Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Moonwalker on February 01, 2010, 03:07:43 PM
-
MEDIA ADVISORY : M10-017
NASA Announces Innovation Initiatives With Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
WASHINGTON -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will brief reporters about the agency's fiscal year 2011 budget at 3 p.m. EST on Monday, Feb. 1. The news conference will take place in the James E. Webb Memorial Auditorium at NASA Headquarters, located at 300 E St. S.W., in Washington.
NASA Chief Financial Officer Beth Robinson will join Bolden. The news conference will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency's Web site. Questions will be taken from media representatives at headquarters and participating field centers.
To watch the budget news conference online, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/ntv
NASA budget and supporting information will be available at 12:30 p.m., Feb. 1, at:
http://www.nasa.gov/budget
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_M10-017_Bolden_Budget_Rollout.html
-
I like that: "Innovation Initiatives" - >>> translation: "Let's pass the stick to entrepreneurs for LEO and Moon missions while NASA sends probes to Mars, Venus and Jupiter, and maybe a few more satellites on LEO or GEO"... LOL!
It will be a very cute press conference: NASA will probably describe this as it's OWN decision based on science, progress and future of the mankind, rather than a "suggestion" coming from the WH.
/Admin
-
Yes. I think it is very likely that they will tell us that NASA won't build and operate manned spacecraft anymore, and instead, hand it over to commercial companies.
But it this really going to be good news or bad news?
Well, I had a few serious thoughts on it, and my conclusion is that we are actually going to witness a gain of great chances for the first time seriously. NASA has done great jobs in the past, but think about that this kind of big governmental monopoly prevented commercial space flight innnovation on the other hand. Many that left NASA disappointedly in the early 1970s due to the Apollo cut, including many Apollo astronauts, call for commercial space flight since then (some even founded companies). Because the Apollo cut was the first serious sign that it might not be the best idea to be dependant on politics. We all know that a government mostly isn't a good entrepreneur (not in socialism, not in communism, and not even in democratic systems). Just think about what civil Boeing and Airbus aircraft would have been without commercializing aviation, or rather would not have been...
NASA is doing wrong these days, well actually for decades already. And these days NASA definitely has entered a final deadlock. There is no way out obviously. The game is actually over already for years (to be precise: since STS-107). I think it is the smartest thing to renew or to actually restructure NASA. Let it support commercial companies, and let it work internationally like Obama obviously tends to favor. Why not? This will give us great chances to really innovate manned space flight and make it availabe for humankind in the long term. Because NASA wouldn't. It is just a big governmental body that eats lots of money and does prevent innovation outside. With the power NASA has, combined with several companeis and industries, manned space flight could become a lot more of what it is today, without the risk of governmental s****dity and program cuts.
After all, the cold war is over and we're now going to see a major shift in space flight anyway. Maybe we really have to go adrift a dead horse. Worrying about NASA might be like polishing the outer skin of the Titanic. Don't let politicians decide anymore whether humans should go to the moon or not. Let those decide who want this stuff: people, scientists, engineers and astronauts. Commercialization offers great chances. Politics just slaves scientists to budget and agendas...
-
Here ya go Moonwalker.
"Obama also kills his predecessor's signature space program to return astronauts to the moon. NASA had already spent $9.1 billion on the program, which was projected to cost $100 billion by 2020. Obama's new budget said NASA will be "launching a bold new effort" with an extra $1.2 billion annually for five years, money expected to be used to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecraft for the benefit of NASA and others. NASA would pay the private companies to carry U.S. astronauts. "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_budget
-
Yep. And the Fiscal Year 2011 budget report is available meanwhile, which says on page 18:
TERMINATION: CONSTELLATION SYSTEMS PROGRAM
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Administration proposes to cancel the Constellation Systems program intended to return astronauts
to the Moon by 2020 and replaces it with a bold new approach that embraces the commercial space industry,
forges international partnerships, and develops the game-changing technologies needed to set the stage for
a revitalized human space flight program and embark on a 21st Century program of space exploration.
Justification
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) initiated the Constellation Systems program
in 2005 to develop rockets, capsules and other systems to return astronauts to the Moon and eventually
send them to Mars and beyond. Initially, the first major elements of the program were planned to come
online no later than 2012. By early 2009, however, the program was behind schedule, could not achieve its
goals without multi-billion dollar budget increases, and was not clearly aimed at meeting today’s national
priorities. Costs for the program had grown by billions of dollars and the first elements of the system were
not projected to be available until 2015. In April, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that
NASA’s budget would need to be increased by about $2.5 billion per year to maintain current schedules,
and that even then the International Space Station -- scheduled for completion in 2010 -- would need to be
abandoned in 2016 to free up funding for Constellation.1
In May 2009, the Administration commissioned an independent blue-ribbon panel to review NASA’s
human spaceflight programs and plans. The review found that the Constellation program would not be
able to land astronauts on the Moon until well into the 2030s -- more than 10 years later than planned --
without large budget increases.2 The review also noted that investment in a well-designed and adequately
funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration, that increased international
cooperation could lead to substantial benefits, and that commercial services to launch astronauts to space
could potentially arrive sooner and be less expensive than Government-owned rockets.
In place of Constellation, the President’s Budget funds a redesigned and reinvigorated program that
focuses on leveraging advanced technology, international partnerships, and commercial capabilities to set
the stage for a revitalized human space flight program for the 21st Century. The President’s Budget will
also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work -- constrained for years due to the budget demands of
Constellation -- on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf
NASA will have to support commercial space flight in future indeed. And I don't think that this is entirely bad news :)
-
Me either. I was excited about a return to the moon for nostalgic reasons linked to childhood memories. It will be interesting to watch the future unfold now though for sure. I just hope I'm around long enough to see something big happen.
-
Well, having watched the State of the Union Address speech from Jan. 27, Obama said that he does "not accept a second place for the USA". This was related to economical, technological and ecological innovations.
To abandon Constellation and force commercial space flight innovations is part of his course. And meanwhile I think he is doing right, other than I tought still a few days ago. Constellation would have been the same, or an even worse millstone around NASAs neck than STS actually was (they already have spend more than 9 billion dollars on Constellation for almost nothing). And if you look at the NASA web page, they already have a new path which at least, sounds better than just to go to the Moon.
I can not wait to see the upcoming press conference...
-
The statement of Charlie Bolden was done earlier than proposed on the NASA web page. So I guess most of us missed it. However, it is availiable as pdf:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011_Budget_Administrator_Remarks.pdf
Manned exploration is not dead at all. NASA gets more budget. And it indeed will be restructured and commercial space flight will be hugely supported. I think despite the bitter flavour of the Constellation cancelation, this is great news in the end. Compared to the course Obama puts NASA onto right now, Constellation was a dead horse.
Budget overview: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf
NASA will have to support commercial space flight in future indeed. And I don't think that this is entirely bad news :)
I don't think of it as bad news either, it is actually very good news. There will be some serious competition between companies for these commercial flights.
This probably gives us another space race, like 50 years ago but entirely different. It would involve parties competing for the best, cheapest and earliest solutions possible. It would involve a race to get out there and do it better than the others, like in the early sixties.
Unlike that time, we will most likely see more than two competitors, so a lot of designing and testing would have to be done by each competitor.
And the best part of all this? This time it would not be classified. This means we'll be watching everything from the front row. Some of us would be more in the front than others of course.
I would love to see a second space race.
-
Apollo on Steroids has been replaced with a 21st Century Gemini on Steroids.
Assuming these initiatives develop the right skills, space exploration could be better off in the long-term.
-
Apollo on Steroids has been replaced with a 21st Century Gemini on Steroids.
Nope. Instead, NASA gets the chance, for the very first time, to enter a real long-term path. We have to realize that those mega maverick projects like Apollo or STS do not work properly in the long term. We need way cheaper systems and steady innovation. Something that can be prerfectly achieved by commercial industries, combined with the highly skills of NASA and its requirements. It is a rather flexible path that is not bonded to a certain political agenda anymore. At the end, Constellation was based on the same political nonsense than Apollo.
-
As I said in my post on the "dead" thread. The whole thing is political. It will be even more so now. Companies will have to bid on government contracts. If you don't think that can be political, look at the replacement for the KC-135. How long has that been delayed. What do we do if the Chinese are the lowest bidders? Do we turn our technology over to them to build cheap rockets for us?
There may be potential for good here but we are going to have to wait a very long while and hope things work out.
-
NASA is dead. My input
Still have the hope to god that Congress will save us
-
NASA is dead.
People have to understand that manned space flight is a minor part of NASA. The major milestones of all the science NASA does (earth sciences, aeronautics, astronomy etc.) happens behind the big glamorous curtain of that few manned rocket launches. Rocket launches with men on top of it is not the be all and end all of space exploration. To cut a long story short: NASA is by no means "dead". Even without any manned operations, which won't be the case anyway.
We also have to keep in mind that a precise course of NASAs future manned operations still will be determined by Bolden, Obama and the congress. One thing is certain already: NASA will continue to be responsable for astronaut training and flight planning. Does it matter if NASA builds manned systems or if companies outside of the NASA network do so? No. "Not invented here" does not matter at all. The quality and standards still will be determined by those who train and send astronauts up: NASA.
People also have to understand that the science aboard the ISS also is minor, i.e. the scientific benefits, compared to the efforts of building and getting all the stuff into LEO. Most of the time up there is spend to keep the station up and running properly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
-
By the way:
NASA is signing Space Act Agreements with the following companies under the Commercial Crew Development contest:
# Sierra Nevada Corp. of Louisville, Colo., will receive $20 million.
# Boeing Co. of Houston will receive $18 million.
# United Launch Alliance of Centennial, Colo., will receive $6.7 million.
# Blue Origin of Kent, Wash., will receive $3.7 million.
# Paragon Space Development Corp. of Tucson, Ariz., will receive $1.4 million
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/02ccdev/
-
NASA is dead. ..
NASA is not dead and IMHO it will never die. It is American Space Exploration and its benefits which can suffer in the long run.
But there is a smell of "death" in the air at NASA: according to Charles Bolden, "To people who are working on these programs [the ones which Obama wants to cancel], this is like a death in the family".
I think that this is very evocative of the general atmosphere at NASA, despite the pathetic attempt to portray this 90 degrees direction change as a NASA decision.
/Admin
-
But there is a smell of "death" in the air at NASA: according to Charles Bolden, "To people who are working on these programs [the ones which Obama wants to cancel], this is like a death in the family".
Certainly. They have worked hard for years. On the other hand, many already knew that the program is going to become a dead horse. Across the web you could read some disappointing opinions of those who are part of constellation as technicians/engineers. I remember one post who said how much the constellation managers tried to "pretend" optimism via emails to the worker although many already knew it was just a question of time until the program would be canceled. I don't remember exactly if this was on nasaspaceflight.com or somewhere else. You can say it was an open secret for some time already. But of course Bolden still has to say something.
I think that this is very evocative of the general atmosphere at NASA, despite the pathetic attempt to portray this 90 degrees direction change as a NASA decision.
But Bolden actually said a few honest things. I don't think that he did quibble much. "President Obama today has given us a bold challenge" he said, which is just true. "We both agreed that as NASA moves forward into this still-young century, we need a renewed commitment to invention and development..."
I also think it was a good decision to replace Griffin by Bolden. Bolden is a rather smart person and a former Shuttle astronaut, which does not mean Griffin was not smart (he is a well qualified engineer). But Bolden is a realistic thinking guy. He knew about the wrong direction NASA was facing with the Ares launchers I guess. He had not been chosen just because, and Griffin had not been replaced just because. Griffin did not seem to realize which situation NASA was facing by Constellation. He propagated it. Above all, the mistake was the decision of Bush, to announce Moon, Mars and beyond, starting with manned moon mission in ~2018. That was done too fast and without smart reviews. It was nice to solace those who had lost their family members by STS-107. But it was unrealistical to achive in the proposed timeline and it did not offer future innovations really.
-
By the way, here is an interesting interview with two pioneers of future commercial space exploration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3RlCVtQ6mA
-
<SNIP>...
But Bolden actually said a few honest things. I don't think that he did quibble much. "President Obama today has given us a bold challenge" he said, which is just true. "We both agreed that as NASA moves forward into this still-young century, we need a renewed commitment to invention and development..."
I also think it was a good decision to replace Griffin by Bolden. Bolden is a rather smart person and a former Shuttle astronaut, which does not mean Griffin was not smart (he is a well qualified engineer). But Bolden is a realistic thinking guy. He knew about the wrong direction NASA was facing with the Ares launchers I guess. He had not been chosen just because, and Griffin had not been replaced just because. Griffin did not seem to realize which situation NASA was facing by Constellation. He propagated it. Above all, the mistake was the decision of Bush, to announce Moon, Mars and beyond, starting with manned moon mission in ~2018. That was done too fast and without smart reviews. It was nice to solace those who had lost their family members by STS-107. But it was unrealistical to achive in the proposed timeline and it did not offer future innovations really.
Of course Bolden did say a few "honest" things - he can't have an entire statement made up of demagogy, can he? This smoke-screen doesn't change one bit the main message: NASA ("encouraged" by the WH) has given up aiming higher than the highest mountain - it only found a few hills to climb.
As to whether Bolden is better or worse than Griffin - this is irrelevant. This plan is NOT Bolden't or Griffin's plan - it comes strainght from the Oval Office. Bolden's quality will be proven by how well he follows the plan, which ultimately will be drawn for him, or how well he meets the given goals - that's all. After all - he is a NEW "administrator", with no proven administrative track record and as such, it is too early to tell if he is better or worse than his predecessor.
And BTW, this is true about Obama too.
/Admin
-
This plan is NOT Bolden't or Griffin's plan - it comes strainght from the Oval Office.
Just as Bolden said: "President Obama today has given us a bold challenge" Everybody knows that those challenges are made in the White House. I don't think Bolden is trying to hide something. But also, his opinion is not without significance to the White House and Congress.
But now we've got a good reason once again why space flight should not be a matter of big governments only. SpaceX has actually blamed NASA and the government by proving that going into orbit is not that much of a big deal that can only be achieved by big governmental bodies. Things have changed and Obama is not blind, luckily.
-
Dude, seriously. Obama is nothing more than a puppet. No strengths, no experience and no control.
-
Dude, seriously. Obama is nothing more than a puppet. No strengths, no experience and no control.
Well, I would like to hand over the respond to somebody who was walking on the Moon and can argue way better than me or anybody else here I think; Buzz Aldrin who says: "Thank you, Mr. President."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html
-
I saw an interview on Fox News yesterday with Gene Cernan who walked on the moon himself on Apollo 17
He had the same view points as me.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3998554/turning-americas-back-to-the-moon?category_id=86861
-
Yeah, I know Cernans attitude even before Constellation :) Cernan always was disappointed about cutting the Apollo footprint show and not just going back. He always propagated that each tax payer could "easily" spend a little bit of money just for the sake of returning to the Moon and do another footstep show.
Good that they quoted Aldrin, because he got it right.
But both, the reporter and Cernan do not seem to know that China is not going to fly to the Moon in any forseeable time frame. That's the usual nonsense argumentation by people who mostly have no clue to be honest. The reporter might be excused since he is working for FOX... But I'm afraid that Cernan jumps on that political nonsense horse. He should know that the Chinese are going to do anything, but not flying to the Moon manned anytime soon.
What Cernan does call for is a big bloated governmental space race program once again without backing it up by intelligent reasoning. Because going back to the Moon does not bring us any closer to Mars just because we go back. Less than ever if we would do it the Ares-way. That would be just another dead horse. And luckily this time it even became one before any rocket has even made it up into LEO. Obama has prevented a third huge gap that was going to be implemented within Constellation in the 2020s.
Cernan thinks the same way like Wernher von Braun already did: whatever the cost. That's the wrong attitude, especially within the 21th century. You can mark my words: without commercialization and new technologies, nobody will ever go the Moon, less than ever to Mars. Not even China.
-
[..] That's the usual nonsense argumentation by people who mostly have no clue to be honest. The reporter might be excused since he is working for FOX... But I'm afraid that Cernan jumps on that political nonsense horse. He should know that the Chinese are going to do anything, but not flying to the Moon manned anytime soon.
[..]
I followed this discussion here quietly so far. ;)
I think the Bolden announcement says it all. The future of space exploration will be revolutionized in the US. And that is not necessarily bad. Manned spaceflight will go on, but in a different way. And manned spaceflight is by far not the only thing NASA is doing. We have to wait how it will proceed. Things like VASIMIR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket will probably get more money and that will indeed revolutionize spaceflight.
Regarding the quote above: I think FOX is well known to be very close to the Republican Party. You simply cannot expect any positive statement about a democratic president from them. That seems to be beyond their horizon... ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Criticism_and_controversies
-
I think the Bolden announcement says it all. The future of space exploration will be revolutionized in the US. And that is not necessarily bad.
And just listen what Dr. Peter H. Diamandis from the X Prize Foundation says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY9-RobwJHo&feature=related
That is what many former NASA people and others say for decades already, and why former astronauts like Ken Bowersox, just as one example, change to commercial industries. Imagine the production of civil passenger airplanes of Boeing and Airbus would be entirely governmental driven. That would have been just awful to civial aviation. Governments are never good entrepreneur. Bloated governmental space flight always was and always will be just too expensive and too much slaved by political agendas.
I think FOX is well known to be very close to the Republican Party. You simply cannot expect any positive statement about a democratic president from them. That seems to be beyond their horizon... ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Criticism_and_controversies
Didn't know that so far. All I knew is that after watching FOX for a few hours people really need a good psychiatrist ;D
-
Well, I would like to hand over the respond to somebody who was walking on the Moon and can argue way better than me or anybody else here I think; Buzz Aldrin who says: "Thank you, Mr. President."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html
That's a real good article...
-
Dude, seriously. Obama is nothing more than a puppet. No strengths, no experience and no control.
Well, I would like to hand over the respond to somebody who was walking on the Moon and can argue way better than me or anybody else here I think; Buzz Aldrin who says: "Thank you, Mr. President."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/president-obamas-jfk-mome_b_448667.html
Opinion, opinions...
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.
Unfortunately only history can tell who was right and who was wrong.
/Admin
-
I just think the argument that these changes in NASA direction are Obama's vision, ... are ludicrous. That's all ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
...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
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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? ;)
-
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? :P
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.
-
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, 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 ;D
-
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
-
ATTENTION, ATTENTION: OPINION, OPINION. ;D 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
-
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
-
...
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 ;D
LOL - that figures.
/Admin
-
Well I guess it is time to rename SSM2010 project to Space Shuttle: The Legacy ::)
I wish good luck to multinational corporations.
However, to cool the hype. VentureStar was supposed to be huge commercial success. It brought new initiatives and was very innovative. We all know what happened to it! >:( It is like new US administration officially denied what they did before - rejected support for innovative commercial system.
I suppose NASA will be US based space administration like FAA is currently for aviation (where the last already proposed guidelines for commercial human space flight).
-
Well, the VentureStar also was an over-budget NASA project. Yes it was very innovative indeed. I guess it was nearly 90% completed. But it also suffered from significant technological problems which actually caused the cancelation (mass, the tanks, etc....).
The success of multinational corporations can already be seen: the ISS. If this is done commercially we can safe a lot of more money. Whilst commercially does not necessarily mean no tax money, but just a different way to assign money.
Just look at Falcon 9. Its development costs is only 400 million dollars, which even includes the development of the Dragon capsule. Launch cost is more than three times less than the Soyuz launch cost whilst it has a higher payload capability. I can only imagine how costly this would have been under the NASA regime with all the jobs and contractual partners hiding behind the project...
-
I've had mixed thoughts about the new course for NASA, but, sticking to a more open-minded approach, this IS cheaper on the budget, and if those commercial space ppl do meet/exceed NASA's safety guidelines, all the better. And if all collaborate, hey, we might get to Mars faster. I mean, look what collaboration got us. *points at ISS (actually passing over his home island)* Here's hoping this was truly the right course. Unfortunately, I can't really be an astronaut due to my left eye problems (they require 20/20 vision on both eyes, My left eye can't even distinguish the second largest letter in that eye board)... but I'd still want to work in the space exploration area... and I want it to succeed. So, really hoping this works. :)
-
Interesting article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/06/nasa.jobs/index.html#cnnSTCText
Maybe there is hope.
-
Well I guess it is time to rename SSM2010 project to Space Shuttle: The Legacy ::)
..SNIP..
LOL! The "SSM2010" is only a project name at this stage. We haven't decided on the name yet.
Check this thread if you have any suggestions.
http://www.space-shuttle-mission.com/forum/index.php?topic=3975.0
/Admin