Obama withdraws funding for constellation

[rockett]

Bolden says: "There is no plan B."

Bolden defends decision to cancel Constellation program
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/24bolden/

Sounds as if the Administration's line has hardened.

 

[steve82]

About Zubrin :



experimental example :
NASA : Avatar Explore: Autonomous Robotic Operations Performed from the ISS (Avatar_Explore)

Research Summary
* Avatar Explore: Autonomous Robotic Operations Performed from the ISS (Avatar Explore) involves an astronaut onboard the ISS operating a four-wheeled rover as it scans the Mars Emulation Terrain located at the Canadian Space Agency headquarters for a possible geothermal source.
* The crewmember will evaluate data through a graphical user interface rendered on a laptop. This interface features a map of the MET and displays the location of the rover.
* Avatar Explore is the first terrestrial rover ever controlled from space.

I can't think of a more useless waste of ISS resources than to use it as a remote workstation for a terrestrial telerobotic demonstration. If they were serious about this sort of experiment as a precursor to Mars, then use the Orion in lunar orbit to control a robot on the surface of the moon. It would at least use Orion's radiation-hardened electronics that will be needed for a Mars trip instead of the ISS avionics that couldn't survive in lunar orbit.

 

[EarthlingX]

You have Orion and you can put it in the orbit ? That's news.

 

[rockett]

More on the hearings:

Another day, another hearing on controversial NASA plans
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/24congress/

Mention of investigations as to whether NASA borke the law shutting down Constellation and diverting resources.

 

[steve82]

You have Orion and you can put it in the orbit ? That's news.

No. But funding Orion is a quicker path to Mars than terrestrial telerobotics from the ISS. It will at least require investment in new technology and it won't hog valuable ISS space and time.

 

[rockett]

No. But funding Orion is a quicker path to Mars than terrestrial telerobotics from the ISS. It will at least require investment in new technology and it won't hog valuable ISS space and time.

Orion is dead, killed by the Obama Administration, whether you, I, Congress, or anyone else likes it. Even if there is some question of the legality of what the White House and Bolden have done. Read the stories I posted links to, in the past couple of days.

 

[neutrino78x]

I happen to agree with you. There are simply too many unknowns, and too much to be developed.

That's what they said in 1969. We can't go to the Moon. There are simply too many unknowns.

The "refuel module" for example. What if something goes wrong with it while you are en-route?

You do not send the humans until it has been verified that the module has generated the return fuel.

It also makes your return totally dependent on landing, no aborting the mission like Apollo 13 did. A very high risk strategy.

You can still abort, but you would abort to Mars.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

New Article
Proposing heavy lift instead of using it all for commercial certification.

Ok, but you do realize that Obama's proposed budget has 6 billion USD for development of a heavy lift vehicle, right? In addition to the money spent on stimulating/certifying infomercial rockets?

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

Orion is dead, killed by the Obama Administration, whether you, I, Congress, or anyone else likes it.

I support the cancellation of Orion. It was basically a long term subsidy for Lockheed!!

If you want a goal oriented space program, in my opinion, the goals should have deadlines within the Presidential term. Like "land a man on the Moon in the next 5 years". Not "in 10 years, we may or may not put a man in orbit around the moon". Not "in 10 years, we will have a Shuttle replacement".

I think "Flexible Path", which is what the President appears to be going with, is a good idea, because you can pivot and adapt to changing circumstances. Perhaps your space probes find life on Mars. Perhaps China lands on the Moon. With Flexible Path, you don't have to concentrate all human space flight resources on one target, at the exclusion of everything else.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

If you do things the Mars Direct way, you can launch something toward your Mars base one month, and the next month, launch something toward your moon base. Then maybe go by an asteroid. Reason being that you are using the same heavy lift vehicle for all purposes, and the same habitat module, just switching out propulsion modules (or, at least, changing the amount of fuel in said propulsion module).

Venus is only a long term option; until you terraform, you can't construct buildings on the surface there. You have to build everything somewhere else and ship it to Venus. On Mars, you have access to the surface now, with today's technology.

Also, if men are going to operate robots from Phobos, they might as well go directly to the Martian surface. If you're going to send men, do it all the way.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

That's what they said in 1969. We can't go to the Moon. There are simply too many unknowns.

We LANDED in 1969. I watched it live. Please at least get your history straight.

You do not send the humans until it has been verified that the module has generated the return fuel.

Launch windows. You gonna wait 6 years between missions?

You can still abort, but you would abort to Mars.

That's not an abort, that's a commit, because you have to land and launch.

 

[rockett]

Ok, but you do realize that Obama's proposed budget has 6 billion USD for development of a heavy lift vehicle, right? In addition to the money spent on stimulating/certifying infomercial rockets?

Wrong again Brian. Do you homework.

President Obama's budget request calls for $3.1 billion to be spent in the next five years for heavy-lift propulsion research and development.

That's propulsion R&D only, 5 years, and only $3.1 B for those five years. Sure, that's a real strong commitment. :lol:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/24bolden/

the administration announced plans to pump an additional $6 billion into NASA's budget over the next five years to kick start development of a new commercial manned spaceflight capability, including some $500 million in 2011.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/01nasabudget/
That's only $6 B, over 5 years, spread across multiple companies, for commercial human spaceflight. Yep, I can see the President is a REAL strong supporter. :lol:

 

[rockett]

I support the cancellation of Orion. It was basically a long term subsidy for Lockheed!!

You missed ATK and all the rest. But it was pretty lame from the beginning, underfunded, and poorly executed.

If you want a goal oriented space program, in my opinion, the goals should have deadlines within the Presidential term. Like "land a man on the Moon in the next 5 years". Not "in 10 years, we may or may not put a man in orbit around the moon". Not "in 10 years, we will have a Shuttle replacement".

Not a chance, not realistic either. We did that approach with Apollo, and we have lived with the results 40 years.

I think "Flexible Path", which is what the President appears to be going with, is a good idea, because you can pivot and adapt to changing circumstances. Perhaps your space probes find life on Mars. Perhaps China lands on the Moon. With Flexible Path, you don't have to concentrate all human space flight resources on one target, at the exclusion of everything else.

The President is going with "No Path" not "Flexible Path", read the tea leaves (and for that matter, articles in this thread, Boldens testimonies, and look at the funding structure). This administration has washed it's hands of manned space flight.

 

[rockett]

If you do things the Mars Direct way, you can launch something toward your Mars base one month, and the next month, launch something toward your moon base. Then maybe go by an asteroid. Reason being that you are using the same heavy lift vehicle for all purposes, and the same habitat module, just switching out propulsion modules (or, at least, changing the amount of fuel in said propulsion module).

Venus is only a long term option; until you terraform, you can't construct buildings on the surface there. You have to build everything somewhere else and ship it to Venus. On Mars, you have access to the surface now, with today's technology.

Also, if men are going to operate robots from Phobos, they might as well go directly to the Martian surface. If you're going to send men, do it all the way.

Brian,
I appreciate your optimisim, but please realize:
1. Mars is NOT the only destination in the universe (or only planet or moon either). There are others which have just as much, or possibly more merit. Give them due consideration.
2. Mars Direct is A WAY, not the ONLY WAY. There are others which have just as much, or possibly more merit. Give them due consideration.
3. Heavy lift of ANY kind is way out in the 2020-2030 time frame, if the Obama adminstration has it's way. Charlie Bolden said so. It's in his House of Representatives testimony, if I recall correctly.
4. Presently, our human space flight is facing being non-existent for many years, if there is not a radical change by the White House.

Sorry, but that is the present reality of the situation.

 

[neutrino78x]

1. Mars is NOT the only destination in the universe (or only planet or moon either). There are others which have just as much, or possibly more merit. Give them due consideration.

I could say the same thing to you about Venus. Mars is close, it has ISRU resources, and it has accessibility to the surface.

2. Mars Direct is A WAY, not the ONLY WAY. There are others which have just as much, or possibly more merit. Give them due consideration.

I could say the same to you about your obsession with doing it the NASA way, waiting until we can make the USS Enterprise with warp drive and teleportation before going to Mars or anywhere beyond LEO. Good thing you weren't advising JFK in the 60s.

3. Heavy lift of ANY kind is way out in the 2020-2030 time frame, if the Obama adminstration has it's way. Charlie Bolden said so. It's in his House of Representatives testimony, if I recall correctly.

You quoted a source yourself that said they are giving 3 billion to heavy lift. We can do the shuttle derived heavy lift as I mentioned in another thread.

Sorry, but that is the present reality of the situation.

I am a US Navy submarines veteran. I know a little about reality. But thanks for being condescending as usual. But that's ok, I like passionate arguments.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

That's what they said in 1969. We can't go to the Moon. There are simply too many unknowns.

We LANDED in 1969. I watched it live. Please at least get your history straight.

That's my point. People were saying it couldn't be done, it was implausible, impractical, too expensive, etc., but we did it.

You do not send the humans until it has been verified that the module has generated the return fuel.

Launch windows. You gonna wait 6 years between missions?

Actually, the window we're talking about is (approximately) every 2 years, Mr. Engineer.

Q: What is meant by a Mars "launch window"?
A: Due to the trajectories ships must follow when going from Earth to Mars, certain relative positions of the two planets allow for maximum speed with minimum propulsion costs. Whenever such a set of relative positions occurs -- approximately once every 26 months -- a "window" of opportunity opens for a "launch" to Mars. The most recent window was in August of 2005; the next one will open in October of 2007.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

The general outline of Mars Direct is simple. In the first year of implementation, an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) is launched to Mars, arriving 6 months later. Upon landing, a rover is deployed that contains the reactors necessary to generate rocket fuel for the return trip. After 13 months, a fully-fueled return vehicle will be sitting on the surface of Mars.

During the next launch window, 26 months after the ERV was launched, two more craft are sent up: a second ERV and a habitat module (hab), the astronauts' ship. This time the ERV is sent on a low-power trajectory, designed to make it to Mars in 8 months -- so that it can be landed at the same site as the hab if the first ERV experiences any problems. Assuming that the first ERV works correctly, the second ERV is landed at a different site, thus opening up another area of Mars for exploration by the next crew.

After a year and a half on the Martian surface, the first crew returns to Earth, leaving behind the hab, the rovers associated with it, and any ongoing experiments conducted there. They land on Earth 6 months later to a hero's welcome, with the next hab/ERV already on the way to Mars.

So, yes, a total of 3 launches in 3 years. [sarcasm]So hard.[/sarcasm]

The idea is, since the Mars program would be so few launches, in between the Mars launches, you could be doing other things, like going to an Asteroid, or the Moon. Use the same shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle for each. Or commercial light lift, with orbital assembly, if you prefer (that would be the related plan, Mars for Less). Just don't assemble a huge craft. A couple modules.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

You missed ATK and all the rest. But it was pretty lame from the beginning, underfunded, and poorly executed.

ok, so you don't want Constellation, and you don't want Mars either...so what is it that you think NASA should be doing?

The President is going with "No Path" not "Flexible Path", read the tea leaves (and for that matter, articles in this thread, Boldens testimonies, and look at the funding structure). This administration has washed it's hands of manned space flight.

What the administration is doing is exactly what was advised under "Flexible Path" in the Augustine Report. Cancel Constellation, fund the commercial New Space industry, then determine some light and quick targets in space where we can send humans. That's exactly what the Augustine group said to do.

The President is supposed to make a speech about it in April. I predict he will state that the goal is still to colonize Mars, and that he will specify a near term next target for humans (such as an asteroid or something).

--Brian

 

[rockett]

What the administration is doing is exactly what was advised under "Flexible Path" in the Augustine Report. Cancel Constellation, fund the commercial New Space industry, then determine some light and quick targets in space where we can send humans. That's exactly what the Augustine group said to do.

Need a booster and crew capsule to do that. With Aries shut down, and a lack of lifting capacity for an unproven Falcon 9, we have nothing. That equates to "No Path".

 

[rockett]

Another half a billion, down the drain.

$500 million launcher lacks one thing: rocket
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36070039/ns/technology_and_science-washington_post//

 

[pathfinder_01]

Another half a billion, down the drain.

$500 million launcher lacks one thing: rocket
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36070039/ns/technology_and_science-washington_post//

Me personally I thought the whole constellation program was money down the drain. Sorry hate be so blunt, but they wasted billions of dollars and took far too long to put a man on a capsule. The plan axed the shuttle before a replacement was ready and threated to axe the ISS leaving a small capsule with no where to go until heavy lift was built. Sometimes I think NASA focuses on the wrong problem.

If they had focused on Orion and put it on an EELV this would not have happened. If they had focused on a more conventional design than ARES 1 they would be much further along.

It should not take five years to build a rocket and a capsule and if your budget is too constrained you should have focused on the first things first. What was needed was a capsule capable of going to the ISS. Not a deep space design. What was needed was a dose of common sense, now they are getting that dose in spades.

Trading 4-6 flights in LEO for 2 flights to the moon a year is a really dumb trade. If constellation could have enabled flights to the moon at a similar rate as the shuttle I would have supported it. I for one am glad this foul up of program is shut down and I am a space flight fan!

 

[Tritium]

We are still in the game.We are just changing our strategies.

 

[edkyle99]

Trading 4-6 flights in LEO for 2 flights to the moon a year is a really dumb trade. If constellation could have enabled flights to the moon at a similar rate as the shuttle I would have supported it. I for one am glad this foul up of program is shut down and I am a space flight fan!

Seriously? You would rather see quarterly repetitive LEO flights to nowhere rather than see astronauts on the Moon?

I would take one lunar landing every two or three years over *any* flights to LEO.

- Ed Kyle

 

[BrianBoru]

I concur ^.

 

[Polishguy]

Trading 4-6 flights in LEO for 2 flights to the moon a year is a really dumb trade. If constellation could have enabled flights to the moon at a similar rate as the shuttle I would have supported it. I for one am glad this foul up of program is shut down and I am a space flight fan!

Seriously? You would rather see quarterly repetitive LEO flights to nowhere rather than see astronauts on the Moon?

I would take one lunar landing every two or three years over *any* flights to LEO.

- Ed Kyle

Agreed. While I agree Constellation was flawed (what am I saying, the only good thing that could come out of it is Ares V), it was a plan. We would go to the Moon by 2020, which is better than going round and round, and always looking down, as we have been since Skylab. Hell, we've been on a forty-year detour since Apollo ended, and Obama's just extending that detour another twenty years. We're not accomplishing anything by staying in LEO. What are we building? Zero-G Toilets? Dammit, we know how to support people in space for months at a time (see ISS). It's time we use that experience to go somewhere. At this point, I don't care where we're going. We could be going to Moon, Mars, NEO, Titan, or Vulcan for all I care, as long as we actually accomplish something! :evil: