Oh No! Bye -Bye Ares 1

[kevin_space_001]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Some of the Obama proposals are unlikely to work out, but their basic point is right on the mark. The only mission that requires the Ares I is sending people to the moon on a crash program basis. At this point in time, America is facing a financial crisis and needs programs that will provide practical benefits. We said we would produce these benefits with the ISS and got $100B to build it. The main reason given by some for dropping the ISS and rushing to the moon now is that "we are bored with LEO". I have never met anyone who was actually IN LEO and was bored with it. I have personally worked on a program that could save thousands of lives, but can't get funding because there's no money for anything that isn't on the "critical path" to the moon. Just how many lives is it worth? I suggest we pull the plug on this turkey and start doing some useful work, both on earth and in space. <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>So we should cancel human space exploration??&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So we should cancel human space exploration??&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by kevin_space_001</DIV></p><p>While I assume you're being facetious, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that NASA's activities in terms of returning to the moon or Mars may be substantially curtailed or eliminated completely for the foreseeable future, especially in regards to sending humans. &nbsp;It would be a terrible, myopic shame, but in desperate times people do desperate things. </p><p>I would not count on anything being safe over the coming year, the U.S. gov't may be on the brink up bankruptcy sooner than we think...</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kevin_space_001]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I assume you're being facetious, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that NASA's activities in terms of returning to the moon or Mars may be substantially curtailed or eliminated completely for the foreseeable future, especially in regards to sending humans. &nbsp;It would be a terrible, myopic shame, but in desperate times people do desperate things. I would not count on anything being safe over the coming year, the U.S. gov't may be on the brink up bankruptcy sooner than we think...&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Well if stop bailing out every company in this country and spending money on useless social programs this country would be better of fiancially.&nbsp; I think we will send humans to space, but only leo.. While other nations will be sending humans beyond leo..&nbsp; </p>

 

[centsworth_II]

<p>Re: Who is Garver?</p><p>It looks like her resume is thick enough to put her in the running for next NASA administrator.&nbsp; Many here might even like that.&nbsp; I found the following from the Wikipedia article interesting: </p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#800000">"In 2001 and 2002, Ms. Garver initiated a project to increase the visibility and viability of commercial spaceflight. Supporting a client who was paying for a trip to space led to her own quest for a sponsored space flight aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle to the International Space Station. She worked to secure sponsorship funding, as she began the initial medical certification and training in Russia. <sup class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Garver#cite_note-8</sup><sup class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Garver#cite_note-9</sup> The effort ended upon the news of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident."</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

<p>I can't say if she'd be a good administrator or not yet, but I can say Griffin's actions in dealing with the transition team are beyond reprehensible. His actions if anything make it seem much more likely that there are major issues under the hood and he's doing his best to keep them hidden. If you act guilty, you most likely are guilty. </p><p>I'm all for manrating an EELV. If we manrate Atlas then that means we'll probably start building the main engine domestically for it which would be a good thing, we already have licensing to do so. As it is, payload capacity is already exceeding Aries 1 as each week it's capacity shrinks. I honestly had high hopes for Griffin as he comes from an engineering background, pushing forward with the Hubble mission was a good thing, but he's as bad as past administration if not worse when it comes to Aries. Problem after problem and he won't let go. They should have told Thiokol to get bent when Thiokol said the R&D would be $5 billion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>^ What he said.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yg1968]

<p><br />There an article and a response by Grifiin (he says that he is cooperating with the transition team) on this website on the blogger's article in the Orlando Sentinel:</p><p>http://www.space.com/news/081211-nasa-obama-transition.html&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[rybanis]

<p>Sweet! Looks like MSNBC picked up on this story, too. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-frown.gif" border="0" alt="Frown" title="Frown" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28185106/]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28185106/[/url] </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sweet! Looks like MSNBC picked up on this story, too. &nbsp;[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28185106/]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28185106/[/url] <br /> Posted by rybanis</DIV></p><p>Killing off the Constellation project does NOT mean necessarily killing off human space flight at all.&nbsp; It would be a disaster for ATK however, as it is highly likely that what is being brought out is the very high cost and risk of the Ares I. &nbsp;</p><p>Quite frankly, I do not know if the other alternatives such as the Delta IV Heavy, or the Atlas V Heavy, or even eventually the spacex Falcon 9 Heavy, or further this Direct 2 idea would be really that much less expensive or safer, but NASA under Griffin does not even seem to want to truly give these other ideas ANY kind of a chance at all. &nbsp;</p><p>Now, Obama and his transition team are really under the gun to cut as many governmental costs as possible.&nbsp; I know that NASA really is a very low cost item in the federal budget, but that does not mean that it isn't a very high profile one also. &nbsp;</p><p>What I can not figure out is why Griffin would so defend this Ares I thing.&nbsp; He was evidently by other articles very upset with ATK over their cost estimates for doing the newer large solid rocket&nbsp; motors needed by the Ares I (and had they been able to use the already developed four segment motor, I would have fully supported the Ares I myself on these boards) .&nbsp; Good Grief. the ENTIRE cost of the Air Force's EELV program to totally develop both the new Delta IV AND the Atlas V, even with the developmental cost of an entirely new liquid main engine in the RS68, ONLY ran about $3 billion totally!</p><p>It now looks like the Ares I just alone may cost (that is IF they can solve all its problems) up to about 10 times that (or some $30 billion all told)!&nbsp; That is NOT going to be anywhere near acceptable to the Obama team.&nbsp; It just isn't.&nbsp; But that does NOT mean that they want to just kill the entire human space effort either.</p><p>IF Griffin, who I also thought would be a far better administrator than he has been (where could we find another Werner (also spelled Wernher) Von Braun, or James Webb for that matter?). And he had better get his act together for this team, because I do think that they mean business here!!!</p><p>By the way, all the polls (even those of Fox) show an overwhelming support by the American people for what Obama is doing, and especially his choices for his transaction team!&nbsp;&nbsp; And therfore, Griffin and NASA are NOT going to be able to stonewall or fight these people!!!</p>

 

[job1207]

<p>As President, I will streamline the number of rockets supported by the US Government. That said, we are going to the Moon to stay, and to Mars.</p><p>For the Moon, and Mars we will just go on top of Ares V. Please adjust your planning accordingly. We will need two or three Ares Vs for each mission. For LEO, there will be competitive bidding for all contracts.&nbsp;</p><p>End of Statement, nothing follows</p><p>POTUS </p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>In any case, it certainly smells like a giant ****storm is brewing...</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">>>I suggest we pull the plug on this turkey and start doing some useful work, both on earth and in space. </div><p>>So we should cancel human space exploration??&nbsp; </p><p>1. NASA's mission should be to work with industry to develop the enabling technology needed for _practical_ human spaceflight. When human spaceflight is safe and reasonable in cost, then private industry and government research agencies will be able to utilize it for exploration and many other missions, just as they utilize the technology NACA developed in aviation. </p><p>2. Spending over $100B to go to the moon with 60's technology doesn't contribute to any long term goal, and is nonsustainable. Anyone who thinks public interest would be enough to keep the money flowing doesn't remember Apollo 12.&nbsp; </p><p>3. VSE effectively kills ISS after $100B in investment. If we can't find something useful to do on ISS we will certainly not find anything useful to do on the moon.</p>>>In any case, it certainly smells like a giant ****storm is brewing...<p>4. Unfortunately NASA appears to be stifling dissent rather than engaging in honest debate. We already have two underutilized medium-lift ELVs, Atlas and Delta. Soon we will have three, with Falcon, We certainly do not need four. And we could man-rate any of the three without interfering with Shuttle, since they use different pads. Wouldn't it make more sense to get a new system working _before_ we shut down the old one?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>>>I suggest we pull the plug on this turkey and start doing some useful work, both on earth and in space. >So we should cancel human space exploration??&nbsp; 1. NASA's mission should be to work with industry to develop the enabling technology needed for _practical_ human spaceflight. When human spaceflight is safe and reasonable in cost, then private industry and government research agencies will be able to utilize it for exploration and many other missions, just as they utilize the technology NACA developed in aviation. 2. Spending over $100B to go to the moon with 60's technology doesn't contribute to any long term goal, and is nonsustainable. Anyone who thinks public interest would be enough to keep the money flowing doesn't remember Apollo 12.&nbsp; 3. VSE effectively kills ISS after $100B in investment. If we can't find something useful to do on ISS we will certainly not find anything useful to do on the moon.>>In any case, it certainly smells like a giant ****storm is brewing...4. Unfortunately NASA appears to be stifling dissent rather than engaging in honest debate. We already have two underutilized medium-lift ELVs, Atlas and Delta. Soon we will have three, with Falcon, We certainly do not need four. And we could man-rate any of the three without interfering with Shuttle, since they use different pads. Wouldn't it make more sense to get a new system working _before_ we shut down the old one?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>With one exception I have no problem agreeing with your post.&nbsp; That is #3.</p><p>There are NO raw resources in LEO at the orbit of the ISS. &nbsp; There are raw space age metal, oxygen in plentiful supply, and a great possibility of even water at the polls of the moon. &nbsp; There is energy aplenty, in particular towards the polls where he sun shins uninterrupted all the time, with no atmosphere to block it.&nbsp; There is only 0.16 in g for gravity, and no atmosphere to speak of, so getting materials off of the moon is going to very simple, quick, and easy.</p><p>In fact, the incredible luck of having such a large and unusually material rich moon at only some 250,000 miles from the Earth, IS the true key to having a space faring civilization!</p><p>And there will be plenty of true space research for the ISS to fully justify its expense also.</p><p>What we are discussing here is not whether or not we should have a space faring civilization in space, that should be a given to any of us!&nbsp; But, exactly how are we to obtain such a civilization at a reasonable cost.&nbsp; Even more limiting to our discussion is the exact method that would be both safe and relatively inexpensive in going not only to the ISS, but also outward to the moon, and eventually Mars and beyond. And the Constellation and the Ares I apparently to a lot of us is NOT that method! </p><p>And even more importantly, it looks like it just may not be the inexpensive and safe method that the next administration is also looking for either!!!</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<strong>As a taxpayer, I don't care how much Ares 1 costs to DEVELOPE.&nbsp; I only care how much it will cost to OPERATE over it's 20-30 year life span.&nbsp; IMO, the Direct 2 (and EELV) crowd is "penny wise and dollar foolish".</strong><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As President, I will streamline the number of rockets supported by the US Government. That said, we are going to the Moon to stay, and to Mars.For the Moon, and Mars we will just go on top of Ares V. Please adjust your planning accordingly. We will need two or three Ares Vs for each mission. For LEO, there will be competitive bidding for all contracts.&nbsp;End of Statement, nothing followsPOTUS <br />Posted by job1207</DIV><br /><br />please do not impresonate the president/president elect</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

lol

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As President, I will streamline the number of rockets supported by the US Government. That said, we are going to the Moon to stay, and to Mars.For the Moon, and Mars we will just go on top of Ares V. Please adjust your planning accordingly. We will need two or three Ares Vs for each mission. For LEO, there will be competitive bidding for all contracts.&nbsp;End of Statement, nothing followsPOTUS <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p><strong>Well, Mr. President Elect, apparently you have no idea how much 2-3 Ares V launches cost!&nbsp; LOL!</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>One mission, will be really a series of missions. You have to send up stuff, and then more stuff, and then astronauts, if the astronauts are going to stay more than a few days, or so.&nbsp; </p><p>EACH prolonged mission will require more than one rocket, by a lot, depending on what they decide to call a mission.&nbsp; </p><p>Apollo 47K Kg to TLI and only supported a few mission days on the lunar surface. </p><p>Ares V 71K kg to TLI</p><p>So Ares lifts 50% more stuff, but well, Apollo only stayed for a few days.&nbsp; </p><p>Certainly, direct flights to the moon surface, would get more stuff to the lunar surface. So it may just take two Ares V flights to provision a relatively long mission.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[centsworth_II]

<p>All your questions will be answered.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <img id="smid_10" style="vertical-align:middle" src="http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif" border="0" alt="" /> </p><p>&nbsp;<strong>4 p.m. EST, Wednesday, Dec. 17<br /> Constellation Program Update</strong><br /> <br /> <font color="#333399">"NASA will host a media teleconference to brief reporters about recent developments and ongoing progress in NASA's Constellation Program. <br /><br /> The briefing participants are:<br /> -- Doug Cooke, associate administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington <br /> -- Jeff Hanley, Constellation program manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston <br /> -- Steve Cook, Ares projects manager at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. <br /> -- Mark Geyer, Orion project manager at NASA's Johnson Space Cente" </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><font color="#333399">>>ongoing progress in NASA's Constellation Program</font></p><p>Sounds like another attempt to stifle discussion by claiming it's too late to change course. Who cares if it's the wrong course? Who cares if the schedule shows both moon landings and the ISS even though there's not enough money in the budget for both? Who cares if all the programs to actually develop new technology for spaceflight have either been transferred to DOD or cancelled?&nbsp; </p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Some more fuel for the fire...</p><p>http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/nasa-needs-a-ne.html</p><p><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:14px;line-height:17px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">A&nbsp;</span><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">new report</span><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;released today by the Space, Policy and Society Research Group at MIT, based on a two-year independent review, offers recommendations for the future of this country's human spaceflight program. Though the review panel has some sharp criticisms of NASA's current direction, it also found cause for hope.</span></span></p><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:14px" class="Apple-style-span"><p style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;line-height:1.24em;padding-bottom:18px;margin:0px" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;line-height:normal" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:14px;line-height:17px" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">"Our major recommendation is that the Obama administration should rethink the Bush plan," said MIT technology historian David Mindell, who led the review. "The problem with the current plan is that it's overambitious and underfunded and not really thought through. Our recommendation is that the Obama team issue a new policy."</span></span><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">&nbsp;</span></span></p><p style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;line-height:1.24em;padding-bottom:18px;margin:0px" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">....</span></p><p style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;line-height:1.24em;padding-bottom:18px;margin:0px" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">"The catch phrase has been 'too much with too little' &ndash; that's from the Columbia accident report," Mindell told Wired.com. "The Bush plan has never been funded with the degree it was supposed to. We&rsquo;re not trying to make a case that NASA&rsquo;s budget needs to be doubled, because that's just not viable in this environment. </span><span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">But going on the path they're going on is going to kill people, simple as that.</span></span><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">"&nbsp;</span></p><p style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;line-height:1.24em;padding-bottom:18px;margin:0px" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;-------</p><p style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;line-height:1.24em;padding-bottom:18px;margin:0px" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><p style="padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;line-height:1.24em;padding-bottom:18px;margin:0px" class="MsoNormal">Wow, harsh stuff... I wouldn't be surprised if Griffin already had his bags packed.&nbsp;</p></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Some more fuel for the fire...http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/nasa-needs-a-ne.htmlAnew report&nbsp;released today by the Space, Policy and Society Research Group at MIT, based on a two-year independent review, offers recommendations for the future of this country's human spaceflight program. Though the review panel has some sharp criticisms of NASA's current direction, it also found cause for hope."Our major recommendation is that the Obama administration should rethink the Bush plan," said MIT technology historian David Mindell, who led the review. "The problem with the current plan is that it's overambitious and underfunded and not really thought through. Our recommendation is that the Obama team issue a new policy."&nbsp;...."The catch phrase has been 'too much with too little' &ndash; that's from the Columbia accident report," Mindell told Wired.com. "The Bush plan has never been funded with the degree it was supposed to. We&rsquo;re not trying to make a case that NASA&rsquo;s budget needs to be doubled, because that's just not viable in this environment. But going on the path they're going on is going to kill people, simple as that."&nbsp;&nbsp;-------&nbsp;Wow, harsh stuff... I wouldn't be surprised if Griffin already had his bags packed.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Many of us here are certainly not against going back to the moon in the time frame that NASA has already given out. &nbsp;</p><p>What is going to happen on the funding window is that after about 2010 when NASA has completed the ISS in its construction that NASA is then going to be able to use far more of the current funding for the ISS construction with about $6 billion per year going into the current funding fo rthe ISS, and take about $5 billion of that (leaving some $1 billion for continued experimentation abord the ISS), for going back to the moon by 2020 at the latest. &nbsp;</p><p>That is at the very least some $50 bnillion plus what has already been spent by that time.&nbsp; If NASA is careful that is indeed possible.&nbsp; But many of us here also believe that NASA should be looking at other options than the current Ares I design.&nbsp; And we further believe that other options will not only be less expensive, but even safer than the current Ares I design.</p><p>Whether or not the new administration will insist that NASA drop the current design and look at other options, none can say at this time.&nbsp; To me at least NOT going back to the moon in a reasonable time frame is NOT an option however.&nbsp; I would even be happy to see it done by the current design rather than just give up totally! </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Did anyone catch the entirety of that press conference? &nbsp;I only heard a few minutes of it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<strong><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black;font-family:Verdana"><p style="margin:0in0in0pt;line-height:40pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black;font-family:Verdana">From Aviation week:&nbsp;</span></p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:black;font-family:Verdana">Ares I Active Damping Unneeded</span><span style="font-size:7pt;color:black;font-family:Verdana"><br />Dec 18, 2008 </span><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100%"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right:0in;padding-left:12pt;padding-bottom:0in;padding-top:0in;background-color:transparent;border:#c0c0c0"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100%"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right:0in;padding-left:12pt;padding-bottom:0in;padding-top:0in;background-color:transparent;border:#c0c0c0"><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Verdana">By Frank Morring, Jr. </span></p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>I assume a passive system is less complex and less heavy than an active system? &nbsp;If so, that's good news then. &nbsp;Assuming the new admin doesn't toss the whole thing out.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>