Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Moonwalker on July 12, 2010, 07:54:14 PM
-
"The Senate subcommittee charged with NASA oversight will present a $19 billion bill this week that kills President Barack Obama's proposed shakeup of the agency's human-spaceflight program, in the process cutting billions from commercial rocket
and technology projects that supporters say would have benefited Kennedy Space Center."
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/senate-rejects.html
That's just one thing. Another one that is also a concern for me is that Obama has charged NASA admin Bolden to improve relations with the Muslim world and make them feel better about their contribution to science and engineering. Whatever that might be in relation to NASA and space flight, because I don't see any contribution. And I do not understand why such a s****d agenda should be the job of NASA.
Honestly: meanwhile I think Obama might be a big mistake. The USA likely needs a new government. I'm seriously concerned. And Bolden should have denied the position of the NASA admin after Obama has charged him with pointless things.
-
Yes, it is quite abhorrent the way NASA and other gov bodies are being forced to support an arguably irrelevant, clearly political, suicidally appeasing and self-destructing agenda.
You connect the dots.
/Admin
-
I think the chances that the manned US space flight program will come to a complete end are "good", sadly. And the worst thing is that the US leadership doesn't seem to care at all. Quite the opposite. I'm getting more and more the impression that not only NASA but space flight on the whole is an annoying thing for Obama. But not only Obama. Almost no decision-maker seems to be interested in a serious space flight goal.
-
Bolden's Muslim Outreach Feedback Continues:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/boldens-muslim.html
White House Denies NASA Remark on Muslim Outreach:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/12/us/politics/AP-US-NASA-Muslims.html?_r=1&ref=aponline
This is not the NASA anymore I thought I would know of. We truly live in different times, well, in times without true leadership. What the heck is going on? What about furthering space exploration?
-
Bolden's Muslim Outreach Feedback Continues:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/boldens-muslim.html
White House Denies NASA Remark on Muslim Outreach:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/12/us/politics/AP-US-NASA-Muslims.html?_r=1&ref=aponline
This is not the NASA anymore I thought I would know of. We truly live in different times, well, in times without true leadership. What the heck is going on? What about furthering space exploration?
Well to me it seems, that they think, that it is waste of money since the ISS is extended. They dont look beyond the horizon sadly. In fact to me thy are wasting a knowledge, and many chances for human beeing.
/Marvx
-
NASA Mission
"NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."
Now show where in this simple sentence is says to appease anyone? If anything Obama (Note how close that is to Osama. Thinks a white guy with that name would have gotten elected?) wants to shutdown anything he feels is a drain on the budget. Think Sean O'Keffe gone insane. He stopped all long term research into the systems needed for Mars and beyond inner solar system manned missions and equipment. Obama is expanding on this massively. The biggest problem is the lack of new blood. Far too few new engineers are graduating US university's and those that do are not going to NASA.
That lunatic in the White House would have us return to a pre-1957 mentality where space is concerned. Well I hope that the election that took the Democrats out of control of the House will return this country to space, however I am not holding my breath.
The rescission is far more up front than returning to the moon. Most people didn't even know there was a program that was going to take us back to the moon. Never even heard of it. Until Obama canned it.
But most are indifferent. They see it a taking away from the welfare checks... Food Stamps... all those things a lot of American's think they are entitled to.
Damn liberals....
-
NASA Mission
"NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."
Now show where in this simple sentence is says to appease anyone? If anything Obama (Note how close that is to Osama. Thinks a white guy with that name would have gotten elected?) wants to shutdown anything he feels is a drain on the budget.
[..]
That lunatic in the White House would have us return to a pre-1957 mentality where space is concerned. Well I hope that the election that took the Democrats out of control of the House will return this country to space, however I am not holding my breath.
[..]
Damn liberals....
Bjbeard,
in several posts you have stated your political dislike of parties, persons and their ideas and so on. Further on you started talking about white/black guys and you implied a comparison to a well known terrorist.
If you do not get your aggressively recited political view under control in this forum, I will do that for you...
I hope this is understood.
-
The modern definition of "racist" is "someone who is winning an argument with a Liberal".--Peter Brimelow
-
The modern definition of "racist" is "someone who is winning an argument with a Liberal".--Peter Brimelow
Citing a "paleoconservative" doesn't make it any better...
-
I guess sarcastic comedy flies by you at about Mach 5...
-
I have to agree to Peter Brimelow. You can see this especially in Germany these days. If one mentions for example true facts about immigration issues (especially related to islamic immigrants which is mostly based on hard statistical facts), he/she immediately is called to be a racist/radical right-wing, following a removal from office. Being a social democrat or whatever does not prevent this.
But, this is not the right forum to discuss such thing ;)
-
Guys, STOP IT!
Criticizing an Administration policy towards NASA and Space Exploration is legitimate but should be expressed in more toned-down, respectable words. I am sure that there are enough words to allow the same idea get through without sounding insulting or otherwise.
There are enough forums open for fights/arguments between parties, religions, colors and non-Space-related ideas.
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
/Admin
-
Guys,
I'm (carefully) re-opening this thread but please BEHAVE! Please read my post above this one to understand why it has been locked in the first place!
Now, to a few more interesting developments to chew on (in a toned-down style, please):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/orion-forefront-test-flight-manned-debut-evaluations/
/Admin
-
I'm buffled...
They invested billions on developing a shuttle derrived launch platform, they modified pad B, out fitted a crawler. rejected every other Shuttle derived plan (Direct and Jupiter), even waved off all the Delta V engine option because "It would be too expensive to 'get human rated'".
and now they just go with a straight up Delta V?!?!
Have they gone mad? do they suddenly feel the pressure of loosing space technology leadership? who up in DC got some sense finally?
and before the americans jump and say that those are expensive programs for a country that is in a bad shape. think about all the jobs.. it's themodern equivalent to the 1930's "New Deal". Goverment puts in capital to boost shopping power in the coutry, and make the economy "reboot"
-
Baffled? Then see this too :)
http://moonandback.com/2010/12/14/boeing-submits-proposal-for-2nd-round-of-commercial-crew-dev/
/Admin
-
I'm buffled...
They invested billions on developing a shuttle derrived launch platform, they modified pad B, out fitted a crawler. rejected every other Shuttle derived plan (Direct and Jupiter), even waved off all the Delta V engine option because "It would be too expensive to 'get human rated'".
and now they just go with a straight up Delta V?!?!
As I understand it, the article only says that a Delta IV-H will be the launch vehicle for the first unmanned orbital test flight of a Block I Orion. There is no statement that Delta has been or would be chosen as the launch vehicle for the manned missions as well. Also, there is no mention about man-rating Delta IV-H. So, I think there is no reason to be baffled (yet). ;)
Actually, I think it makes sense to use a well proven launch vehicle for an unmanned test mission of a spacecraft, especially as the intended launch vehicle and infrastructure for the manned missions may not be ready in time for the unmanned test flight. This way, development of the spacecraft can go ahead, when ready for the first flight, without having to wait for the launch vehicle being ready as well. Besides that, it also reduces the risk of having a launch vehicle problem influencing or even preventing an orbital test of the spacecraft.
-
true, true...
Admin,
that actually makes sense. Boeing is in a tight spot.
LM has taken all major military contracts in the future (F22 & F35). Airbus is cutting in their Civilian contracts. all they have is the remaining F18s and F15s. (and all the civies).
DragonX are taking all the chances being the first commecial manned rated launch system. now that "the coast is clear" Boeing can move in and open a market. they have the experience in designing space crafts (what Airbus still doesn't have). Orion was supposed to use the B787 glass cockpit. so it's easy money in the bank if it goes well..
-
do they suddenly feel the pressure of loosing space technology leadership?
It seems that they got wet socks now that SpaceX has become the first company to return a capsule from space. But it's too early to be optimistic or euphoric. NASA is looking for a reasonable program for some time already with many concepts on the table and less bucks in the drawer under that table. For now I can only hope that this is not one of those Boeing programs which end even before test-flying hardware.
"the manned debut may occur in 2016, or 2018/19" Just as it would have been by Constellation. But it won't happen this decade if things continue the usual way at NASA. This time they at least are forced to look for something less expensive. Man-rating an existing launch vehicle is the best thing they can do under the current budget promises.
and before the americans jump and say that those are expensive programs for a country that is in a bad shape. think about all the jobs.. it's themodern equivalent to the 1930's "New Deal". Goverment puts in capital to boost shopping power in the coutry, and make the economy "reboot"
Well, a NASA space progam has to be economically and scientifically reasonable. It really shouldn't become just another expensive job machine and innovative deadlock. That's exactly why Constellaion has been canceled still timely.
What makes me concerned beside the manned program is that NASA's unmanned planetary science program also is threatened by budget uncertainties...
-
Orion was supposed to use the B787 glass cockpit.
I don't think so. Where did you get that information? Maybe it would look similar here and there due to Boeing-style knobs and displays. But the 787 flight deck has nothing in common with controlling something like the Orion spacecraft.
-
...
Well, a NASA space progam has to be economically and scientifically reasonable. It really shouldn't become just another expensive job machine and innovative deadlock. That's exactly why Constellaion has been canceled still timely.
What makes me concerned beside the manned program is that NASA's unmanned planetary science program also is threatened by budget uncertainties...
Again you're generalizing and totally missing the point of exploration and how exploration is budgeted, and confuse it with transportation and commercial considerations. Exploration does not necessarily have a visible ROI, and you cannot budget it based on that. How do you define "expensive" when the borders of true exploration and the outcome are unknown?
Exploration budgeting has a totally different set of variables, profitability being way at the bottom, and whomever tries to raise it to a higher level, will hurt the very essence of exploration.
Budgeting exploration is a multi-disciplinary issue that I don't think that any of us can firmly grasp and express serious opinions with the finality that you do. I suggest a certain modesty when dealing with this subject, especially when it is doubtful that you have all the necessary information and tools to formulate a realistic position. Heck, I don't think thst Buzz Aldrin (with all due respect) has the necessary tools and information anymore!
Last, the cost (you said "expensive") was NOT the reason for Constellation cancellation - it was rather the excuse. You figure out the difference between the two.
/Admin
-
How do you define "expensive" when the borders of true exploration and the outcome are unknown?
For example, a big national job program which intends nothing more than to do a big media show of casting a few more footprints on the surface of the Moon under the fig-leaf "science". 50 billion USD for designing and building a system that carries 50% less payload into LEO than the Shuttle and causes higher operating costs just for the sake of pushing G.W. Bush's post-STS-107 consolation agenda through. Yes, it has been said before many times, but you asked ;) The cancellation of Constellation doesn't have to be excused. It was the right decision at the proper time, analysed by people who really have a clue (and foreseen for years by many people inside and outside the business who also have a clue).
Exploration costs money indeed. But there is an "at any price" mentality which, again, failed on Constellation this time. The correct sentence should be that NASA's manned space exploration is expensive due to the fact that NASA is a very big bureaucracy and a big national job machine. It can be done by less costs and more innovation but NASA needs to be restructured. NASA is not doing fine just because everything NASA does is so amazing. Less than ever by the excuse that exploration just is expensive.
A potential manned use of Orion already is part of the Commercial Crew Initiative by the way. And it won't be the end of exploration and NASA ;)
-
How do you define "expensive" when the borders of true exploration and the outcome are unknown?
For example, a big national job program which intends nothing more than to do a big media show of casting a few more footprints on the surface of the Moon under the fig-leaf "science". 50 billion USD for designing and building a system that carries 50% less payload into LEO than the Shuttle and causes higher operating costs just for the sake of pushing G.W. Bush's post-STS-107 consolation agenda through. Yes, it has been said before many times, but you asked ;) The cancellation of Constellation doesn't have to be excused. It was the right decision at the proper time, analysed by people who really have a clue (and foreseen for years by many people inside and outside the business who also have a clue).
Exploration costs money indeed. But there is an "at any price" mentality which, again, failed on Constellation this time. The correct sentence should be that NASA's manned space exploration is expensive due to the fact that NASA is a very big bureaucracy and a big national job machine. It can be done by less costs and more innovation but NASA needs to be restructured. NASA is not doing fine just because everything NASA does is so amazing. Less than ever by the excuse that exploration just is expensive.
A potential manned use of Orion already is part of the Commercial Crew Initiative by the way. And it won't be the end of exploration and NASA ;)
Moonwalker, I don't believe you know so little about the Back to the Moon phase of Constellation. I'll assume that you described it as an expensive show just to support your claims. For the benefit of everybody here, I'll make a point explaining that without actually building a base on the moon and continuously living there for 10-20 years, you will never be ready for sending a human expedition to Mars. The Moon is an essential stepping stone to a "beyond" manned mission, and not an expensive photo opportunity.
The only fault of Constellation IMHO was that it was too ambitious in the sense that it wanted to cover everything in one go: transportation to the ISS, Moon AND beyond.
If Constellation would have been a Moonbase Program only, it would have had more chances to survive. The current signs are that this is exactly what is happening: Constellation will be a Moon program only and the US will be back on the Moon around 2020. The main part of the Constellation program will be building a Moon habitat where human will explore the limits of life-support and self-support, living off the "land" and learning what it means to maintain an active, long-term outpost far from Earth. NASA will explore new types of planetary transportation, building materials and building methods, the life-support needs for a sustainable human colony, and understand the supply logistics involved in such an operation. During this critical and unavoidable stage, it will also be developing the necessary platform and propulsion technologies for reaching beyond. Constellation is being resuscitated, but with a different set of goals.
Just as before, NASA will rely on thousands of contractors for supplying critical components, but "routine" LEO transportation will most likely be passed to private companies.
Budget was never the main issue - currently NASA has more budget than before - it was mainly a political issue. Budget was the convenient excuse, riding the real-estate and credit crisis and the unpopularity of the big corporation bailouts designed to save the jobs of thousands of car industry workers which were part of the current Administration constituency. AIG - the biggest non-car-industry bailout receiver has already begun the payback. Not so with the car industry. NASA was yet another sacrificial lamb on the altar of political correctness and populist (yet misguided) decisions. The NASA mandate itself was hit by clueless and radical politicians who tried to rape its science and exploration mandate, with irrelevant racial, ethnical and political manifests designed to serve its ulterior political motives. Everything changed however with the mid-term elections, when the current Administration got a painful reminder that hungry and jobless voters are not a good idea, and that "yes we can" has to be backed by The People and not dictated arrogantly by a bolshevik-style governing, where the government "knows better what's good for the masses". Its reckless political spending is now being scrutinized and it seems that many if its political decisions devised to changing the political fabric of the US will be stopped and hopefully reversed.
I only hope it's not too late, as NASA has already suffered incalculable damage by the on-going layoffs, losing thousands of man-years of knowledge and experience.
/Admin
-
With due respect, but I think you would call anybody clueless who says that Constellation was nothing more than a big show, simply because you don't like to hear that. But it's exactly what it was. I could start to provide tons of quotes from several space flight communities, former NASA astronauts, quotes and texts of former NASA peoples blogs and especially scientists and engineers who critized Constellation right from the beginning. But I won't, since it would heat up the discussion dramatically (or you just would call all of them clueless anyway).
Budget was never the main issue - currently NASA has more budget than before - it was mainly a political issue.
But still not enough to do something like Constellation. To do something at any price just because a few people like to see it is not the right way.
There was never any funding for anything else than Ares 1 and the dramatically shrinked earth orbit version of Orion. And it was for sure that NASA ever won't get that funding since the concept ended with footprints and US flags on lunar soil just where Apollo already ended in 1972. That's the political issue. At the end, the outcome would have been less than the outcome of STS whilst it would have been more expensive (Orion would have never left earth orbit on top of Ares V).
NASA won't be anywhere beyond earth orbit in the 2020's. They could be lucky to at least return to earth orbit manned until the early 2020's. NASA needs a different incremental balanced strategy which does not necessarily require billions of dollars each year to execute. That's why any sane person calls for an efficient commercial context. If done the Constellation way, NASA eats up science and aeronautics research funding just to perform a few Apollo on steroids missions without any sustainability.
-
Moonwalker, you're mistaken. I am not invested in Constellation any more than you are, but with all due respect, you do sound like you have no clue, or deliberately try to distort what Constellation and exploration is all about, basing your arguments around transportation and trying to make everything else fit that approach.
It is useless arguing for as long as you can't or don't want to understand and accept the difference between transportation and exploration, and between the fundamental differences between their goals, logistics and budgeting. Same goes for commercial and national goals.
It is not important what you or I think about NASA and its programs. What's important is to base the argument on a common set of agreed parameters and terms. Currently I can't see how we can conduct a constructive discussion, simply because we are speaking different "languages".
As I said before: wake me up when SpaceX lands on Mars or even on the Moon. As for whether NASA will be on the Moon or not by 2020, I am basing my claims on NASA plans which have even been budgeted by this Administration. Your counter-claim about NASA, including the one that SpaceX will deal with exploration is based on pure wishful thinking. SpaceX does not even have an exploration plan. Their only goal is to get a lucrative transportation business from NASA - that's all. Even Boeing is planning on that.
What you see now is TWO "races for space": one between commercial companies fighting for a niche in LEO (and maybe Lunar) space transportation, and one between USA, Russia and China, for building a continuous presence on the Moon, as a setting stage for "beyond".
Don't confuse between the two.
/Admin
-
Orion was supposed to use the B787 glass cockpit.
I don't think so. Where did you get that information? Maybe it would look similar here and there due to Boeing-style knobs and displays. But the 787 flight deck has nothing in common with controlling something like the Orion spacecraft.
Crew Module
The Orion CM will hold four to six crew members, compared to a maximum of three in the smaller Apollo CM or seven in the larger space shuttle. Despite its conceptual resemblance to the 1960s-era Apollo, Orion's CM will use several improved technologies, including:
"Glass cockpit" digital control systems derived from that of the Boeing 787.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)
-
@Admin
Have you read the Augustine Report? And do you know about NASA's Commercial Space Initiative which now includes the operation of Orion and future manned access to space in general?
Your argument seems to be that: exploration always is and will be expensive whilst one who disagrees is clueless.
NASA's Commercial Space Initiative is not only intended to involve companies like SpaceX, Boeing etc. to just ferry US astronauts to the ISS (i.e. transportation), but also to generally provide manned access to space and beyond LEO for future exploration programs in a more efficient way other than it would have been the case by an approach like Constellation.
@uri_ba
Yes, Orion was/is supposed to use a smart cockpit system philosophy by Honeywell derived from the Boeing 787 smart cockpit philosophy. But it is not just the 787 glass cockpit. It's just the same manufacturer and philosophy but different controls and software of course.
-
By the way,
NASA does not follow a serious strategy to return to the Moon any time soon. There is a lot of talk how to get Orion at least into orbit. Moon (and Mars anyway) is far away. Constellation was a non-starter.
China also won't fly to the Moon any time soon. There is no true space race going on. It is a misinterpretation by a lot of poeple who basically read news articles (especially Chinese people). China's space program is not in the very best shape to introduce a true 21st Century space race. They did 3 manned test flights within 5 years whilst the next test flights is planned for late 2011, which then will be a break of at least 3 years. They are test-flying their system for 11 years now. The low frequency of launches points to budget issues. Their timeline ends in 2012 for now. In fact China does a lot of amazing propaganda, talking about a space station, manned missions to the Moon, a moon station etc. Well, even Indian officials are talking about it occasionally. But it's just what it is: talk. Whilst China at least is presenting nice artistic concepts which, who would be surprised, shows Apollo-looking hardware...
-
Moonwalker,
Enjoy the "there is no space race" mantra and your anti-NASA narrative. Let's talk again in a few years, OK?
/Admin
-
Moonwalker,
Enjoy the "there is no space race" mantra and your anti-NASA narrative. Let's talk again in a few years, OK?
/Admin
Well, in a few decades at the earliest ;D
The space "race" ended in 1975 with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. The cold war basically was an era of millitary and spy conflicts which ended with alliances in space between Russia und Europe, followed by the USA (Shuttle-Mir, ISS). Today there is a competition but no "race". That China would go to the Moon any time soon is something only clueless journalists say occasionally (FOX-style news). China simply does not have the hardware and experience yet to do so manned any time soon. Russia and the USA will be busy with the ISS until the 2020's whilst China will be busy with it's Shenzhou by a very low rate of launches. As for Falcon 9 / Dragon: it's part of NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program.
-
Delta IV's are hard to get man-rated due to the specific impulse or the RS-68. They would have to fly derated versions. PWR has no idea if the engine can run at those low thrust levels.