SAVE CONSTELLATION

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

menellom

Guest
mr_mark":13br1zys said:
I have a feeling this argument will be mute in about a month after the launch of falcon 9, which i have a hunch will be successful. Politics and publicity will take over and most senators will come online to the idea of commercial. Just a note Spacex does not really need NASA in the long run. In fact, NASA needs them more than Spacex needs them. Remember, Spacex's first sattellite launch was for Malaysia and they have plenty of international clients already booked for their services. After a decade or so, if the game United States becomes too hard due to poilitics, Spacex being a corporation can reestablish itself anywhere in the world and launch private astronauts or astronaunts from other countries. It's a business not a program. :roll:
Actually this is something I'm optimistic about, if the private space industry in the US is backed and the public and private sector work together, I think you'll see spaceflight really come into its own as an industry. NASA will be able to afford more missions (unmanned and manned) then ever before and as it becomes more and more affordable over time I expect we'll see most international space programs 'buying American' to get their own programs into orbit. "Space" could become America's next major export.
jakethesnake":13br1zys said:
All I am pointing out is that at this point SpaceX has never launched a Falcon 9 and even if they have designed there hardware to be robust enough to handle four time the design limits the real world testing has yet to begin.
That's not quite true. SpaceX has been testing individual components for a while now, the launch in March is merely the first full launch test, and they already plan on launching at least two more before attempting a delivery demonstration to the ISS, and even more before they even consider launching astronauts. They are going about this the right way.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
That's not what he's saying. SpaceX's Falcon 9 has zero flight time so far. Falcon 1 has 2 successful launches out of 5.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
I will say it again… I hope that SpaceX is successful, and successful beyond their wildest dreams, but at this point to gamble away NASA’s ability to launch our Astronauts into at least LEO and rely on the hopes that the commercial sector will provide… especially at this early stage of the game is not wise at all.

I am totally good with the amount of seed money (6 billion over 5 years) going to companies like SpaceX and Orbital.

In my mind the biggest boondoggle and the greatest hindrance to NASA has been the International Space Station... it is sucking the absolute life out of them.

And what is this “International” business??? We need some of these other International partners to BUCK UP!

If it’s such a great thing then where is all the research that was supposed to happen?

Why aren’t companies knocking down the door to do microgravity research on the ISS?

Medical companies invest billions into genetic research… their not knocking down the doors!

I actually don’t know the answers to those questions but I tell you what… someone should start trying to get some return on the, U.S. investment up there, and if it can’t be done then give that damn thing to the Russians or something and if they won't take it, deobit it and dump bloody thing into the Ocean!

Just my take on this...
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Jake, please try and read one more time what Byeman has to say, if no one else. Ask him where he got his 'heresy'.
If you will be nice, he might answer.

And as to why not more research has been done on the ISS, you answered yourself. If people think that research done on ISS is a waste, is it wonder no more has been done ? You might have also noticed, that a lot of research projects has been canceled in the years of Constellation. Please, don't let me get you a list, its not that hard to find.

There are questions, for which we need answers for before going anywhere, because even breathing gets a bit problematic when you are above the atmosphere, and there are other small inconveniences too, like radiation, bone loss, muscle atrophy, to name just a few from the top of the head.

We get that from the ET ?
 
N

nimbus

Guest
jakethesnake":26xoyhai said:
[...]
Just my take on this...
My take is that you need a "SpaceX" to make access to space cheap, probably starting with focus on LEO. Then you have increasing customers, and business grows.

No argument on ISS. But it's there, so best thing to do is juice the best lemonade out of it.

Also, I don't think the ISS is the only problem if you're calling out what's sucking the life out of NASA. I think NASA should do only space stuff. Leave climate and education to other parts of the budget. Climate as the Obama admin is speculated to be plotting to refocus NASA on, makes no sense IMO. A waste of money. Let NOAA do that. As for education, the more pure NASA's focus on space, the more attractive and admirable it will be to kids. Then you only have to let education workforce do the legwork to give kids the means to satisfy that admiration.
 
M

menellom

Guest
jakethesnake":30jziyay said:
I will say it again… I hope that SpaceX is successful, and successful beyond their wildest dreams, but at this point to gamble away NASA’s ability to launch our Astronauts into at least LEO and rely on the hopes that the commercial sector will provide… especially at this early stage of the game is not wise at all.
Alright fine, let's go down this hypothetical road. Let's say the budget goes before Congress and Congress shoots down this proposal in favor of "saving" Constellation.

... now what? You're still stuck with an underfunded, decade behind schedule program. A program that won't have a LEO rocket before 2017, that won't be going past LEO before the end of the decade, and which requires the deorbiting the ISS in five years.

What have you gained by "saving" Constellation?
 
B

Bromo33333

Guest
I do not think we should abandon our goals (manned spaceflight, heavy lift vehicles, affordable launches), I am pretty sure we weren't on the path to that with the current set of programs.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
As for the human rating (please everybody stop saying man rated) of Dragon, that will happen on the first COTS demo flight that attaches itself to the ISS since astronauts will have to go in it. NASA has rules that if an astronaut has to go in it if it's attached to the ISS, then it has to be human rated to the satisfaction of NASA. However...

Human rating is just procedural anyway. It is not the end all be all.

NPR; P.2.2 The Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), and Soyuz spacecraft are not required to obtain a Human-Rating Certification in accordance with this NPR. These programs utilize existing policies, procedures, and requirements to certify their systems for NASA missions.

Why the Soyuz is not human rated per NPR? Because it will fail. But NASA has to buy seats from Russia while they wait for Ares I. Lets not get all tangled up because of human rating the Dragon. After a few freight deliveries to the ISS Dragon will bypass any human rating. Also I predict that the first humans to fly Dragon will not be NASA astronauts anyway.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
menellom":27df53fq said:
jakethesnake":27df53fq said:
I will say it again… I hope that SpaceX is successful, and successful beyond their wildest dreams, but at this point to gamble away NASA’s ability to launch our Astronauts into at least LEO and rely on the hopes that the commercial sector will provide… especially at this early stage of the game is not wise at all.
Alright fine, let's go down this hypothetical road. Let's say the budget goes before Congress and Congress shoots down this proposal in favor of "saving" Constellation.

... now what? You're still stuck with an underfunded, decade behind schedule program. A program that won't have a LEO rocket before 2017, that won't be going past LEO before the end of the decade, and which requires the deorbiting the ISS in five years.

What have you gained by "saving" Constellation?
Bullpucky...

Either find some way to make that huge white elephant of a behemoth which they call the International Space Station cost effective and or get the other so called international partners to pay for some of its staggering costs or just splash the damn thing!

The U.S. absolutely went down the wrong road with the Space Shuttle and the ISS! It has been the proverbial 500 Pound monetary Gorilla on NASA’s Back for over thirty years!

This is why the U.S. has been stuck in LEO and why Constellation is under funded and dyeing!

Shame on Nixon for cancelling Apollo!

Shame on everyone who pushed the ISS!

Shame on Bush for underfunding his own proposed Constellation Program!

And definitively shame on Obama for trying to turn the U.S. into another third world nation!
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
Gravity_Ray":2ytpjkls said:
As for the human rating (please everybody stop saying man rated) of Dragon, that will happen on the first COTS demo flight that attaches itself to the ISS since astronauts will have to go in it. NASA has rules that if an astronaut has to go in it if it's attached to the ISS, then it has to be human rated to the satisfaction of NASA. However...

Human rating is just procedural anyway. It is not the end all be all.

NPR; P.2.2 The Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), and Soyuz spacecraft are not required to obtain a Human-Rating Certification in accordance with this NPR. These programs utilize existing policies, procedures, and requirements to certify their systems for NASA missions.

Why the Soyuz is not human rated per NPR? Because it will fail. But NASA has to buy seats from Russia while they wait for Ares I. Lets not get all tangled up because of human rating the Dragon. After a few freight deliveries to the ISS Dragon will bypass any human rating. Also I predict that the first humans to fly Dragon will not be NASA astronauts anyway.

YEP... can't get by that one!
 
M

menellom

Guest
jakethesnake":3326rvwm said:
menellom":3326rvwm said:
jakethesnake":3326rvwm said:
I will say it again… I hope that SpaceX is successful, and successful beyond their wildest dreams, but at this point to gamble away NASA’s ability to launch our Astronauts into at least LEO and rely on the hopes that the commercial sector will provide… especially at this early stage of the game is not wise at all.
Alright fine, let's go down this hypothetical road. Let's say the budget goes before Congress and Congress shoots down this proposal in favor of "saving" Constellation.

... now what? You're still stuck with an underfunded, decade behind schedule program. A program that won't have a LEO rocket before 2017, that won't be going past LEO before the end of the decade, and which requires the deorbiting the ISS in five years.

What have you gained by "saving" Constellation?
The U.S. absolutely went down the wrong road with the Space Shuttle and the ISS! It has been the proverbial 500 Pound monetary Gorilla on NASA’s Back for over thirty years!

This is why the U.S. has been stuck in LEO and why Constellation is under funded and dyeing!

Shame on Nixon for cancelling Apollo!

Shame on everyone who pushed the ISS!

Shame on Bush for underfunding his own proposed Constellation Program!

And definitively shame on Obama for trying to turn the U.S. into another third world nation!
"Coulda woulda shoulda" is not a legitimate reason to save the Constellation program, and I won't even respond to that childish libel you capped your post off with.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
Well if they just figure out how to pee and poop in space from the ISS it will pay for itself. :)

All kidding aside, it is these types of "devil in the details" issues that the ISS will be very useful for, once and if humanity decides to leave LEO.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
"Coulda woulda shoulda" is not a legitimate reason to save the Constellation program, and I won't even respond to that childish libel you capped your post off with.
It’s called leaning from your mistakes! :lol:

Have a Nice day! :roll:
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
Gravity_Ray":1rzv24pf said:
Well if they just figure out how to pee and poop in space from the ISS it will pay for itself. :)

All kidding aside, it is these types of "devil in the details" issues that the ISS will be very useful for, once and if humanity decides to leave LEO.
I know and I agree... its just very frustrating seeing congress not funding what they asked for!

Like telling NASA to find all the smaller NEO's and not giving them a dime to do so...
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
Here a pretty cool website that shows you how and who to write if you don’t support the direction Obama is taking NASA.

SUPPORT CONSTELLATION

http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELL ... OLDLY.html

please spread the word

GOING BOLDLY, OR BARELY GOING?

From

http://www.supportconstellation.com

Dear Friends:

You’ve probably heard that the proposed Federal budget for 2011 has some very bad news for space exploration. If enacted, the budget would cancel NASA’s Project Constellation, ending our return to the Moon, and halting our efforts for human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

This would mean that after the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010, the United States would have no ability to send astronauts into space, and it would have no definite plans to develop new space vehicles. Commercial transport has been suggested, but no such capability exists yet.

In place of Constellation, NASA would be asked to pursue something called a “flexible path,” meaning that they would be told to spend money with no particular goal in mind. This seems unwise to us.

We believe that it’s in our vital national interest to pursue a robust ongoing program of space exploration – both human and robotic – and its why we believe that the President’s proposal to cancel Constellation is a serious mistake.

The good news is that the proposed budget is just that: A proposal. Over the next few weeks, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate will meet to devise the actual budget. They’ll be guided by the President’s recommendations, but they’ll make changes where they feel necessary.

That’s why we ask you to join us in writing to your elected officials. Tell them that you support a robust program of space exploration, and ask them not to cancel Constellation. Point out that space technology is a vital part of modern technology, and that investment in space helps keep our country on the cutting edge, today and in the future. Remind them that the space program is an ongoing source of innovation and science that helps grow our economy and inspires our young people to literally reach for the stars.

Please join us today in working for that future by writing to your elected representatives, and by asking your friends to do the same.

Thank you.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Jake, that must be your first cancellation of a program. I have seen some more before, but this one really deserves it.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
EarthlingX":1xtl0hyh said:
Jake, that must be your first cancellation of a program. I have seen some more before, but this one really deserves it.
I guess we can agree to disagree; actually the cancelation of the X33 was much more deserving.

Now Bolden is all is all over the place… saying all kinds of stuff about he doesn’t know if the heavy lift launcher that NASA will explore designing will be safe enough for Humans or not and that we could expect to build it sometime after the year 2020.

He's admitting he messed up in other areas as well... kind of embarising to be honest... :oops:

He’s not looking like the brightest NASA administrator so far.
 
M

menellom

Guest
Jake... all you're doing is posting videos and blogs and petitions shouting "SAVE CONSTELLATION! SAVE CONSTELLATION!"

We get it... you're really passionate about this... but do you understand why your passionate about it?

What is your rationale for wanting to save Constellation? Why is it so important we save a program that wouldn't have launched a single rocket for seven or eight years, and wouldn't accomplish it's lunar goals for another twenty?\

I'm concerned because I think you have it in your head that if Obama's proposal is shot down and Constellation continues the outlook for the program will somehow be different than it is now.

"Saving" Constellation won't magically convince Congress to double NASA's budget or poof a dozen Ares rockets into existence at KSC. "Saving" Constellation leaves us exactly where we already are - a shuttle retiring, nothing ready to replace it, nowhere to go when the replacement is done.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
Here is a good take on the feeling and worries in Forida!

Is this the end of the NASA's human space program or the beginning?

From Floridatoday.com

Sunday, February 07, 2010

The mood around the Kennedy Space Center, across Florida's Space Coast and throughout the space program is dark. People are sad. They're angry. They're bitter. They're scared. They want answers.
President Obama's plan to end the space shuttle program and cancel the shuttles' replacement is troubling enough. More worrisome: the White House budget released last Monday shows little sign of a human space flight program beyond the space station this decade or next. There's no clear goal to go boldly anywere.

"They were devastated by the announcement," Bolden said, acknowledging abysmal morale across KSC. "The sooner that someone can articulate a vision, the sooner they're going to recover."
 
M

menellom

Guest
jakethesnake":im4oxwwd said:
Here is a good take on the feeling and worries in Forida!

Is this the end of the NASA's human space program or the beginning?

From Floridatoday.com

Sunday, February 07, 2010

The mood around the Kennedy Space Center, across Florida's Space Coast and throughout the space program is dark. People are sad. They're angry. They're bitter. They're scared. They want answers.
President Obama's plan to end the space shuttle program and cancel the shuttles' replacement is troubling enough. More worrisome: the White House budget released last Monday shows little sign of a human space flight program beyond the space station this decade or next. There's no clear goal to go boldly anywere.

"They were devastated by the announcement," Bolden said, acknowledging abysmal morale across KSC. "The sooner that someone can articulate a vision, the sooner they're going to recover."
Woah woah woah... I'm sorry, "Obama's plan to end the space shuttle program"?
 
N

nimbus

Guest
jakethesnake":15bb32yy said:
He’s not looking like the brightest NASA administrator so far.
Or maybe he's pulled every which way by political strings.
"I'm probably going to get in trouble for this, but.... [...] I'm definitely going to get in trouble for this [...] "

No better than apparent disarray at the top management level of NASA, is everyone below that level feeding more FUD into the situation.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
menellom":1fd3ujs2 said:
Jake... all you're doing is posting videos and blogs and petitions shouting "SAVE CONSTELLATION! SAVE CONSTELLATION!"

We get it... you're really passionate about this... but do you understand why your passionate about it?

What is your rationale for wanting to save Constellation? Why is it so important we save a program that wouldn't have launched a single rocket for seven or eight years, and wouldn't accomplish it's lunar goals for another twenty?\

I'm concerned because I think you have it in your head that if Obama's proposal is shot down and Constellation continues the outlook for the program will somehow be different than it is now.



"Saving" Constellation won't magically convince Congress to double NASA's budget or poof a dozen Ares rockets into existence at KSC. "Saving" Constellation leaves us exactly where we already are - a shuttle retiring, nothing ready to replace it, nowhere to go when the replacement is done.
Look… I have been watching NASA flounder for more than thirty years… two Shuttle tragedies, the start and end of the X33, and finally in 2004 there was Constellation… an actual Vision, a place with an end goal of Mars, and being able to sustain our presence beyond LEO.

The problem here is not the Constellation’s architecture, it’s funding… and if you look at some of the garbage that is in the 2011 Budget you will see things such as 1 billion for a high speed train going from Chicago to St Louis… GIVE ME A BREAK… so far high speed trains in the U.S. has been a complete and total JOKE and in California these trains are only 2 % occupied!

Give it to NASA… Give it to SpaceX… Give it to Orbital…

Take NASA up to where it should be… about .75 to .80% of the Budget and we will actually go places. For that matter encourage commercial companies like SpaceX with real dollars right alongside NASA.

But right now if Obama gets his way NASA is going to be a Government organization that monitors Global warming… and that is simply sickening to even contemplate!
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
For that matter if you look at what Acorn got just last year that would fund everything and then some! :eek:
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
nimbus":2icrf8ks said:
jakethesnake":2icrf8ks said:
He’s not looking like the brightest NASA administrator so far.
Or maybe he's pulled every which way by political strings.
"I'm probably going to get in trouble for this, but.... [...] I'm definitely going to get in trouble for this [...] "

No better than apparent disarray at the top management level of NASA, is everyone below that level feeding more FUD into the situation.
I think that's probably as good an answer as any actually...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS