To the Supporters of Constellation

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Alright any real exploration initiative must start with a plan. What plan has to include what you want to do, why you want to do, and how your going to do it.

I think I understand Obama's plan. Obama wants manned spaceflight to go to asteroids and Mars. His plan to do so is to use private companies to provide NASA with transport to LEO and the ISS at a price far cheaper than that which can be achieved with the Ares I. At the same time his administration proposes to develop "game-changing" technologies, which include VASIMR, advanced life support, ISRU, fuel depots, and a few other ones. I get sense from the amount of money he proposes we spend on developing these technologies he is counting on them to reduce costs and allow for more cost effective human spaceflight. His plans includes the eventual development of an unspecified heavy lift vehicle. This plan of course is set to be operate within NASA's manned spaceflight budget.

Constallation also had well defined plan and objective. The objective was to return to the Moon. The plan was to build the Orion and Ares I for crew transport into LEO. The plan also included the Ares V as a shuttle-derived heavy lifter, as well as the Altair lander.

The problem with Constellation was simply that it costs more money than it was going to get. The budgetary projects for the project were based on the de-orbiting of the space station in 2015, funding cuts to the other science programs at NASA, as well as, a significant increase NASA's overall funding. Unfortunately these just were not going to happen. As a result there was just no way Constellation is going to work.

So my question to the pro-Constellation side of the debate is what is your plan?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
This will probably be merged into one of the many existing Constellation discussions....
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Here is something more to merge, from Wayne Hale's Blog :

waynehale.wordpress.com : Killing Constellation
Posted on September 23, 2010

by waynehale

The summer I turned seven years old, my family made the classic American vacation road trip down Route 66 to California. Our end goal was Disneyland in Anaheim, but we made every tourist stop on the way. The only enduring memento that I have from that trip – aside from pictures in an album somewhere—is a glass paperweight from the Painted Desert National Park in Arizona. Some clever artisan took different colored sand and made a picture in the tightly capped glass with layers of sand in various hues.

At NASA, budget charts frequently project and program costs into the future with the various elements making up the total in a graphical form with time on the x-axis. Since the various cost elements are always shown in different colors, the pattern is not much different from that vacation paperweight. At NASA, such budget projections are frequently referred to as “sand charts”. Maybe they are at other agencies as well.
...

Some nice comments too.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
I have to say that the way it looks now Constellation is the wrong way to go. It is good to see that it is going to be cancelled. I was excited when I first read about its ambitious goals but you are right, it is going to cost way too much money. The new technologies Obama plans to develop should make such lofty goals much more achievable and practical in the 20's and 30's rather than attempting to do so right now.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
The Constellation program

It seems very likely now that Constellation will be cancelled. Some of the hardware like Orion will probably stay around but for the most part it appears to be out the window. We are now throwing away our chance to return to the moon on the 50th anniversary of Apollo and the program that has been in development for many years will now be completely turned around.

Should Constellation be continued? If not, why? What were your major qualms with Constellation, and does it deserve a second chance? Also, what do you think the new program (asteroid mission) should be named?
 
S

SteveCNC

Guest
Re: The Constellation program

Of the three choices I have to go with number one , for now that develops an HLV that can be used for many things besides an asteroid mission and it sets up seed money for the commercial market . As for a boots on an asteroid mission , I highly doubt that will be what ends up happening so I'm not going to worry about it for now , just consider that part to be pork which is something you can't get away from so just accept it .

What to name the mission ? How about a tribute to Sisyphus and call it the Sisyphean mission .
 
V

Valcan

Guest
Re: The Constellation program

Have to go with the first. Constellation was simply to far over budget and to underfunded. Much of it was redundant sense say the Ares I wasnt needed at all because its job could be performed by far cheaper launchers presently ready or near to being ready.

Also much of it wouldnt have been ready for a new moon landing for atleast 15 years. We need to focus on a more modular system that can use existing or smaller and cheaper HLV that can be ready in a smaller amount of time. Technology can make this possible. We need to invest in better tech.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
Re: The Constellation program

Yuri_Armstrong":1sltph6v said:
Should Constellation be continued? If not, why? What were your major qualms with Constellation, and does it deserve a second chance? Also, what do you think the new program (asteroid mission) should be named?
It was the Shuttle which should have been continued. It was finally working magnificently and development had already been paid for. Without Shuttle the productivity of ISS will be reduced; the two were intended to work together. Only a fully reusable launch system can achieve human spaceflight at a practical cost, and without Shuttle the development of such a system will be delayed by a generation.

What possible practical benefits will Constellation provide for America that are worth its cost, $200 billion borrowed from China since Americans demand tax cuts? Apollo was canceled by Nixon in 1974 because sending a few people to the moon on huge throw-away rockets was much too expensive to be practical. It still is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts