woo Bush won, now space vision will be ok!

[grooble]

It will won't it??? What do you think. Bush should be in power just up to around the time they decommission the shuttle.

 

[crix]

We might see the LRO and some early CEV stuff within the next 4 years but certainly not the decommissioning of the shuttle. <br /><br /><br />:-/

 

[mooware]

I doubt Bush's space vision will go anywhere.<br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

Hopefully the next 4 years will be enough to cement some sort of long term space agenda and get people used to the idea that we're going back beyond LEO in a meaningful way so that whatever administration is elected in '08 won't be able to slash it.<br /><br />At the very least, prometheus will be far enough along that it can't be axed by anti-nuclear leftists. That alone will give all space causes a big boost.

 

[toymaker]

Nuclear propulsion will be probably seen, which is good.<br />I heard they are pursuing it not only because of scientific but also military reasons-which means it has a better chance of being developed.<br />And because Republicans have majority there will be a less likely chance of Democrats opposing it(Kerry was against Cassini !)

 

[elguapoguano]

You got that right. If Son of Star Wars takes shape, we're going to need a big nuke reactor to power those space based energy weapons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[yurkin]

I predict we are going to be seeing a tolerable amount of politically oriented threads in M&L. This one may be the dieing mule’s last kick.<br /><br />Prometheus, CEV, and scientific exploration of mars are now on solid ground. As well as political changes at Nasa. That alone is significant. I’m expecting a radical change in our space policy but now at least there is the start of something. I wish the President the best of luck in bring his new Space Vision into reality.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Prometheus, CEV, and scientific exploration of mars are now on solid ground<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />We shall see. MtM hasnt really budged forward an inch since its announcement. The excuse was primarily due to political uncertainty.<br />Its really interesting whether it starts to move now or are we going to hear _really_ lame excuses for lack of progress.

 

[wvbraun]

Uhm, a lot of progress has already been made, don't you read the news? The reorganization now underway at NASA, the biggest in its history, is a direct result of the VSE. There was no Exploration Systems Directorate ten months ago, think about that. Then there is the Aldrige commission report, numerous internal NASA studies on HLVs, a number of contracts for studies on how to return to the Moon and work has already started on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. <br />I suspect NASA will considerably step up the pace in the months ahead but to say that no progress has been made since Bush made the announcement in january is simply wrong.

 

[thecolonel]

A Bush victory is but a small step in what we need to make the space vision a success... nevertheless it is a very important step. We now have at worst an administration that will be neutral towards the vision and at best a champion for it... whereas the alternative was an administration that sought to create a NASA that very much resembled the NASA of the early 1990's...<br /><br />I must be honest... I've refrained from saying much on space.com lately because my spirits as well as many of the people I work with in Houston at JSC has been quite low as of late... All of the work for CEV has been in very much a wait-and-see mode for the election. It was no secret that had Kerry won that the space vision would be all but dead.<br /><br />But as I said... this is still a long fight. The Shuttle has been a worthy and mighty vehicle but she is also long in the tooth and NASA knows that her time to be replaced will soon be upon us.<br /><br />I have only been in Houston for a short period of time but I am extremely inspired by the intelligence... dedication and resolve of the people that I have the honor of working alongside... If we can get congress to deliver the money then I have no doubt that we have the motive and the talent pool to make all of this happen!

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> numerous internal NASA studies on HLVs, a number of contracts for studies on how to return to the Moon <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Studies, studies, studies. We've had couple of decades of this, i wouldnt call that progress.<br />

 

[crix]

Yeah... I mean, what's with this?<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15303<br />AND<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14404<br /><br />Make a decision and do something!

 

[mrmorris]

If you really want evidence that NASA can't make up its mind -- go to the NASA Technical Reports Server and use the search terms 'crew' and 'vehicle' in the title. You'll see just how much they've dithered over a vehicle to return people from ISS (and Freedom before that). They keep switching acronyms, and can't even decide what the acronyms stand for. There are reports on:<br /><br />Crew Emergency Rescue Vehicle (CERV) <br />Crew Emergency Return Vehicle (CERV) <br />Crew Exigency Return Vehicle (CERV)<br />Crew Return Vehicle (CRV)<br />Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV)<br />Advanced Crew Rescue Vehicle (ACRV) <br />Earthbound guaranteed reentry from space station (EGRESS)<br />

 

[crix]

Why do they do this? I suppose the obvious reason is that no plan so far has really dinged in with an "Ah-hah!" effect.<br /><br />tSpace's incremental, competitive, and modular plan has been the best overall model that I've read about. It also probably has the greatest cooperative requirements between different people and companies which could make it seem less attractive than something simple. EG, "you build big dumb booster, we launch big dumb payload."<br /><br />One point I like from tSpace is their point that "Not spending $18 billion in 2010-2020 on invisible-to-the-public heavy lift development means $18 billion more will be available for actual operations in space that the public can see and understand."<br /><br />I think trying to "do space" in a big-way at this point in time will fail. Until we get warp drive, it's much more realistic to do this in small, sustainable steps that include the public... and I ain't countin' on seeing warp drive any time soon.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Now, talking about manned spaceflight, the picture is even bleaker. Impossibility to design and fly any new vehicle since 1981!! Even a poor dumb lifting body X-38! <br />Billion$ spent, tens of designs and plans and still nothing."</font><br /><br />In all the reading I've done on the X-38 (lots lately) I don't understand why it suddenly went belly-up. Unlike X-33 -- it didn't seem to hit any technological walls. The ESA participation must've meant that NASA pulling out really pissed them off.<br /><br />Of course what I understand even less is what the lifting-body aspect of X-38 really bought. It didn't have enough lift to land without the parasail. The LB aspects added weight and complexity without returning much value. A capsule-type spacecraft can be have a controlled landing via a parasail, and has a considerably lower weight and fewer re-entry issues.

 

[crix]

Some guesses:<br /><br />They wanted to do the R&D on lifting bodies for potential future use. The lifting body probably provides much more steering capability plus glide than a capsule. It looks cooler... which i actually think is a legitimate reason. Seeing the shuttle launch is pretty inspiring as a technological marvel. More so than a scaled up amateur model-rocket shape.

 

[mattblack]

Cancelling the X-38 was a big mistake, one that we've already come to regret. All those years of actual flight hardware and research done with the X-planes: down the flusher. Then, when every new Govt. comes along, you get the "not invented here" syndrome and the study, study, study with billions more spent with nothing to show. Bush & Co. had better be serious about a "C.E.V." or the U.S. will hold the unopposed, unenviable record of producing more expensive "paper spaceships" and space art than anyone!!<br /><br />I say build a blunt-biconic shaped C.E.V. (or similar) and just get the hell on with it. <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>