonable amount at all!! Heck, I am ALL for doing that on the part of NASA anyway!

Besides which, there is absolutely no reason why going back to the moon has to now have some kind of a time limit on that effort anymore. I agree with Dragon04 that we no longer have the kind of competitive atmosphere that we had back in the 1960's. Which IS why I only stated that I thought it was a good idea to eventually, (not even right away, as I think that would be as bad for NASA as cuts would be) but steadily raise NASA's already minuscule budget by about 10% per year up to an eventual 1% of the federal budget, instead of continuing on to the 2% that we had as an average back in the 1960's!

Now, I ask the people here, is that so very bad?

 

[MannyPim]

What no nasty retorts yet? I guess I should be grateful!!

And Manny, you started this by asking me what my opinions were in this debate, so what are yours?

But Manny, do try to be non partisan for once and NOT let your obvious and on-going dislike of ANY decision by this administration cloud your thinking here. After all, even though I usually do not have such an opposition to the decisions of this administration as you have, I have taken the relatively difficult decision to oppose this one at least (and have been somewhat castigated for it)! So, give us your thoughts without the usual condemnation of everything that president Obama does in the meantime!

How about it Manny? I stuck my head out, now it is your turn!!! :twisted:

Frodo, if you will check back to my first post here, you will see that I declined to share my thoughts on obama's role in all this. I simply asked if you would share your opinion. It was YOU who brought up the discussion on obama and I again declined to get into it. So, there really is no reason for you to instruct me on how I am to respond. In this case, you have been the one repeatedly referring to obama as if you are trying to goad me into another argument about his performance to date.
And please do not try to tell me how I should express myself. I am a grown man... I will say what I want to say...
I don't want you to take any of the above personally.... I am merely clarifying a couple of points on which you seem not to be clear.

As far as the subject at hand is concerned, I do believe that the government has an important role to play in catalizing Space Settlement in close partnership wiht the private sector. I believe NASA has been grossly innefficient in the use of the very limited resources it has been given over the years. I believe that a funding level for NASA at 1% of the Federal Budget would be very acceptable from a taxpayer's point of view but ONLY if they used the money efficiently (which they have not).
One of the models that has worked extremely well and that has been fully embraced by other government Agencies is the competitive prize model. DARPA has seen a tremendous increase in development in autonomous navigation and robotit vehicles by putting out a measly few million dollars. Not only do they only have to pay for technology when it is actually delivered but they end up getting multipel solutions to a problem which is an enormous benefit to all. By contrast NASA has been know to blow BILLIONS of dollars on programs that resulted in NO NEW USABLE technology. So I am a strong believer that NASA should adopt the competitive prize model for new technology development. That would give taxpayers the most bang for the buck.
Aside from that, I do think that the amount of money NASA is given is so small comparatively speaking and the potential benefits we could get from that investment are so great that it is foolish to defund NASA. We are in the process of wasting literally TRILLIONS of dollars in bad and misguided policies.... surely there is enough slack in such a budget to keep funding NASA and even to increase their funding... the total amount they get, in comparison with the total size of the budget is a mere rounding error.

However, NASA is really at the mercy of those who control their purse strings. They can't set their own agenda and must depend on the most undependable of decision makers to set their course: our politicians. In order to be what NASA was meant to be, they need a bold and daring mission and they need to pursue a powerfull vision. Because of the dependency on Congress and the White House for their very survival, they have to adopt the vision of whomever is in power. THere are two problems with that: With every change of power, there is a change of vision. The second problem is that the political class is typically the group of people most DEVOID of real vision.

What NASA should be all about right now and for the next century is the singular goal of Space Settlement.
Screw "exploration". That is not going to take us anywhere. You explore at first in order to scout territory and conditions and gain enough knowledge so you can go out there and start settling. AFTER we have established permanent footholds off of this planet, and learned to live and work and play in space, we will have the rest of our entire future as a species to explore to our heart's content.

 

[frodo1008]

By the way dragon04, when you stated the following:

"I'm all FOR NASA, Frodo. How much will it cost you and I to get astronauts to the ISS via the Constellation program? How much will it cost you and I if SpaceX does it instead?"

You did realize that NASA for all intents and purposes NASA has already abandoned using the Orion Capsule for anything other than going to the moon and possibly beyond? They did this when they stopped work on a six person capsule that would be needed to completely replace the present crew levels to the ISS.

Further, I see where spacex is very wisely making every effort to eventually make the Dragon Capsule compatible with not only material missions to the ISS, but eventually be expanded to carry those six people up and back from the ISS. Do you really think that spacex would be doing this if NASA were not even unofficially allowing it?

Somehow, I like to think of Elon Musk and company as being smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall here! So what you seem to be so worried about is already happening anyway!

And dragon04, the reason that the Orion Capsule, and the entire Ares I system is so much more expensive is that it is indeed a far harder thing to go to the moon and then come back safely than it is to reach the ISS and do the same!

The return speed of the Apollo capsules were close to 25,000 mph, not the 17.500 mph needed for orbital velocity! So any such capsule so returning from a moon mission would have to have even better Thermal Protection by far than even a capsule coming back from LEO would!

To say nothing of the fact that such a moon capsule has to keep some four astronauts alive and well far, far longer than just a transfer capsule to the ISS would have to!

Now, anybody that has followed my posts on the Ares I knows that I have my own doubts as to the NASA thinking on that particular rocket system I. I think that many of we "space geeks" here do. I would far rather see NASA at least give a real attempt to work with such as ULA, and eventually spacex, (although I am certain that you realize that spacex is far from ready to build a rocket big enough to even place the Orion capsule into LEO, but hopefully they will eventually be) to man rate the already up and flying Delta IV Heavy Lift Vehicle (and eventually the Heavy Lift Falcon 9 rockets also), which has already successfully launched at least 56,800 pounds into LEO for only some $240 million in cost to the US Government!

Besides which, Rocketdyne is already building the next generation of more powerful RS68 engines to enable even more weight to be launched by the Delta IV, including the Delta IV Heavy!

It would be far better for NASA to use the relatively easily upgradable Delta IV, than to continue to use the current Ares I plans, and if this is what the current administration really plans on doing, then I see nothing wrong with that approach. But to just abandon going back to the moon, and then on to Mars with Human Beings entirely would not be a good choice. I would rather even see the current Ares I design completed than that!!

Try to remember, when the media are talking of some $49 billion, they are talking about over all program costs, spread out over at least some five more years for even the development, let alone the production. It is kind of like the opponents of the ISS stating that it is a $100 billion dollar project. While very conveniently forgetting that the ISS is a project that will be spread out to over 40 years by 2020. So the average cost comes out to some $2.5 billion per year, NOT $100 billion!!

This is the kind of media technique that has so bamboozled the American public into thinking that NASA is somehow a large part of the federal budget. And I do indeed get a bit heated up by that kind of deceit. Sorry about that, but I do!!

And I would like to think that an intelligent poster such as yourself would also be able to see these things, and get equally heated up about it!

 

[frodo1008]

You know Manny, if I were not such a masochist I would probably take the advice of my family and just abandon any efforts to even post on this forum at all! I was NOT trying to provoke the kind of response that you gave me in your first paragraph. Sorry if I seemed to be somewhat on the defensive in my own post, and I apologize if you took it in a negative fashion. Which strangely enough, is exactly what some others are always telling me here also!

Other than that, your post was truly excellent, and I have no problem agreeing with you there!

Giving out competitive prizes for specific technological leaps is indeed a very good idea. The only problem with this particular one is that when it comes to such as how going back to the moon and beyond would be, just how much of a prize should you offer for what could very well be the greatest single effort of this century? Just as the original Apollo Program was at least one of the greatest efforts of the last century? And whether for exploration or exploitation and colonization. it would not matter in this case, the problems are basically the same anyway (at least initially, just getting back to the moon is enough for now)! If we can not even do that which we did some 40 years ago, then how in Hell are we going to even begin to colonize and exploit the solar system itself?

And yes Manny, hopefully we will be going back to the moon to eventually make use of the very useful materials there to colonize space itself. Of course, if you think that exploring an area about the size of the San Fernando Valley constitutes the exploration of a body with a land area equal to the combined areas of Australia and Africa, then I guess we have truly been there and done that!

So Manny, we have NOT explored the moon at all, and the original Apollo astronauts realized this better than anybody else has!

For instance just how many astronauts have explored the entire side of he moon that is
hidden from the view of the Earth? Of course, NONE at all!

Besides which (in fun Manny, only in fun) how about that secret alien base on the hidden side?

And now that we have discovered viable sources of water at least at the southern pole of the moon, there are even more reasons to go back to exploit the materials of that so very useful body!

So I do think we are at least in basic agreement here. And that IS a very good thing, at least to me anyway!

 

[ZenGalacticore]

What is so wrong with a taxpayer funded space program? Without taxpayer supported NASA, we would never have had the Voyager 1 and 2 probes; or the Viking 1 and 2 landers; the Casini-Huygens mission to Titan; the ISS (we're not just playing darts and cards up there, you know); or the Hubble and Kepler telescopes.

Our endeavors in space aren't just about joyrides for the super-wealthy in sub LEO, or orbiting hotels. For now and probably for a long time to come, it's about science and discovery using robotic probes.

Like Frodo, I have no problem with private interests investing and venturing into space. Have at it. But it will be decades, if not centuries, before private corporations begin to expend billions on space science and research, and large-scale industrial development. Eventually, it will lead to a capitalist, self-perpetuating spacefaring industrial economy. Great. No problem here. For the most part I love the idea.

But for the time being, we still need a taxpayer supported space program. And we spend more taxpayer money on the military in ONE year than we have for NASA in the last 30 years. So what's the big $$$$ deal?

 

[brandbll]

Well, i just demolished my shoulder on the ice last night, aggravated an already failed surgery, am looking at serious reconstructive surgery, and i'm all hopped up on pain meds. So i'm going to try and keep this short.

I don't know why it has to be one or the other. It seems like the people advocating spacex, and the likes are the ones saying one or the other(at least that is what it feels like, if i'm wrong than call me out on it). And i'm talking about manned space flight because as Dragon already pointed out you can forget about commercial space probes. I'm all for handing the reigns of LEO over to the "private industry" or commercial industry, whatever you want to call it. NASA and the government should be more than happy to do that, and even financially assist them in that pursuit. But that shouldn't mean in order to do that you give up on sending people to the moon and potentially building a moon base, and stop looking at sending people to Mars or an asteroid. You keep going with our harder more difficult pursuits and you let private space companies take over LEO because afterall that is an important realm of this science and LEO is well charted territory. Private/commercial industries don't have a place in deeper space expansion because of the enormous risks associated with it, and the complete lack of profit. You think Elon Musk or Burt Rutan are going to put their asses on the first commercial flight to the moon? There isn't a market for that, yet. Which is why in order to expand such a market you need a government run organization like NASA. The two should work together as a one-two punch, not one or the other.

 

[frodo1008]

ZenGalacticore and Brandbll, both very good posts! Glad to see that I at least have some company here. Most of the people that support NASA also seem to support the alt.space efforts as well. We are just realistic enough to see that such efforts are still a long way from being capable of being used for Human Spaceflight instead of governmental efforts.

And brandbll, I do hope your shoulder is going to be OK, in 1990 I fell down my apartment stairs, and now both the ball of the left shoulder joint and the entire upper arm on that side are artificial, it is indeed an OUCH situation! The surgeons tried very hard to still use my natural parts, but Humpty Dumpty was in just too many pieces to be able to put him back together again. So I do have a great deal of empathy for your current situation, and wish you all the best in yours and your medical teams efforts. Hang in there my friend, it may not seem like it, but it WILL get better with time, mine certainly did!

And I have no doubt at all that both the efforts of NASA, and the efforts of the alt.space groups will BOTH be required to get humanity out into space where a far greater future lies in wait for all of humanity!!

Again, thanks to both of you for your excellent posts!!

 

[nimbus]

Take it easy with the recovery Brandbll.

 

[nimbus]

Private/commercial industries don't have a place in deeper space expansion because of the enormous risks associated with it, and the complete lack of profit. You think Elon Musk or Burt Rutan are going to put their asses on the first commercial flight to the moon? There isn't a market for that, yet.

Emphasis yet. They aren't going to do pioneering exploration. Not yet and less likely when agencies like NASA's who should be doing it. But IMO it's not above them to do it if it's feasible and no one else will. E.G. with the influence of people itching to lead the way like Bob Stone.

Which is why in order to expand such a market you need a government run organization like NASA. The two should work together as a one-two punch, not one or the other.

It's been all NASA so far. That's why the move to leave commercial to take care of the bottom end of the pyramid is good. NASA can stand on top of that and reach higher. Whether this presidential admin will take that excuse to neuter govt space for a couple of years is another thing. In the mean time handing over the bulk of basic, routine, bottom end work is a good first step. That shouldve been taken a long time ago.

 

[10_stone_5]

You know, for all the talk on axing NASA programs -- particularly the moon mission -- what's been lost is that NASA was granted over a 5% increase in their 2010 budget.

That's more of an increase than NASA has gotten from congress in several years. They actually had to take a cut in '07.

So with $18.7 billion to play around with in '10 -- there is still plenty NASA can do.

 

[frodo1008]

Yeah 10_stone_5, I was kind of wondering about that one myself! It would seem to me at least that NASA should be able to BOTH not only continue the COTS program, and even accelerate it so that spacex could not only build a less expensive material delivery system to the ISS with Dragon, but then even finish what it would take to be able to have an astronaut delivery system using the same Capsule in only about two to three years at most!

At the same time, if that kind of increase could be kept up, I also do not see why NASA could not also continue in its plans to go back to the moon! It might take a little longer, but so what, at least we would then continue.

So, is this entire thing just a misunderstanding, a "Tempest in a Teacup", or what?????? :? :?

 

[MannyPim]

Yeah 10_stone_5, I was kind of wondering about that one myself! It would seem to me at least that NASA should be able to BOTH not only continue the COTS program, and even accelerate it so that spacex could not only build a less expensive material delivery system to the ISS with Dragon, but then even finish what it would take to be able to have an astronaut delivery system using the same Capsule in only about two to three years at most!

At the same time, if that kind of increase could be kept up, I also do not see why NASA could not also continue in its plans to go back to the moon! It might take a little longer, but so what, at least we would then continue.

So, is this entire thing just a misunderstanding, a "Tempest in a Teacup", or what?????? :? :?

No.

The problem is not that NASA is going to stop being funded. It's that obama has decided to shut down the Return To The Moon mission and everything that we were working on to get there.
He wants to use NASA to look at the Earth and to see if they can conjure up enough evidence about global warming so that he can put in place his cap and trade plans..

The end result is that NASA will be sucked dry of the last ounce of inspiration and forward looking vision that they provided... it will be put on a the WRONG mission.... (it's as if obama decided that the military was going to be used to paint houses or some such idiotic mal-allocation of resources).
The other problem is that NASA's future funding will largely depend on whether their "scientifc" findings fit with the political goals of those in control of congress and the White House...... This will have the net effect of skweing the final results.... NASA will begin engaging in the same bad science that the IPCC is currently being exposed for.... It will loose credibiltiy with the public and then NO ONE will want to fund NASA any more.....

Just like obama..... the anti Midas.... everything he touches turns to crap....

 

[jimglenn]

Re: Obama aims to ax the UV rayz

You gots it all wrong, agin. Obama figured out in his haid how to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays, and save the planet!

Now just how could he be doing this? With rockets, of course. So Obama will increase space business.

It mite be better, for competition, if nasa does not always get Section 8 type funding for everyting. :lol:

Private sector may compete, if they are better, nasa should shrink.

Mastin lander:

 

[frodo1008]

Well Manny, I was castigated for even suggesting that you would do what you just did here. Thanks Manny, I needed that!

There IS only so much that can be spent by NASA on Earth Observation Satellites, and even less room for spending large amounts on the even more necessary giant data handling facilities needed to process the data from such satellites. Most of that is already being done at this very time anyway, so I do not really see where much more can be done. So just perhaps Obama (like his predecessor) is getting bad advice. And yes Manny, I fully oppose him on this particular issue as a result of his short sightedness. But, this issue IS far from over, particularly with Congress (yes, even the Democrat side of it)!!

Global Climate Change IS happening, it IS a fact! However, the issue of just how much of that is due to the pollution affects of humanity burning more and more fossil fuels into the atmosphere itself still has at least some degree of uncertainty to it.

And if it were to turn out that by far the greater problem is that of natural causes, then we as humanity are really shafted! Because that means that we would have absolutely no control over the conditions getting far worse for future generations regardless of what we do. A situation that I personally do not even really want to think about!

As I have stated here many times before, I fully believe that there are plenty of even far better reasons for the US to reduce dramatically its dependence on the use of fossil fuels without even needing the spur of Global Climate Change at all. In fact, I also fully believe that making that change over would be one of the better stimulus methods of getting our economy back to work. To me at the very least, it is a win-win type of situation!

Also Manny, if the economy really does not get any better, and unemployment remains the problem that it currently is, then the next people in control of both the Congress and the White House are probably going to be the Republicans, as the American people are going to blame the Democrats in power, just as they formerly blamed the Republicans when they were in power!

So have patience Manny, things will change again!

And it IS this forwards and backwards type of thing that is NASA's biggest problem. I am more than willing to admit to that. It IS an incredible stupid way to run long range programs!!!

But someone such as the Chinese will then eventually fill the gap, after all they at least see the tremendous advantage of such long range thinking, and for the sake of humanity over all (although it galls against my own sense of patriotism to say so), that is perhaps better in the long run than nobody filling that gap left by the US at all!!

Sad, truly sad!!

 

[jim48]

The Moon? Been there. Done that. Let's get a manned Mars mission going, and no we don't need to go back to the Moon to get to Mars.