This is EXACTLY my point! Your argument has nothing to do with saving Constellation and everything to do with NASA's budget. Yes, we ALL hate the fact that NASA has a microscopic budget to work with... but getting Congress to shoot down the new proposal in favor of continuing Constellation doesn't get NASA a bigger budget!jakethesnake":3sexktqt said: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!menellom":3sexktqt 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?
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.
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.
Oh but you are wrong, Constellation is a vision, a set of goals, that I believe is the best out there.This is EXACTLY my point! Your argument has nothing to do with saving Constellation and everything to do with NASA's budget. Yes, we ALL hate the fact that NASA has a microscopic budget to work with... but getting Congress to shoot down the new proposal in favor of continuing Constellation doesn't get NASA a bigger budget!
By all means write your congressmen, but ask them to support NASA with a larger budget, not save Constellation!
What on Earth are you talking about???jakethesnake":1a9ch2c4 said:Oh but you are wrong, Constellation is a vision, a set of goals, that I believe is the best out there.This is EXACTLY my point! Your argument has nothing to do with saving Constellation and everything to do with NASA's budget. Yes, we ALL hate the fact that NASA has a microscopic budget to work with... but getting Congress to shoot down the new proposal in favor of continuing Constellation doesn't get NASA a bigger budget!
OK... and first off... your patients, and or the lack there of, is not the reason I started the post, but on the other hand this post which is titled “Save Constellation” is for what it suggests... to in some small way help in saving the Constellation Program.What on Earth are you talking about???
Look... I'm trying my best to be patient but it seems you're still not getting the point I'm trying to make here, so I'll try to explain as simply as possible:
You appear to be operating under the assumption that if Congress votes down Obama's proposal in favor of Constellation that it will, as part of that decision, give NASA the extra $3-5 billion dollars a year it needs to meet any of Constellation's goals...
... I'm one of the biggest optimists in the world when it comes to space and even I know that's not gonna happen.
1st, that's not gonna happen. I'm just being straight with you here. NASA would need $4 or $5 billion dollars a year added to the budget to make any part of Constellation happen within the original VSE deadline. We're talking $50 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Congress will never vote for that. It sucks, it really really sucks, but it's true.jakethesnake":3dbor453 said:1st and foremost my goal is to help save a program called Constellation, and as MW has previously stated a program “that was inadequately funded from day 1”... so I say fund Constellation!
2nd At the very least my goal is to hold the high ground i.e. save NASA’s ability to get it’s astronauts into LEO and to push this Point...
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket by risking NASA’s astronaut’s lives and their ability to access LEO in the hands of the still not mature commercial sectors.
So the problem is that if you continue to develop Constellation as is there will be no money for any commercial operation. Constellation as it stands now requires that the ISS be scraped in 2015. It largely rules out the possibility for the participation of other government agencies and private space services.rcsplinters":95rcu5in said:There's been several threads that each bring a bit different light to this common discussion. Some posts in this thread reminded me of a point I was discussing the other day. I think one thing that really rubs the wrong way on this executivel proposal is that in killing Constellation, it killed everything. NASA LEO, NASA heavy lift, NASA lunar hardware, everything. In its place it left our manned spaceflight to a unproved commercial community which has no sound business model and a former mortal enemy which could boot us in a hearts beat. We don't even have a firm commitment to strategize any sort NASA based manned option. As everyone knows, a few shuttle flight from now, the USA is a non-player. I think if the plan had continued with a man rated ARES V or even demanded alternative in 6 months, it would have credibiilty. I personally would strongly support a continuation of ARES I and V (I personally like the idea of a smaller launch platform on the ride uphill) because those vehicles give us flexibilty for a few decades worth of missions. Then we'd have an option if commercial ventures fail or if our ride to the ISS decides that their interests are better served with us standing on the ground. Then planning for the lunar mission or whatever mission could take place and funding sought on its own merits.
There are some indicators that this president may only last 1 term. What if the next follows up the current debushification effort with their own a bamaectomy? Do we start on Constellation or son of Constellation again with nothing to show but loss of time and more expense due to the stop and start costs in these dark and uninspired times? Where's the logic in that? (Rhetorical question, there is no answer).
Anyone know much on the congressional requirement to vote on any plan to discontinue Constellation? I'd like to read that provision. Presuming its the law, I'd like to see how its worded. While the president may think he is vote proof, I'm not so sure that a majority in either the senate or house will vote for any plan that calls for the US to take a seat behind Russia, China and maybe India and even Iran in manned space flight. I rather expect to see parts of Constellation continued, though perhaps under another name.
If you fully funded Constellation then the date of 2030 becomes obsolete, the date that I am reading says that constellation could be ready somewhere around 2023 if they fully fund it.So you suggest to fully funding a program that cannot be finished until after 2030,
You are absolutely incorrect; if you fully fund Constellation then no other programs would have to be stripped.does not build any space infrastructure such as multiple private companies with multiple vehicles and station variants for the future and would strip all other NASA programs of nessessary funding.
Hey… Thanks for calling me nuts...That's not only nuts, that's bad business.
I would submit that cancelling the Constellation Program, which is a program that has been voted on by congress twice and passed with overwhelming bipartisan approval, is a program that should be fully funded.Cancel Constellation and stop the bleeding now. Then once the mess is cleaned up build a heavy launcher that works, is on budget and can be delivered in a timely manner.
I say give NASA $3 billion a year and extend the original VSE deadline.1st, that's not gonna happen. I'm just being straight with you here. NASA would need $4 or $5 billion dollars a year added to the budget to make any part of Constellation happen within the original VSE deadline. We're talking $50 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Congress will never vote for that. It sucks, it really really sucks, but it's true.
And you truly think the commercial sector can field anything sooner?2nd, even if through some massively improbable happenings, Congress DID give NASA the funding it needs (and deserves), the damage is already done. Even with the extra funding the best it might do is cut the development time for Ares from 2018 down to 2016, that's still six years without a rocket.
No, I don’t think they would do that intentionally, but what they would do is what all small and large businesses do to procurer a contract ... and that is to promises the moon and then in the end sometimes what they find is that all they can deliver is the cheese...3rd, NASA's rockets and spacecraft have always been built by the private sector, the new proposal just opens it up a little more instead of relying entirely on defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. SpaceX isn't Weyland Yutani Jake, they're not going to cut corners and risk lives to save a buck.
Yes, we've established that Congress wastes money... several pages ago... that doesn't change the fact that they're never going to give NASA $4 billion dollars a year.jakethesnake":3ued1884 said:I say give NASA $3 billion a year and extend the original VSE deadline.
Also, if the Congress was good with giving Acorn $4 billion in the 2010 budget and another 4 billion in the proposed 2011 budget, then NASA’s increase shouldn’t cause anyone to blink... including Congress!
YES!And you truly think the commercial sector can field anything sooner?
Tried to cut out my original post so folks don't have to read through my drivel once again. Not sure if that worked.DarkenedOne":1hw6l38u said:So the problem is that if you continue to develop Constellation as is there will be no money for any commercial operation. Constellation as it stands now requires that the ISS be scraped in 2015. It largely rules out the possibility for the participation of other government agencies and private space services.rcsplinters":1hw6l38u said:There's been several threads . . .
Constellation is just like Apollo where NASA and its traditional contractors get all the exploration money and develop everything themselves.
I agree that having a back up would be nice, and if Constellation were a bit more reasonably priced. However the problem is that even with scraping all money for ISS and commercial services Constellation still needs $3 billion more per year. It is clear that if we pursue Constellation it will be to the exclusion of everything else.
Perhaps it is worth while to resurrect the Orion Lite concept to be launched from Ares. Such a vehicle could provide a back up at considerably lower cost.
Not really, I think I have made my point quite clear, if not 10 ways to Sunday…menellom":2xq86o9h said:
Welcome to SDC and thank you very much...Were it up to me, I'd fund Orion and Ares I and V. I'd also take sometime to do studies of manifests and missions. I'd also be taking a look at the Orion and Ares replacements (and the ISS replacement as well). In terms of commercial ventures, the heck with seed money. In those cases, you invite the potential suppliers in and as them how can WE make money. I'm all for the government providing venture funding and a knowledge base to those with sound business models and legal commitments to the manned space flight business. I frankly don't care "if" they can put a man in orbit. I do care whether or not they can make a lot of money doing it. If they can't, then in 5 or 10 years, they won't be committed and will exit the market or we'll end up with another GM because they'll be too important to fail.