Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: simking on January 30, 2010, 06:14:02 AM
-
Moon return plan 'is dead'
WASHINGTON - A PLAN to return US astronauts to the moon 'is dead', a White House adviser on space issues said on Friday, confirming reports that Nasa will instead focus on developing commercial space transport.
'Constellation is dead,' the source told AFP on condition of anonymity, referring to a programme that envisioned returning to the moon by 2020 and using Earth's nearest neighbor as a base for manned expeditions to Mars.
Florida Today newspaper first reported the demise of the program Thursday, saying the plan was doomed by financial constraints in the 2011 budget President Barack Obama is to present to Congress on Monday.
Reports added that the US space agency will work on finding a commercial solution to ferrying US astronauts to the International Space Station after the scheduled end of Nasa's shuttle program in September 2010.
Astronauts will be able to hitch rides aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft, but the United States will need a commercial alternative if Congress approves White House plans to scrap development of a successor to the shuttle program.
The administration reportedly plans to hike Nasa's budget by US$5.9 billion (S$8,26 billion) over five years to boost commercial development, with the goal of a first commercial flight to the ISS launching by 2015, the source said. The Constellation programme was launched in 2004 by then-president George W. Bush. -- AFP
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/TechandScience/Story/STIStory_484185.html
-
Hmm... Did anyone say " I told you so, and this is no rumor or speculation." ?
Of course, this is still " an anonymous Washington source", but still... A few more hours until the is out officially. Anyway, NASA is already acting according to these new directives.
/Admin
-
Congress has the final words I guess ;)
Bear in mind that Obama already is going to fail with his health care reform...
-
Now that's a progress, Moonwalker: you switched to hoping from speculating ;)
Well I second you on that: I too hope that this Administration "can't" - "can't" kill the vision and the spirit of the US future in space.
But for now, the Administration's decision is firm. Only "the People" can change that.
/Admin
-
Well, unless Obama tells anything and speaks to the congres, no decision is firm yet. We have to bear in mind that all the bad news originates from one Orlando Sentinel news article. Orlando Sentinel is comparable to FOX news ;)
All we do for now is to follow web based speculation. There is NOTHING official yet from Washington.
With the Sentinel’s article paraphrased and syndicated throughout the mass media and several other space sites, Constellation managers decided to act, informing the workforce on their official position.
“Orion Team: A few news bureaus and bloggers have been reporting on some major changes coming our way. Sometimes the number of reports gives the impression of validity when in fact they are all reporting on the same rumor,” noted Orion Project manager Mark Geyer, via one of several memos acquired by L2.
“I can tell you that I have not received any direction or information that would confirm what they are saying. That being said, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that there will be some changes announced next week and that they may be significant.
...
"As you know, media speculation continues on the President’s budget and its potential implications to NASA’s future. Please remember that the budget process is just that – a process – which may take many months... let’s stay focused on our mission and not let distractions, speculation or rumors affect our continued excellence, our commitment to safety or our care and concern for each other.”
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/maf-provide-positive-et-hardware-overview-for-early-sd-hlv-test-flight/
-
Moonwalker,
You're saying nothing new and I don't really why you're trying to convince me that what I know is actually "speculation". From where you stand, it is, because you don't have first-hand quality "sources".
The difference is that I do.
I am not trying to convince you of anything either - I only state facts from my sources. You can believe my statements or not, but you cannot claim that what *I* know is "speculations". You see, I know my "sources" - you don't.
And of course (again) the decision taken by the Administration will have to go through a few votes before it gets implemented, and I surely don't know what that vote will be - IMHO nobody really knows.
My speculation for Obama's decision for the deep cuts into NASA is because now he's desperately looking for sources to finance his stillborn - the Health plan. But that too has to pass a few lobbies and votes so everything is still very fluid.
Try to make the difference between what I know about the Administration decisions and the chances of these decisions making it through the Congress and lobbies.
Have a great weekend,
/Admin
/Admin
-
Well, you seriously claim to know as much as, or even more as NASA officials and program managers? Even they don't know anything yet they say. And we should not get confused by speculation going through the web they say as well. I guess there are exactly two people who know what's going on in detail: Obama and Charles Bolden, who is going to speak tomorrow. Did you have a phone call to one of them or with their consultants? ;D Just kidding ;)
But seriously, due to any repect I really have, we (the readers here) do have two choices now: to believe that you indeed have first first-hand sources, which must be comming directly out of the White House and from NASA managers in the headquarters in Washington; or to believe that you are referring to web sources just like anybody else, even including NASA program managers and officials. Do not take it too personally, but for now I tend to believe the second one ;D
Maybe you are referring to nasaspaceflight.com and the guys behind it like Chris Bergin? But even them have to rely on what they're told here and there I think. Nobody outside of the White House and closed NASA headquarters offices in Washington certainly does know more or as much as the persons behind the locked office doors.
-
Well, you seriously claim to know as much as, or even more as NASA officials and program managers? Even they don't know anything yet they say. And we should not get confused by speculation going through the web they say as well. I guess there are exactly two people who know what's going on in detail: Obama and Charles Bolden, who is going to speak tomorrow. Did you have a phone call to one of them or with their consultants? ;D Just kidding ;)
But seriously, due to any repect I really have, we (the readers here) do have two choices now: to believe that you indeed have first first-hand sources, which must be comming directly out of the White House and from NASA managers in the headquarters in Washington; or to believe that you are referring to web sources just like anybody else, even including NASA program managers and officials. Do not take it too personally, but for now I tend to believe the second one ;D
Maybe you are referring to nasaspaceflight.com and the guys behind it like Chris Bergin? But even them have to rely on what they're told here and there I think. Nobody outside of the White House and closed NASA headquarters offices in Washington certainly does know more or as much as the persons behind the locked office doors.
I have no clue how much the "NASA managers and officials" you refer to, know. Which "NASA managers and officials" do you refer to exactly anyway and do you actually know how much THEY know, or you just speculate about that? The fact that they don't talk on forums does not necessarily mean that they don't know what is happening. With the jobs fluidity at NASA, they know better :)
No, in this particular case, my source is not with/at or connected to Nasaspaceflight. And since in this case I certainly cannot disclose who my sources are, you will need to speculate about them, or simply wait for the news once they break out. Nice try though ;)
/Admin
-
I have no clue how much the "NASA managers and officials" you refer to, know. Which "NASA managers and officials" do you refer to exactly anyway and do you actually know how much THEY know, or you just speculate about that? The fact that they don't talk on forums does not necessarily mean that they don't know what is happening.
As I already have posted ->
Orion Project manager Mark Geyer:
"A few news bureaus and bloggers have been reporting on some major changes coming our way. Sometimes the number of reports gives the impression of validity when in fact they are all reporting on the same rumor.”
"I can tell you that I have not received any direction or information that would confirm what they are saying."
Former flight director Paul Hill who is now director of the Mission Operations Directorate of NASA:
"Although the uncertainty is frustrating and unnerving, try to not waste a lot of brain cells speculating and wringing your hands about all of the permutations."
"As you know, media speculation continues on the President’s budget and its potential implications to NASA’s future. Please remember that the budget process is just that – a process – which may take many months."
"Nothing has actually happened yet, whether that’s within NASA or in the White House as far as changing national space policy. Further, Congress will ultimately engage with the White House, and there will be some amount of iteration leading up to any final, new policy."
Those are reactions to the "speculations" (as they say) going on within the web.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/maf-provide-positive-et-hardware-overview-for-early-sd-hlv-test-flight/
-
I have no clue how much the "NASA managers and officials" you refer to, know. Which "NASA managers and officials" do you refer to exactly anyway and do you actually know how much THEY know, or you just speculate about that? The fact that they don't talk on forums does not necessarily mean that they don't know what is happening. With the jobs fluidity at NASA, they know better :)
No, in this particular case, my source is not with/at or connected to Nasaspaceflight. And since in this case I certainly cannot disclose who my sources are, you will need to speculate about them, or simply wait for the news once they break out. Nice try though ;)
/Admin
The problem with this is, we see mixed information, on one side: no one except Obama and Bolden know what is going to happen. On the other side there is you, saying that your sources are good, but it is neither Obama nor Bolden.
Can you see our dilemma?
As long as you (Admin) can't say exactly how good your sources are, you might just as well be speculating.
Plus, the things you said still leave a lot of room for speculation, you did not tell us much besides "Things are going to change a lot, and I know". Still love you though. ;D
We'll just have to wait and see what is going to happen, I'd love for some U.S. HSF to be around in 2015.
-
I have no clue how much the "NASA managers and officials" you refer to, know. Which "NASA managers and officials" do you refer to exactly anyway and do you actually know how much THEY know, or you just speculate about that? The fact that they don't talk on forums does not necessarily mean that they don't know what is happening. With the jobs fluidity at NASA, they know better :)
No, in this particular case, my source is not with/at or connected to Nasaspaceflight. And since in this case I certainly cannot disclose who my sources are, you will need to speculate about them, or simply wait for the news once they break out. Nice try though ;)
/Admin
The problem with this is, we see mixed information, on one side: no one except Obama and Bolden know what is going to happen. On the other side there is you, saying that your sources are good, but it is neither Obama nor Bolden.
Can you see our dilemma?
As long as you (Admin) can't say exactly how good your sources are, you might just as well be speculating.
Plus, the things you said still leave a lot of room for speculation, you did not tell us much besides "Things are going to change a lot, and I know". Still love you though. ;D
We'll just have to wait and see what is going to happen, I'd love for some U.S. HSF to be around in 2015.
Nice try Dappa :) but for the record, I don't really care if anybody thinks I'm only speculating. And BTW, I said EXACTLY what will change - not "a lot" - you can refer to my first post on the subject on the Ares thread.
Following the subject of validity and truth of news, I reached the conclusion that many people (present company excluded) immediately reject or question any news which they don't like, and accept the news they actually WANT to be true, without ever questining the sources.
I've seen many reports - mainly generating in the Middle East, quoting unnamed "eye witnesses" reporting the so-called "atrocities" of one side, being accepted by hordes of gullible fools as unquestionable truth just because they side with the "witnessing" side, while immediately rejecting the official and verifiable reports from the other side, just because they hate it. I'm not naming names here, but this can be applied to ANY news and ANY subject - including this one.
So basically I am happy that people here question the quality of my information and source(s) and cross check with outher sources. This only proves the quality of the people frequenting our forum.
The only thing I can say is "wait and see" :)
And I still love you all - LOL!
/Admin
-
I said EXACTLY what will change - not "a lot" - you can refer to my first post on the subject on the Ares thread.
Yes. You said exactly, on January 27, what the meanwhile well known Orlando Sentinel article said, on January 27. All the web news and hysteria regarding Obama axing the moon missions, originates from that Orlando Sentinel article as even NASA mentioned this meanwhile ;)
Of course it might be a coincidence that you posted the "news" after the Orlando Sentinel article had been published. If it was not a coincidence, then your source should be exactly the same source as of the Orlando Sentinel article: White House insiders. Or you know somebody who knows White House insiders. Or, the most likely case in my point of view, just like anybody else you are referring to web sources like Orlando Sentinel and all the follow ups that have been generated since then.
You are teasing us once again Admin ;D
Just kidding ;)
-
Truth is that I saw the Orlando sentinel link after I posted my news. I thought that the time to tell has come, but I was wrong. I have no clue where OS has its information, but I can tell you that based on the content, it is at least as reliable as mine, and the "leak" was done to influence Prez's decision - but that's a speculation of course.
And in this case, I am really not teasing anybody, because IMO this is a very serious subject. The fact is that I can't tell you who the source is regardless of how many times you throw the hook and regardless of the hook throwing style.
As for the officials you quote, again, you are inclined to believe them because it suits your speculation theory, but you ignore the fact that they still work at NASA and they have a lot to lose in case they blurb information which cam be linked to their names (before it's time) or they talk officially outside the company's official line, especially on this very sensitive subject.
So basically if you don't want to feel teased, stop probing, speculating and trying to fish for my source(s), and wait until the Prez reveals his plans officially. It is inevitable and it's only a question of time - and we have plenty of that, don't we ;)
/Admin
-
Just read this on the Beeb's website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8489097.stm
It basically echoes that there is a 'rumour' about the possible 'Cancellation of Constellation'.
Personally, I think the private sector such be more involved in Humans in space, as the governments of the world do carry most of the brunt of the cost, maybe it's time to make space 'profitable'? Plus any Moon venture I think is going to be an international venture. Look at the ISS for instance.
I've just been reading about the Shuttle-C / Shuttle-Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle). In your humble opinions, would that of been a cheaper solution?
-
As for the officials you quote, again, you are inclined to believe them because it suits your speculation theory,
I don't have a speculation theory. I'm just forced to follow the currently "official" speculation theory regarding NASAs budget and its future. My point is that as long as there are no official statements, and as long as we all here don't work for NASA (I guess) or for the US government (I guess even more), or as long as we don't know somebody in person who works for the US government or the NASA managament, we all have to rely on that currently "official" speculation theory until there are official statements available.
I've just been reading about the Shuttle-C / Shuttle-Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle). In your humble opinions, would that of been a cheaper solution?
I think that this would be the most safest and quickest available option to chose as a STS replacement. It is based on flight proven, reliable man-rated STS hardware that does not have to be developed, beside the side mout of course. And it offers to boost into space almost whatever you want: be it cargo for the ISS, satellites, or even an earth departe stage + a lunar lander, and of course Orion above all.
Here you get a nice video of that concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc
And another great STS replacement would be DIRECT which even could make it into space really, rather than the Ares launchers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxcM03VvHdk
-
I don't have a speculation theory. I'm just forced to follow the currently "official" speculation theory regarding NASAs budget and its future. My point is that as long as there are no official statements, and as long as we all here don't work for NASA (I guess) or for the US government (I guess even more), or as long as we don't know somebody in person who works for the US government or the NASA managament, we all have to rely on that currently "official" speculation theory until there are official statements available.
..SNIP...
No comment.
/Admin
-
:D Haha, this thread has been a fun read. Like watching a game of ping-pong ;D
-
The Beeb are confirming the cancellation of constellation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8489097.stm
Okay the moon was too ambitious for one country to go, in todays climate, but maybe the journey should be made by a collective of countries, including Private companies.
Thinking about it, technically, the US the space program(s) is almost commercialised as NASA used a multitude of companies to build the equipment and run the equipment. To over simplify, NASA just 'project managed' and provided the funds. Maybe this is the step that is needed to make space more 'accessible'
The biggest problem is making space launching (man and unmanned) profitable and safe, a difficult balancing act. What I can see in the future is NASA becoming a service to space companies and space regulatory body, with a limited scope on science roles. Probably major science missions will be run directly by universities (The Hale Space Telescope) and tech companies. Transportation of crews and equipment to Stations and outpost handled by 'PAM-AM' on Boeing Craft. :)
-
:D Haha, this thread has been a fun read. Like watching a game of ping-pong ;D
Yes, ping-pong indeed. From where I was playing however it was a no-brainer. After all, I already knew the result of the game.
/Admin
-
:D Haha, this thread has been a fun read. Like watching a game of ping-pong ;D
Yes, ping-pong indeed. From where I was playing however it was a no-brainer. After all, I already knew the result of the game.
/Admin
I know :) That's why I was enjoying it so much.
-
The difference between before and after is that now it's official ;)
-
forty-love, match point.. oh that's Tennis, not ping-pong :)
as Admin said it was a no-brainer. To build a new system and to keep the cost down when there mothballed projects that could be utilised. If NASA / or a commercial venture seriously wanted to do this, the Shuttle-C / Shuttle-Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle program would of been the best plan. Hell, the Capsule could of been a modified X38 strapped to a modified shuttle fuselage + SSMEs.
If the X-37B OTV-1 isn't cancelled for it flight this year , theres some thing to be gained there. I think its mainly been run by Boeing with the USAF as the main "employer". So we're on the step of commercial unmanned flights now...
-
The difference between before and after is that now it's official ;)
The difference between before and after is that before you doubted my source(s) and maybe you also assumed that nobody on this forum can have the right and reliable contacts in the right places to obtain such a high quality intelligence before it's made official.
/Admin
-
Anyone else sad to know that we won't be going back to the moon? Looks like China will get to visit before we do.
Was hoping for an extension on shuttle flights too.
Discuss.
-
Anyone else sad to know that we won't be going back to the moon? Looks like China will get to visit before we do.
Was hoping for an extension on shuttle flights too.
Discuss.
I'm sad too. I was really looking forward to it.
I have high hopes however for the re-direction.
-
Well, a lot of people really do have wrong expectations regarding the Chinese space program. China is the third nation ins pace. Yes. But this is neither a threat, nor won't they go to the moon in any forseeable timeframe. And they don't even seriously intend to got to the moon before 2024, at the very earliest, which is nothing more than lip service anyway. The Chinses space program is not in a shape at all although many (uninformed) people do think it is. They have done only three manned flights within a decade, which was nothing more than test flights for now. Their next flight is not going to happen before 2011, which will be a gap between that last flight and the proposed flight of 3 years. For now their progress is way too slow to indicate any amazing steps in space. In fact, it is just political propaganda to show the rest of the world that the Middle Kingdom now does space flight as well. But they'll soon start to learn that not only on ground, but also in space working together is essential these days to keep manned space programs alive in the long term.
We should bear in mind that if ESA, NASA and Roscosmos don't go the moon because of no budget and missing innovations, nobody else won't go as well anyway. Less than ever China or India. Without international teamwork or at least a little teamwork, nobody will go to the moon alone anymore. Because any smart politician and sponsor knows that those footstep and flag demos are are nothing more than unnecessary propaganda. That the USA did go to the moon was a historic luck, a real luck that was based only on exactly one political reason and decision. A reason that is not given anymore at all. And nobody has the money anyway. We do it either together, or not at all. Low earth orbit might be possible for single nations and commercial space flight programs. But going to the moon and further, manned, is just too big for a single nation to achive in a useful way. The days of big governmental maverick space programs are over.
Also, I'm glad they, NASA and the gov., don't extend the shuttle flights. The program has prevented too much already. Modernizing the Kennedy Space Center and make it ready for commercial use will be a real gain for manned space flight technologies and progress. Now that's a real fine decision in my humble point of view. A few days ago I still thought Obama would let die manned space flight. But in fact he actually acts in a very smart way I have to say. I was judging too fast and to biased on him. But he and Bolden are doing fine with NASA now. After all, NASA gets more money and the chance to do much wiser things than just make a few new footsteps and flags on the lunar surface until there will be a dead horse once again. It's the first time NASA is entering a real long term program, not just a "big show". NASA is "the" space agency. I mean it really is "the" space agency on this planet. The manned part of NASA only makes a small part of the science NASA does. And they now get more money to do more earth sciences and even commercial space flight in future. Nobody competes NASA. Less then ever a single program like Shenzhou, which did not do any science for now, neither on ground nor in space. NASA is a real scientific body the USA can be really proud of. The gain of NASAs overall work and progress is unbeatable, even without manned flights! Americans do not have to fear the little Chinese program at all ;) Nobody has to.
-
"One giant leap backward for Mankind"
Thank you Obama
-
"One giant leap backward for Mankind"
Not quite. Just killing the s****d nationalistic "not invented here" mentality ;)
NASA will have to actually "free" space flight finally and support industries, inside and possibly outside the USA for international partnerships, instead of being the big old governmental space flight monopoly. Commercializing space means the beginning to offer space flight to more and more people and create jobs. See it as a big chance.
There are certain reasons why for example people like Buzz Aldrin already left NASA back then after the Apollo cut, to later found commercial space industries. And people like former Shuttle astronaut Ken Bowersox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Bowersox) become the vice president of the astronaut safety office of SpaceX. These people have understand where the future of space flight should go along instead of being dependant on big political agendas only.
-
NASA will have to actually "free" space flight finally and support industries, inside and possibly outside the USA for international partnerships, instead of being the big old governmental space flight monopoly. Commercializing space means the beginning to offer space flight to more and more people and create jobs. See it as a big chance.
I for one will reserve judgment on that for quite a long time. I really try not to be to synical about our government but, things usually have a way of not working out quite like some politician tells us they will. Bolden was saying it will be six years at the earliest before anyone is ready to launch a human again in this country. This has been a problem for NASA since the begining. Politicians come and go and they all have different ideas of how to do things. They just chucked $9 billion down the drain and have to start almost over. I don't pretend to know much about Space X or some of the others but, what are they offering that Constellation is not offering? This is just one more politicians veiw of the world. If not a "giant leap backward" it is at least a big step backward IMHO.
-
I don't pretend to know much about Space X or some of the others but, what are they offering that Constellation is not offering?
Cheap access to space in the first place. A Falcon 9 launch will cost only about 1/3 of what other comparable launches do cost on average afaik. The progress of SpaceX is amazing to be honest. I was sceptical as well but if you look at it, it's actually more than quite likely that SpaceX will launch both, crew and cargo into space. It is that much likely that NASA supports it. Based on Falcon 9 SpaceX will also develope Falcon 9 Heavy, also quite economical and a real monster rocket that can carry up to 28 tons into earth orbit.
Constellation was just another try of a big show. Launching humans to the moon again to set another few footprints on lunar soil. Beside the words Moon, Mars and beyond, there was no concept for the future at all. That program has swallowed amazingly 9 billion USD to launch a true to scale rocket model from the cape one time, do nice videos, animations and computer models. I was thinking that progress was amazing based on the quarterly reports of NASA. But instead they made just great advertising to pretend keeping and creating jobs and innovation. Ares 1 just had the assignment to launch Orion on top of it. No more, no less. There was no funding for any further launch vehicle, less than ever for a lunar lander. There wasn't even a second stage engine for Ares 1, and not even a second stage itself. 9 billion USD...
-
SpaceX Falcon 1 reaching earth orbit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGHWheEM-ww
-
If the Obama 2011 budget passed by congress, the Augustine Committee's report may provide some answers about the near-future:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
-
Well, after Lockheed dropped the balls on the F-35 and Orion, I knew that Constellation was in trouble. I think something has been missing form all these debates, so I am going to shove my two cents in here.
Mercury and Gemini were built by Douglas. Apollo was built by North American. Rockwell built the Space Shuttle. All are now a part of Boeing. Yet during the original contractor bid process for Orion, then known as the CEV, Boeing lost the competition. The only contractor that had ever built manned spacecraft, with the exception of Grumman the LM builder, was out. Lockheed had never built a manned spacecraft. Did they ask Boeing for any assistance? Of course not. So in 2006 Lockheed got $3.9 billion and went though that like poop through a goose. There are no figurs that I can find on just how far over budget Orion got, but I would think it is safe to say that $5bn is not a stretch.
Constellation was doomed when NASA chose Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed has a track record of milking as much cash as it can. Don't think that is the case? Look at the U-2. That program has cost more than the entire B-52 program including the modifications. And only about 40 aircraft have been constructed.
There was a similar argumant in the mid-60's when NAA was tapped to build the Apollo CM. Everyone here instinctively knows you dont throw your history away, but it has been done twice in the US space program. Now it has cost us our entire manned program.
I can put into words the rage and anger I have toward this administration and it handling of the space program, as well as other issues. This is just the latest in a long line of failures for Obama. When his one year anniversary approached, everyone in the US was asking "How has he done?" A much better and telling question would be "What has he done?"
The answer?
EPIC FAILURE
-
I DESPISE Lockheed-Martin.
-
It's not only Lockheed. Above all it's mismanagement within NASA, and the political decision to go on a non-innovative program for returning to the Moon to set a few footprints again. None of it, neither Apollo, nor Constellation, was long-term programs (at least not the Ares and Orion part of Constellation).
We also do not need the Moon if we want to go beyond LEO, i.e. to Mars for example, like some people tend to think. We already have a great platform for long-term studies: the ISS (and we already have been to the Moon 4 decades ago by the way). What we need is what we get for the first time: competition and commercialization, which will result in new and cheaper technology. Those big bloated governmental programs are not very useful in the long-term. The future will be about international partnership and innovation. Anything else always is doomed to fail sooner or later without following innovation like Apollo, the Shuttle, Buran. It's all dead-end whilst Apollo just had the most glamorous leaving. The most significant and important thing we ever had in relation to future manned space exploration was Skylab, Mir and today ISS. What we need now and finally is new technologies to enable us to travel faster and further. Liquid propulsion won't make it to Mars manned annyway...
-
Moonwalker, your last post disappointed me because it ignores a few critical facts.
I understand that you "kind-of" support the new "vision" and that's legitimate and I have no problem with that, but you shouldn't shape and ridiculize facts to fit your point of view - not to this extent anyway.
The "Back to Moon" programn was NOT about "glamor". It was not even about building a bigger rocket than the "competition".
It was all about building a long-term habitat on the Moon and learn how to "live off the land" for an extended period - if that is possible at all. ISS is a long way from being suitable for that kind of research.
Can you grasp the ramifications and benefits of that kind of program?
Moon was a necessary stepping stone towards landing the first human on Mars, but since Mars meant a long trip and an even longer wait until return was possible, that meant that living there for a long duration needed the results of the Moon Base research.
So basically, opinion is opinion but stick to the facts.
/Admin
-
Constellation wasn't called "Apollo on Steorids" from the beginning just because. The glamor of that program was the words "Moon, Mars and beyond", because almost everybody knew there was never any funding for those verbal intentions, but just hopes that bugdet would come in "one day". There was no funding for the Ares V from the beginning, and no funding for a lander and not for a lunar base less than ever. Instead, they claimed that the design of the Ares launchers and Orion would allow to return to the Moon "in the most cost-effective manner". But together with the Ares 1 cost, mass and vibration level issues, that program suffered public criticism and scepticism like no other program before. I could not see why for a long period of time because I was, just like a lot of people, dazzled by the promises of Griffin and Constellation managers who claimed that everything is just fine and business as usual, although almost everywhere you could read it was not (and by far not only on nasaspaceflight.com). On other forums I visit as well you could read, 2 years ago already, that Constellation is going to die because it has no innovation and no serious concepts beside footprints on lunar soil and eating up budget. I thought that this is just opinions and nonsense. But in fact it turned out to be mostly smart estimates by people inside the business but also outside the business.
Moon, Mars and beyond was set by the Bush admin. It was a political agenda as a result of STS-107. It was and still is rather contorversal whether we need to land on the Moon or not. It's no fact at all that we need to land there in order to fly to Mars. Now, even NASA itself says that instead we need faster propulsion and new technologies to get to Mars quick, but to land on near earth asteroids as well. Most importantly, we have the ISS in orbit and it will be there for "at least" another 10 years. Nobody intents to start a serious Moon project. And this is based on the realization that we need innovation and new and cheap technologies first, in order to get to Mars rather than to do a few footprints on lunar soil for some hundred billions of tax dollars.
If it would just be my opinion that Constellation was dead-end brick, it would not have been canceled and NASA would not going to be restructured now. There is way more than just opinions in it ;)
-
No, it's not just your opinion, just like mine is not only mine. And of course, this fact doesn't even say that you are right. You are part of one side of the story just like I and others are part of the other side. Writing long posts on the subject doesn't manage to change this fact.
/Admin
-
No, it's not just your opinion, just like mine is not only mine. And of course, this fact doesn't even say that you are right. You are part of one side of the story just like I and others are part of the other side. Writing long posts on the subject doesn't manage to change this fact.
Of course we all have different opinions on that topic (and yes, I write long posts :P). But we can not change the fact that Ares development has been canceled due to massive over-budget caused by development issues, which made the program unreasonable because NASA would have gone exactly nowhere beside into LEO. This is not an opinion. This is, sadly, facts based on over-budget and results of the Augustine Commissions research. But of course it is still opinions whether the commercial path would work better or not. But it's fact that there are signs it likely would work better which is why NASA, i.e. the government is going to decide for that path.
I'm aware that the current events do hurt to those who expected a great outcome of the Constellation program (which I did as well). But it's not me who is responsible for those decisions ;)
-
So, how about them Space Shuttles?? :D
-
May not be possible. Michoud has already sent all the ET production tooling to the desert. That and a few boutique manufacturers that are no longer in business have provided the final nail in the coffin for STS. Admin and Moonwalker both make great point on the failure of Constellation, but the program is not 'dead' yet. The PROPOSED budget is already under fire, as it was written by the Obama administration. Those people really though that the Obamacare plans would have gone though, but they didn't. Sen Ted Kennedy's seat went to a republican, and that screwed the budget. The Obama Administration was so blind to the realities of the American people they failed to take into account even the possibility of that happening!
Now we have a massive debate coming in the sub-committees over this budget. There is a really good chance it may got to Ye 'Ole Circular File. That happens you can bet your house cat that Constellation will be back on. That program carries over 400 thousand jobs in Alabama alone and that kind of cancellation is just the thing that could tip off the massive collapse of the stock market everyone is worried about.
Seriously, is the US going to write off $9bn???
-
Seriously, is the US going to write off $9bn???
They have to, if they don't want to make the whole situation worse.
The Ares program is definitely doomed, and not just since the announcement. Ares 1 would have costed up to at least 40 billion dollars until 2015, whilst not being able to launch any human into LEO at that date. 40 billion dollars is more than just over-budget. That's a massive cost overrun combined with the serious development issues we all know about (or should know about). It's money that NASA does not have and does not get. And most importantly: there is no Ares V, no lunar lander, nothing else. The program has reached a financial, technological and therefore temporal deadlock. The Augsutine Report has taken place way too late to change the situation, but it has just happened at the right time to prevent the situation from becomming really worse and much more painful than it already is.
There are two ciritcal things: the President is not willing to support the Ares program, for valid reasons which are actually fiscal facts. And, the sconed one: NASA is not able to innovate cost effectively. In fact, NASA never was. There will be debates for sure. But only due to political reason -> just to bid for votes by pretending to keep jobs. The Ares launchers won't be back again by a 100%. Maybe a different path, like DIRECT. That would be great. But, there has to be money for all this. Money that won't be there due to the fiscal hole, the global economics situation, the health care reform, the educational system reforms, etc. Bad, really bad times for announcing and funding big space flight programs. Just speculation, but I still risk to mention this here: the commercial concept and NASAs restructuring is the most likely option to happen...
-
40Bn US?
What fantasy planet are you living on?
At most 14BN US could be spent on Orion. Do Some research and basic math and you will find the "Scotty factor"
It is overage by x4!
Look at US spaceflight history.
Anyway, Sen. Bill Nelson is holding the line.
-
40Bn US?
What fantasy planet are you living on?
At most 14BN US could be spent on Orion. Do Some research and basic math and you will find the "Scotty factor"
It is overage by x4!
You seem to be fairly misinformed about NASAs budget on human space flight. You do not have to calculate yourself any fictive numbers. Fiscal experts inside and outside NASA have done this already on a firm knowledge base and on current Constellation numbers and facts.
In 2006 the Ares 1 development was proposed to cost 28 billion USD through 2015, which had been risen to more than 40 billion USD in 2009 (to be more precisely: to roughly 49 billion USD). The money already spend is 9 billion USD only for first stage development. There is no second stage hardware, no Orion hardware and no launch escape system hardware (just mockups). Not to mention the small Ares V wind tunnel model, which is the only Ares V hardware that will ever exist. Constellation was underfunded anyway, and additionally went over-budget.
To achive the goals of Constellation from 2010 to 2020, 145 billion USD would have been required all in all, which does not include an ISS extension to 2020. If Constellation would have been accompanied by an ISS extension to 2020, 159 billion USD would have been required for that period of manned space flight.
You may want to read the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight by the Augustine Commission:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
Look at US spaceflight history.
Which would have been my next point anyway:
The Apollo program costs through 1972, including the 6 manned moon landings, was about 25 billion 1969 USD which is about 145 billion 2008 USD. Not included in this costs is the entire program costs i.e. all Saturn 1b and V launches and missions including Skylab and the ASTP (Apollo Soyuz Test Project).
To reduce those enormous costs for manned space flight, NASA and the congress intended to build a reusable space plane that would be "profitable". That was the birth of the Space Transportation System in 1972 (the votes for the Shuttle took place when John Young was on the Moon with Apollo 16). The Shuttle was believed to fly about 600 times until the year 2000 and being cost-efficient (some studies implied the Shuttle could even fly more often). But just like Apollo, STS turned out to be a budget eater as well.
Just like the Shuttle initially, Constellation also was believed to be cost-efficient. But once again in NASAs history, instead it suffered from an extreme over-budget. 145 billion USD from 2010 to 2020 without ISS extension to 2020, that's more than the Apollo budget through 1972. Nothing has changed. NASA is not able to do cost-efficient manned space flight. That's exactly why commercial space flight will be on the table for the first time.
-
....But we can not change the fact that Ares development has been canceled due to massive over-budget caused by development issues, which made the program unreasonable because NASA would have gone exactly nowhere beside into LEO. This is not an opinion. This is, sadly, facts based on over-budget and results of the Augustine Commissions research. ....
And so they say... the development issues which generated the over-budget are unquestionable facts, but that's ALWAYS been an issue of Space Exploration or any "extreme" frontier Exploration for that matter. And I don't remember that budget issues have been EVER been an "issue" with matters related to keeping the US at the head of the pack - politically and technologically (in whichever order you prefer).
As to THIS being THE reason, allow me to take it with a pinch of salt - with all due respect to the Augustine Commission. My information says something a "bit" different, and as time comes, truth will come out of this dramatic move on NASA. And you may be surprised by some of Administrator C. Bolton's future moves too.
/Admin
-
the development issues which generated the over-budget are unquestionable facts, but that's ALWAYS been an issue of Space Exploration or any "extreme" frontier Exploration for that matter.
That's exactly the problem. NASA managers and politicians did not learn from those issues when they introduced the Ares launchers. Even worse when they introduced Ares 1. The design was the problem from the very beginning (putting a manned payload on top of a single solid rocket booster, which was a concept Wernher von Braun already refused steadfastly to do). Issues that was foreseeable. As even Bolden said publicly just a fews days before: "I did not listen". And not only him. Many did not listen. Listen to those (NASA and space industry engineers), who for years said that the issues are going to make Ares 1 unreasonable (safety, time, money). Not for nothing have they anonymously come together and created the DIRECT concept. Not for nothing has the Augustine Commission been requested. And not for nothing has the program been canceled finally. I could easily quote many posts from forums, blogs and news articels, back from 3 years of age, that said back then: Ares 1 won't ever get into LEO. Of course at that time I also thought that they are wrong and NASA is right. Because it's NASA and its managers must know how to do it best. But it was not at all. Those people I laughed at now have my respect, even if it was just rocket science students that obviously knew more than some NASA managers were able to realize. I don't remember any space program that got that much bad press and criticism and so much relief after its cancelation (basically refering to web polls and articles).
Well, NASA may change its path once again due to congressional fights and decisions. Quite unlikely but there is always hope that Constellation might be back "in some sort". But one thing you can bet all your money on: Ares won't come back in any case.
-
Simking, I challenge you to show me ONE Space Agency which is not over-spending. This is not because people don't learn, but mostly because when confronted with rigid safety and technology choices, time and money suffer.
I bet that commercial enterprises, when they go mainstream Space Exploration and be confronted with safety, technology, time and money and will have to haul humans, will have a tough life, or maybe realize that they are in the wrong business.
To be clear, commercial space is an inevitable and desirable thing, but it will, and should aim for objectives that have already reached by national and/or international gov agencies. I for one can see many opportunities for commercial LEO but would regard with suspicion any commercial endeavor of building a Moon base, or reach for Mars.
Commercial enterprises are even more susceptible than gov agencies to political, commercial, technological and corporate woes. A good example of what can happen to commercial entities has been given by the US car giants who have been momentarily saved by taxpayers' money.
So no, I don't buy the claim that commercializing Space Exploration will solve over spending while keeping safety, technology and national interests unhurt.
/Admin
-
There is a rather solid reason for the cancelation of Constellation and going commercial finally ;)
Governmental funded space flight will never be cheap and available to a broad range of people. The same would be the case and was the case for aviation. Just a few decades ago people claimed that airplane tickets would never be cheaper than train tickets. Today train tickets are up to 3 times more expensive than airplane tickets here in Germany. Everything that went commercial is available for almost everybody today: computers, cell phones, cars, airplane tickets for trips around the world etc.
The point with space flight is that people are disappointed for missing great shows like Apollo and the Shuttle in the future. A lot of people still like to see those money hungry governmental job keeping programs just for the sake to see seomthing big happening and waving their country flags. Now the time of such programs is over and people become disappointed. But commercial space flight only is a question of time, not a question of "if". Now NASA even talks about Falcon 9 assembly inside the VAB at KSC. Because they're going to safe not millions but billions of dollars...
-
There is a fundamental difference between commercializing "space flight" and commercializing "space exploration". I hope I don't need to go into details :)
/Admin
-
There is a fundamental difference between commercializing "space flight" and commercializing "space exploration". I hope I don't need to go into details :)
/Admin
Yep. But commercializing science is not a problem. A lot of engineering and scientific fields already have been commercialised and made our life and free time rather comfortable ;)
Most people think that riding aboard the Shuttle and being aboard the ISS is real space exploration. But the exploration part is quite minor. Earth and space does only play a very minor role aboard the Shuttle and the ISS. It's mostly materials science, medicine, bilogical stuff, keeping all the systems up and running, and taking a fews pictures of the earth but that's it. We have stoped real manned space exploration by the end of Apollo (sure, also was very expensive). The most significant space exploration i.e. research of the solar system was and is done by telescopes (not only Hubble), probes and by robots on Mars for example. But a human in space does actually not explore space anymore. He/she travels around the earth, experiences weightlessness and does earth-related science for industries. From the scientific point of view, manned space flight at the current stage indeed is a bit questionable based on that tax billions.
Personally I would give a damn on science if I can get to Moon or Mars just to visit it if it would not be too expensive. That's what most people would and will think and do in future. Why do people travel by airplanes around our globe? Not basically because they want to fly and are interested in the engineering stuff and science behind it, but because they want to visit another exciting places (or their relatives and friends). If we compare early seafaring with manned space flight: the planets within our solar system are the continents, and the space inbetween are the oceans. The difference is that's just a little bit bigger ;) And we already have entered what I call the Christopher Columbus age of space flight: elaborate and expensive, but going to become usual for more and more humans in future...
-
Yes, your opinion is as valid as others', and I am sure that there are quite a lot who strogly disagree with your statement that "riding aboard the Shuttle and being aboard the ISS is [not] real space exploration". I am sure that you do understand perfectly what I mean by the difference between "space flight" and "space exploration". Changing the intended context does not make your position more valid. I still strongly disagree that "space exploration" can be commercialized to the extent governments can, for one, because of the fact that commercial interests are rarely in tune with national or global interests. But this is only one reason. I won't list more because I want to bring this argument to a soft end.
Moonwalker, I suggest we stop arguing about all this at this point. I know what your position is and you know what is mine, and playing with words won't change a thing.
At this stage this discussion is not productive anymore and frankly, it is starting to bore me to death - especially since this argument is more a two-person discussion (which slowly degenerates into an intellectual pissing contest) and it stopped attracting others a long time ago.
I suggest we see what the Congress decides. After all, its decision does not depend on this thread :)
/Admin
-
It doesn't really makes sence... we don't have budget to transport 3-6 men/women to the moon, but we have enough budget to make a whole colony there? :-\ :S
plus we kinda had it coming. It was quite obvious we would abandon the moon(how many times can we go there????) and go for mars (only visited by a probe...).
so what can I say?
God's Speed!!!
-
No Star Trek, no NASA...
Just shoot me.
-
There is a rather solid reason for the cancelation of Constellation and going commercial finally ;)
Governmental funded space flight will never be cheap and available to a broad range of people. The same would be the case and was the case for aviation. Just a few decades ago people claimed that airplane tickets would never be cheaper than train tickets. Today train tickets are up to 3 times more expensive than airplane tickets here in Germany. Everything that went commercial is available for almost everybody today: computers, cell phones, cars, airplane tickets for trips around the world etc.
The point with space flight is that people are disappointed for missing great shows like Apollo and the Shuttle in the future. A lot of people still like to see those money hungry governmental job keeping programs just for the sake to see seomthing big happening and waving their country flags. Now the time of such programs is over and people become disappointed. But commercial space flight only is a question of time, not a question of "if". Now NASA even talks about Falcon 9 assembly inside the VAB at KSC. Because they're going to safe not millions but billions of dollars...
I just posted the article this ain't my fight NASA is government thus OVERPRICED private spaceflight is the future anytime government is involved these days it will fail sad but true..anyway moonraker you want that crow boiled or deep fried?
bottom line admin and the article was correct.
-
Constellation manager Jeff Hanley has been removed:
I've been advised by HQ that my services as Cx PM are no longer required, effective immediately.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34187
Jeff Hanley Bio:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/j_hanley_bio.html
-
Please use a .50cal and make it quick...
-
Space policy explained... ;D ;D ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2HeHfVSybo
I want to do Apollo again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4J9uvhJQM0
Those videos are hilarious, but also true.
-
YA this guy does videos on my military career field as well its true,funny but sad too
-
YA this guy does videos on my military career field as well its true,funny but sad too
I even think that with the latest depth crisis of the USA, NASA is facing its worst era in history. Without SpaceX the USA/NASA would be quite grounded :-\