Will the 5 years between Shuttle and Orion allow...

[radarredux]

Well said, anvel.<br /><br />Maybe I'll quibble on a few points later, but I will enjoy the post for now.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On "the gap", I think there will be cheaper, American-built alternatives to the ARES/Orion available before that capsule flies. It's going to be embarassing but a US firm will offer humans-to-LEO for 1/10th the price that NASA is claiming for ARES in the 2010-1015 timeframe. Space-X? Lockheed? I'm not sure, but someone will have a new solution. (ironic if it's Lockheed, as they'd be competing against themselves) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />LOL! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I think that's a real possibility... and a good one. <br /><br />However, NASA still owns its own private jets even to ferry its people about even though cheap commercial flights are available - isn't it possible that they may very well also develop Ares I (in order to retain the basic capability) even though LM, SpaceX, t-space etc manage to successfully offer a cost-effective, superior LEO service?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But Rutan's triumph is receding too, and all these other private ventures have flown exactly nothing.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />FFS, what will it take that you people will stop saying that ?<br />Bigelow flew an orbital manned facility prototype, privately, and gearing up for a next launch.<br />SpaceX flew a complete, ready-to orbit rocket a few hundred meters. It failed on the first attempt, which in this industry is not unheard of. They, too, are gearing up for the second launch, with lessons learned.<br />Armadillo is regularly flying very much reuseable VTOL rockets, with enough performance to take a man up to where SS1 was.<br />A certain other dot com billionaire is, judging by scant published details, flying a DC-X clone under shroud of secrecy. <br />And that all is just the most visible efforts, a tip of the iceberg, so to speak.<br /><br />So would you like to rephrase that statement above ? No, really, would you ?<br /><br />

 

[astronaut23]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We are in full retreat from what should be mankind's destiny, and I doubt private space exploration or an Earth sized planet a dozen light years away is going to change that any time soon.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Pretty depressing isn't it? <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />I never got to see men walk on the moon. We were already in full retreat by the time I was born. <br /><br />But I did look forward to the space station during the 80's and that kept getting delayed and redesigned on through the 90's. Then the Russians were brought on board and it became the ISS. <br /><br />I was also happy when Zarya first flew and then Unity was mated to it. I was at Cape Canaveral to watch the launch of STS-88 which took up Unity. I thought finally Space shuttle is gonna be doing something interesting. Construct a space station on orbit.<br /><br />Then my favorite orbiter Columbia was destroyed by a piece of foam hitting in the wrong place at the wrong time. On a flight that had nothing to do with the space station it brought space station construction to a complete standstill.<br /><br />Now the whole manned space program is on life support. The country just doesn't have the balls to accept the risk that space flight entails anymore. If we can't accept the risks and loses then we can't go. <br /><br />I think we are realy fortunate that more people haven't been lost over the years. Putting people into space is dangerous. I have to wonder how many close calls we've had? Certainly the failures receive great attention. In fact thats all the media and general public cares about. They don't care at all about the successes.<br /><br /><br />The dream used to be so alive. Now it seems dead.<br /><br /><br />But I will enjoy what few flights of shuttle is left cause it could be worse. If certain factions had their way we'd have no manned program at all. Looks like they might get their wish in the end.

 

[spacester]

Great posts, anvel. I very much share your frustration at the alleged level of difficulty of NASA's current projects. It does seem like it could get one a lot faster, doesn't it?<br /><br />Maybe if the budget was adequate and steady? I bet that would help. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Great rant, astronaut23 . . . that's my kind of rant.<br /><br />The journey has been especially tough on your generation. Nuthin' but past glories before your time. That's rough duty. How many times have your hopes been lifted and then dashed against the rocks?<br /><br />Just hang in there a bit longer. This is the year things get rolling. Falcon I within a month!<br /><br />Sorry, but I'm gonna keep beating the drum.<br /><br />There's a new boss-man at NASA, he gets things done but he is underfunded. This situation no longer can be lain at NASA's feet.<br /><br />Contact your Congressperson. Check out my sig line for the address. Print out your rant, add some words to explain it, mail it, use nice stationery; you'll get an answer and your voice will be heard.<br /><br />Just a thought. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">It's going to be embarrassing but a US firm will offer humans-to-LEO for 1/10th the price that NASA is claiming for ARES in the 2010-2015 timeframe.</font><br /><br />I'm with ya JO5H, you know that. But let's look at this supposition of NASAs embarrassment.<br /><br />1/10 the price for LEO compared to a Lunar-capable craft. Low LEO versus anywhere on LUNA, with more crew and more supplies to the lunar surface than being delivered to private stations, with assured return and higher margins of safety.<br /><br />Higher costs are explained by it being a gummint operation with lower flight rates, yet NASA has their vehicle in place for the next 2 to 3 decades. Government personnel on gummint vehicles utilizing this long-term assured access to space at whatever cost (LTAATSAWC?) which is needed for the wide variety of missions taken on behalf of all of us as we look to the world's premiere space agency for leadership towards achieving Space Faring status. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />There's a carrot on the end of a stick at Shackleton as a result of this vehicle. There are other locations to visit, maybe not entirely funded by NASA, even NEOs. There is new space-proven technology available to space entrpreneurs. There is basic science and applied science available for commercial benefit.<br /><br />NASA has their workforce reconfigured. The standing army has been turned into a lean machine.<br /><br />I'm not seeing too much to be embarrassed about here.<br /><br />When Griffin first announced the Stick, this was my reaction: he is positioning NASA ahead of Atlas/Delta because otherwise he risks NASA - and LM/Boeing - being embarrassed by altSpace. Brilliant! A defensible market position that extends our national space capability in the directions we need to go. <br /><br />The gap is up to Congress to close. Griffin stands ready to apply resources and get er done. In the meantime, NewSpace can develop just as fast as they want, and t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">There's a new boss-man at NASA, he gets things done but he is underfunded.</font>/i><br /><br />More than underfunded, he is handcuffed. From Griffin's recent budget discussion:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The House resolution reduces overall funding for NASA by $545 million from the President's FY07 request. It further directs specific reductions to human space flight of about $677 million and $577 million of that to come from Exploration Systems.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />124% of the budget cuts are to the human spaceflight program. Griffin can't event juggle funds around to protect this long-term effort.</i>

 

[holmec]

Well over the period of two years I think that logically the T-Space's CXV was birthed out of a new direction for NASA by conflicts with Congress along with the CEV. Because before NASA was looking at making the OSP and the CRV.<br /><br />Here I give you two articles:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/space_plane_0305212.html<br /><br />"Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) said he was concerned that OSP may not be ready to fly until 2010, four years after NASA had committed to provide a rescue capability for station.<br /><br />Gregory testified that at the time of X-38s cancellation, it appeared to NASA that the Crew Return Vehicle would not be ready until 2008. Cost also entered into the equation, Gregory said, with some estimates coming back as high as $3 billion to $5 billion, a figure several times larger than NASAs earlier $1.2 billion estimate.<br /><br />Gregory said the OSP is the end result of NASAs desire to develop a vehicle that is more capable than the one-way-only Crew Return Vehicle it abandoned. A number of former NASA officials also testified and they too were skeptical of NASAs space transportation plans and its OSP centerpiece."<br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.view&newsid=EBB1C266-96B6-175C-9DAE486593CD5A4B<br /><br />"Transformational Space Corp. ("t/Space") won the contract option based on six months of analysis recently presented to NASA. The work included how to structure NASA contracts to foster a true American-style lunar frontier, generating both economic and scientific resources for taxpayers. In addition, t/Space developed detailed designs for a Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV) for Earth-to-orbit crew travel, allowing the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to be optimized for lunar expedition <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Were in a transitional stage now. That's always hard. Its hard for others to understand that its important to do the current missions and prepare for the future at the same time.<br /><br />Eventually though I expect for this to pass and people get excited about space again. The tourism will do wonders there as well as the financial prosperity of companies like SpaceX and Biglow. Getting to that point is hard but we will get there.<br /><br />So keep the faith. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Gregory testified that at the time of X-38s cancellation, it appeared to NASA that the Crew Return Vehicle would not be ready until 2008. Cost also entered into the equation, Gregory said, with some estimates coming back as high as $3 billion to $5 billion, a figure several times larger than NASAs earlier $1.2 billion estimate. </font><br /><br />Until psycho dan left, there was no knowing exactly wtf was what with NASA finances at any time but it was known that there was a huge financial mess, way way beyond FUBAR, there were $Billions out there somewhere and the best CPAs in the land couldn't find it. IMO that's what killed CRV. Congress was exasperated. From an oversight perspective NASA was the worst agency in the land.<br /><br />CRV was part of the shell game and the robbing-peter-to-pay-paul game. (It also was pushing the limits of Aerofoil technology, and a smooth landing was looking less and less achievable.) <br /><br />O'Keefe cleaned up the mess for the most part and our buddy Mike finished the job and had to be the guy who showed up at Congress' door with the final accounting.<br /><br />$6 Billion. That was the amount of money "lost" by NASA during the psycho dan era. A lot of money, but what Congress demanded was an accounting, and Griffin gave them one. Doing that was supposed to allow the agency to move forward. There was supposed to be a carrot at the end of the stick, but the ol nag doesn't get any of it.<br /><br />NASA had to eat that $6 B and they had to do it recently and that's real money even in NASAs world.<br /><br />OK fine so they roll up their sleeves and work the budget. Griffin serves at the pleasure of the POTUS and he'd been given a direction and that is his active mandate literally from day 1. Dr. Griffin (he of the multiple degrees) did everything he could to keep the science budget intact right up to the last minute.<br /><br />He gave the GOP Congress a chance to step up to the plate by saving the Science progr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am sure as we speak they are purchasing the little sealed bags of cocktail peanuts and designing the stewardess uniforms.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />At this stage, i am pretty sure that Richard Branson IS actually pretty busy doing exactly that. The uniforms are going to have "Virgin" written on them in big, friendly letters.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Look... I strongly support these private ventures. I just think that they are conceptually just a bit oversold at this point. We're a long way from warp drive and Yeoman Rand in a mini-skirt.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />To me it seems, that a lot of people confuse the science fiction with reality and have oversold some stuff to themselves. The mini-skirts in your favorite space opera were supposedly supplied by government. This, i guarantee you, will not happen.<br />This is very off topic now, but i wish there was more of actual more realistic close-in-future sci fi, so that the idea of space becoming a place for everyone would become more popular. And i dont mean government-operated space trucks attacking comets.

 

[mattblack]

Splendid, Anvel, very well said posts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[astronaut23]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Five years between Shuttle and Orion is simply unsatisfactory to a country that landed men on the moon almost four decades ago. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Roger that. It makes me very sad because it confirms to me that America's best days are behind her. I don't want to believe that but if you look at the evidence what other conclusion can one come too?<br /><br />This country is in deep deep doo doo with our national debt, the welfare programs sucking us dry, the war sucking us dry. Our kids and grandkids are being left the bill. How do you like explaining to them how they are gonna be paying the bills we've left them. We are not leaving our kids with a better future than we inherited.

 

[holmec]

"My message to Congress is this: it is not in our best interest to screw over NASA on the budget. She deserves better. Quit it!!"<br /><br />I get it! Unfortunately, Congress in steep into partisonship politics and the health of NASA seems to be the last thing on Congress's mind. <br /><br />And this is unfortunate but its Govenrment reality is how do you operate on a limited budget?<br /><br />Now here is a real kicker, maybe commercial companies will be quicker to make a ship than NASA battling for every dollar to make theirs. I mean for NASA its clear that planning and building are not the only feats they have to battle with, so maybe the COROTS companies have a real chance to make a real difference to assist in the GAP which seems to only get bigger with every dollar taken away from NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

The debt and the war is pretty bad, but I'm glad to see so much innovation on the private level, both in space and not. Wikipedia, YouTube, agreements between states to cut down pollution and universal health care for Massachusetts and California, etc. along with the unpopularity of Bush gives me hope. The best case scenario would involve a democrat president in 2008 and good cooperation in space between the US and Canada either before or after that, because I really think Canada (where I'm from) isn't pulling its weight in space when it certainly has the ability to. I think the US will do fine after 2008 comes around. Luckily the world economy is doing quite well.<br />Actually, I think Bush would have been a good president had Cheney and Rumsfeld not existed, but that's getting a bit off topic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And this is unfortunate but its Govenrment reality is how do you operate on a limited budget? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe the answer lies in not putting forth architectures that are designed for mostly job preservation in agency centers ? Maybe the answer lies in using the "little" money that they do get wisely and not duplicating existing capablities ?<br />Or maybe the eternal, tried and true answer really is "we had great plans, but the congress cut our budget, so all we have left are those viewgraphs again. see you around on the next iteration of the same"

 

[holmec]

Reduction in space will only help our lungs, not take any carbon out of the atmosphere at all. You have to take the carbon out of the environmental circulation (ground to air, air to ground).<br /><br />Canada is certainly a key player in space.<br /><br />A democratic president won't help NASA one bit. The Dem Conress wants to take away money from NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

That's hard to say. A democratic president (Al Gore) would have freed up an extra $360 billion (no war) to use here and there, no? You are also forgetting that the next democratic president (or at least vice-president if we're lucky) could be Bill Richardson.<br /><br />I don't think I would call Canada a key player in space. Canada makes things here and there but our space agency is dreadfully small, and I believe almost the entire budget is being spent on the ISS, plus a wee bit for robotics and some training of astronauts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[docm]

Sandbox mode on:<br /><br />Gov. Bill Richardson is perhaps the only Democratic candidate with an ounce of common sense, plus he's a space advocate. Additionally he's a governor, which is a big plus as they usually have experience operating in the RRW (really-real world). Members of Congress don't live there.<br /><br />I might even be convinced to vote for him if he's nominated.<br /><br />Sandbox mode off:<br /><br />The rest of them need to grow up before they're let out of the Congressional kindergarten. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[trailrider]

What is the matter with all of you? There is NO WAY any private venture can result in producing economical, manned, powered flight! What? Do you think a bunch of...oh, bicycle mechanics from Ohio...can have any chance of success against Dr. Langley's efforts, funded by the Government (Smithsonian Institute)?<br /><br />Do you honestly think anyone can design a commercially successful aeroplane that can fly on TWO engines and, in an emergency, ONE? What are those nuts at Transcontinental & Western Air thinking of? I mean, hiring that guy Douglas-something-or-other who is practically broke and has laid off most of his engineers and staff out there in California is nuts.<br />No possibility of success there! ("They patch her up with masking tape, paper clips and strings, and still the Gooney Bird flies, she never dies...Mathuselah with wings!")<br /><br />Commercial space is about where the aircraft industry was in the late 1920's-early '30's!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[pathfinder_01]

“What is the matter with all of you? There is NO WAY any private venture can result in producing economical, manned, powered flight! What? Do you think a bunch of...oh, bicycle mechanics from Ohio...can have any chance of success against Dr. Langley's efforts, funded by the Government (Smithsonian Institute)?”<br /><br />Actually the Wright brothers did go into business, but they were unsuccessful businessmen. They might have invented powered flight, but it wasn’t economical. In fact in terms of capability, airplanes wouldn’t surpass airships for at least 10-20 more years. Not to mention passenger travel which wouldn’t be profitable without airmail until the 30ies. In fact it is rare that the person or company that invents something is able to sustain and profit from it. Computers, television, the airplane lots of inventions that didn’t make their inventors a dime. <br /><br />“Do you honestly think anyone can design a commercially successful aeroplane that can fly on TWO engines and, in an emergency, ONE? What are those nuts at Transcontinental & Western Air thinking of? I mean, hiring that guy Douglas-something-or-other who is practically broke and has laid off most of his engineers and staff out there in California is nuts. <br />No possibility of success there! ("They patch her up with masking tape, paper clips and strings, and still the Gooney Bird flies, she never dies...Mathuselah with wings!")”<br /><br />I’d suspect that there were other planes that did have that ability but were not commercially successful. Which is a big thing. <br /> <br /><br />“Commercial space is about where the aircraft industry was in the late 1920's-early '30's!”<br /><br />I would say that it is probably about where it was cira 1910. If it were the 1920ies you would see lots of people setting private manned spaceflights right now instead of just a few advance plans. Instead of drawings and web pages and models people would actually be purchasing tickets to go into LEO from private c

 

[holmec]

Sandbox mode on: <br />LOL!!!!<br />Sandbox mode off: <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Well, all this just proves my point that Congress is going to stall NASA. And that's a pretty long stall. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

'I think Congress will restore funding as originally proposed... or very close to that amount.'<br /><br />I hope your right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>