NASA Announces Innovation Initiatives With Fiscal Year 2011 Budget

[Admin]

For now, we are only left with speculations and opinions, and all are valid - regardless whether they come from Obama, Buzz or a 12 year-old kid.

It depends. An opinion that for example states to continue with Constellation, i.e. developing the Ares launchers and Orion, is no longer vaild No bugs, no bug rogers. There was too much bugs lost already and unreasonable delays and technological problems. And most importantly: the program was called to be a dead horse from the beginning, based on both, laymen and expert opinions. I remember criticism all along from the very beginning, inside and outside NASA. Think where the members of the DIRECT project do come from...

As for the future: a lot of decisions are based on several opinions that need to get a majority to pass the congress. Yet the future still has to prove Obamas and others opinions on NASAs new course. So, yes, of course we are left with opinions.

I don't remember Buzz voicing ANY firm opinion about this before the NASA announcement.

Now Buzz has been Twitting that he will accept if somebody would ask for his opinion and if he would be called to consult on the new plans.

To me this is mildly unsettling if not embarrassingly pathetic.

/Admin

[Admin]

...continuing Buzz's newfound testosterone: I can see the excitement of all retired Astros in the commercial slant of the new plan. Imagine the very commercial oportunities for these Astros in advisory, management etc. positions in the newly-energized commercial space world.

This of course is not new, and retired astros have been doing this forever, although it can raise a few questions about whether this practice is legit considering that their space-related expertise was funded by taxpayers' money and as such, it should be just as "public domain" as any other NASA research. I have my thoughts on that, but this is not the subject of the thread

What I'm trying to say here is that when somebody voices an opinion, in this case Buzz, one should regard that position through the prism of what that person has to gain from that position, and in this case of course, it is pure and unadulterated personal financial gain.

In this sense, again, Buzz's opinion has much less weight in this discussion than mine or yours Moonwalker

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Buzz's opinion has much less weight in this discussion than mine or yours Moonwalker

That's right, now even more than ever before. Because what Buzz (have you read his books?) and others do talk about for decades already, has been proven to be true: that not only governments have the means necessary to go into space, and that industries can do it by much less costs. SpaceX launch costs are 3 to 6 times lower than that of comparable NASA invented rockets. No matter the opinions of Buzz, me or somebody else, it has become reality that NASA is going to depend on commercial space flight finally

[davidrobinsonjr]

SpaceX launch costs are 3 to 6 times lower than that of comparable NASA invented rockets.

We shall see. They haven't come even close to man rating anything yet. All we have at this point are "cost estimates" As has happened to everyone who has tried to develop rockets and other unmanned programs, things get out of hand quickly in the financial department. Constellation was supposed to be cheap. The Shuttle was billed as paying for itself. It will be interesting to look back on this twenty years from now and see what it really costs to launch a man on a commercial launcher. I suspect it will be nowhere near 3 to 6 times lower. All in all this might be good for NASA. They have become just another bloated bureaucracy, full of managers and not much left on the operational side.

[Moonwalker]

SpaceX launch costs are 3 to 6 times lower than that of comparable NASA invented rockets.

It will be interesting to look back on this twenty years from now and see what it really costs to launch a man on a commercial launcher. I suspect it will be nowhere near 3 to 6 times lower.

Although not commercial, but Soyuz already costs about 20 times less per launch than the Space Shuttle does. And Soyuz is manned ESA bought Soyuz and will launch it from French Guyana (unmanned). But still: it's not even commercial.

Regarding SpaceX and so going commercial:

The Falcon 1e launch already costs only about 10 million dollars for a 1 ton payload to low earth orbit.

For the money you need to launch one Space Shuttle mission to the ISS, Falcon 9 will launch 12 times to the ISS. The development cost of Falcon 9 is only about 380 million dollars. And the vehicle already is almost prepared to lift of in March/April. Compared to that: the Ares 1 development cost would be at least 40 billion dollars until 2015, to a status Falcon 9 already has reached now by just a few hundred million dollars. The Ares 1 development for now already has swallowed amazingly 9 billion dollars, which is over 20 times more than the Falcon 9 development did cost, whilst there isn't even any Ares 1 launch vehicle. All that exists is a first stage booster, and a Ares 1-X dummy rocket that consisted of nothing more than just a 4-segment STS SRB with mockups on top of it. No second stage engine, and no second stage at all. Nothing. Not even Orion came close to the current status of Dragon.

Falcon 9 has successfully passed both, first stage and second stage full duration tests on ground and is almost ready to lift off. An Ares 1 vehicle did never exist until today but the development has already swallowed 9 billions dollars. No estimations but just current numbers: Falcon 9 already is way more cheaper than the Ares 1. That's exactly why NASA has made a contract and will have to support such commercial stuff in future. There are about 800 people working for SpaceX, which have boosted a privately deleloped rocket into space, versus NASA and its highly costly infrastructure and thousands of employees that did launch a true to scale model rocket only one time based on more than 30 year old hardware, that already costed more than the entire Falcon 9 development

[davidrobinsonjr]

I don't wish to get into a drawn out ping pong match. I will just emphasize what I posted earlier. Falcon is not man rated. It may be sometime in the future, that is their plan. Ares was to be man rated right out of the box. Comparing $10 million to launch 1000Kg of inanimate payload to 1000Kg human payload,which Ares 1 would have done, does not work unless they have some miracle up their sleeves. We will see what the cost is when they start putting a man(or woman) on top.
 The info I see says Falcon1e will put 1010Kg into LEO. The shuttle will do 24,000Kg. At that rate you would have to launch Falcon 24 times for a cost of $240 million. According to the data NASA put out for Ares 1, it would also put 25,000 Kg into LEO. So again you would have to launch Falcon 1e 24 to 25 times to lift the same weight. Again Shuttle and Ares are man rated which drives up the cost enormously. It will do the same to Falcon when they get to that point. I can't find any data or cost estimates for manned launches of Falcon but, NASA paid $1.6 billion for 12 launches of Falcon 9 which can put about 10,400Kg in LEO. That works out to $100 million plus per launch or approx. $200 million to lift the same ammount of cargo that Ares1 would be capable of. And that is in a 28 degree inclination. Station is at 51 degrees so the weight will be somewhat less.
 Don't get me wrong. Now might be the time for the commercialization of space. I don't think, however, Ares1 is, or was, all that bad. Falcon may be the future, but it has a ways to go to get to where Ares1 would have been in a few short years

[Admin]

It's not actually a ping-pong because fortunately, the fate of the US Space Program will not be decided here by whomever posts the longest message, but in the halls of the US Congress.

The actual ping-pong here is between the (unconscious?) attempt to portary opinions and speculations as facts and the attempt to keep things on track and clarify the difference between them.

Now which opinion or speculation will turn out to be the correct one, will only be revealed only by the historical retrospect, not by how witty this or that poster is.   

[christra]

It has been interesting to read the different perspectives so far, but I think this discussion will lead us nowhere. We just have to wait one or two years to see how the new strategy will develop.

I barely can see any SSM2007 related posts during the last days. Whatever the future of the different spaceprograms will be, the topic here is "Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions". Or am I getting something wrong? 

[Moonwalker]

I don't think, however, Ares1 is, or was, all that bad.

The intention Ares 1 was based on wasn't bad at all of course. Who would not like to operate a launch vehicle that is partly reusable and cost efficient? So far the theory of Ares 1. But its design and the resulting issues (mass and vibration) and exploding development costs made it that bad that it even became worth to be canceled. No opinion but just a historical fact already (just in case somebody would start arguing again that this is just "opinion").

Falcon may be the future, but it has a ways to go to get to where Ares1 would have been in a few short years.

Sure. Falcon 9 has to be man-rated. But Falcon 9 already has gone a way Ares 1 still had to go. Falcon 9 is almost ready to launch just 1-2 month from now. Ares 1 does not even exist, beside just a 5-segment SRB at ATK. Ares 1-X was based on mockups and STS hardware that hadn't anything to do with the actual planned Ares 1 vehicle beside its shape (the second stage simulator was filled with "water" which does not simulate anything comparable to liquid propellants and its vibration levels during ascent, just imagine...).

Whatever the future of the different spaceprograms will be, the topic here is "Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions". Or am I getting something wrong? 

Well, isn't this thread about NASAs Innovation Initiatives rather than SSm2007?

Of course I am aware that this discussion will lead us nowhere. Of course this is not the Congress, neither the White House, nor NASA. Of course decisions won't take place here. But: what's a forum for then, if we should not discuss just because there are, for some people, "inconvenient" events and decisions going on at NASA? Then let's lock these threads; and just wait; or just cancel my inconvenient posts

One thing is for sure: no matter how I liked Constellation or not at the end, just as others did or not, but the program has been canceled. That's stone cold reality. And it has not been canceled out of no reason. The decision is based on quite valid reasons, mentioned by many people and last but not least by the Augustine Commission finally, that was not assigned out of no reason as well, but to review all those concerns that existed for years already. Not my opinion. Just events that took place.

[Admin]

Moonwalker, I feel that you're re-defining the word "discussion". It would be a discussion if you wouldn't come through so hard on people, facts and opinions which happen not to agree with your own, while not acknowledging facts when you're faced with them, and trying to manipulate them so that they fit, again, your opinions or speculations. I remember that some posters did hint to this general feeling and after seeing your feedback, they decided to leave rather than be exposed to a "discussion" with you. At the time, I attributed this to cultural and "written word" misunderstandings. Now I'm not so sure about this anymore. Sometimes it pays to listen to others too.

Last, I find it funny that you're coming so hard against the Back to Moon plan, and yet your alias is "Moonwalker" LOL.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Moonwalker, I feel that you're re-defining the word "discussion". It would be a discussion if you wouldn't come through so hard on people, facts and opinions which happen not to agree with your own, while not acknowledging facts when you're faced with them, and trying to manipulate them so that they fit, again, your opinions or speculations.

So do think it is just my opinion and speculation that they have canceled Constellation due to over-budget and missing innovation and therefore support commercial development in future? Or do you have a precise example what do you mean by opinions and speculations? Which speculation?

I have the feeling that by mentioning a few sad facts I rather have touched on a raw nerve...

Last, I find it funny that you're coming so hard against the Back to Moon plan, and yet your alias is "Moonwalker" LOL.

That is because I'm working on an Apollo simulation. I had to chose a nick for the development forum and discussion

[Moonwalker]

I somehow missed that one:

I don't remember Buzz voicing ANY firm opinion about this before the NASA announcement.

You should have read his stuff. Because he is bashing Constellation for a long time already. And I won't quote his opinions on Ares 1-X from the beginning, just to prevent another uproar here and the allegation that this is just my opinion. Anyway, within the space flight community Buzz is widely accepted for his realistic views about space flight.

PS: Just one example from 2008 which proves that Aldrin was rather right:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5906199.html

[Moonwalker]

ATTENTION, ATTENTION: OPINION, OPINION. Just to prepare those who don't want to read "worthless" opinions

For those who want ->

James Cameron to back up NASAs new path of innovation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020402439.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Moonwalker]

NASA Television:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden meets with reporters at the Kennedy Space Center press site to discuss Sunday's scheduled launch of space shuttle Endeavour and other agency news and programs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfGo2ugcG48

Interesting that NASA likely is going to modify the VAB to assemble more than just one vehicle at a time. But especially Falcon 9 from SpaceX

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden outlines the administrations fiscal year 2011 budget request as the agencys road map for a new era of innovation and discovery, and answers questions from reporters as the featured Newsmaker at the National Press Club in Washington Feb. 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YvIESqDUk&feature=player_embedded

[Admin]

...
So do think it is just my opinion and speculation that they have canceled Constellation due to over-budget and missing innovation and therefore support commercial development in future? Or do you have a precise example what do you mean by opinions and speculations? Which speculation?
...

No, not a specific example, but I suggest you take a look at how many OTHER people are participating in these "discussions" (and not due to "lacks of opinions"). If you want a "discusion" you should allow OTHER opinions too, not to basically try to prove everybody else wrong. Buzz is ONE of a few astros whith this opinion. Tom Jones - and others from NASA - (NOT the singer ) supports "my" opinion, so what will it be now - my dad is stronger than your dad? I suggest we leave this at that and you live with the fact that your opinion here is not the only valid one and by far, not necessarily the only correct one.

That is because I'm working on an Apollo simulation. I had to chose a nick for the development forum and discussion

LOL - that figures.

/Admin